I suppose there's a Westminster bubble in the sense it's a very unusual work environment and some things you only understand through working in it? But generally speaking I think (mots) politicians end up meeting a far wider cross section of society than most people do. Certainly I met a huge cross-section of society through working for MPs. Most people live in bubbles, I think.
I think Reform get more press because journalists love to present politics in terms of dramatic human interest stories rather than covering policy change that actually affects people's lives. I think it's really dangerous to be honest.
In terms of Starmer, I don't actually know. I worked with him a little to a few years ago, and he's basically been exactly the person I expected him to be as PM - emotionally reserved, extremely strategic, highly intelligent and hyper-focused on delivery. He's just a very serious person, basically, although he does have a (dry) sense of humour. I think he's a very personally decent person, certainly in terms of treating people close to him well. Never heard any stories about bullying or unreasonable behaviour etc.
Unless you just hate the Labour party by default, I find it hard to understand why he inspires such negative emotion, and I wonder if a lot of this is algorithmic social media posts I'm not party to. Ultimately I don't know if I have more insight on that than anyone else and it feels very unfair to me, to be honest. I get that people would prefer someone more personally charismatic or inspiring, but considering the shambles we've had recently, he feels a clear improvement. He also quite deliberately didn't run on a platform of promising immediate drastic change - he was clear it was a ten-year mission of 'renewal', in his words, so it's hard to see why people feel particularly misled.