Why is Keir Starmer so disliked (before the Mandelson scandal?)

[JacquesHarlow]

AIBU to ask this? Why was he so vehemently, fundamentally disliked by the British public, even before the Mandelson saga and the (admittedly awful) lack of judgement?

I have seen worse PMs in the last decade alone. I have seen venal, self-serving, arrogant liars hold the office in that time. I have seen hapless, posh types. We’ve all seen the one who couldn’t outlast a lettuce.

So why does Keir Starmer get so much vitriolic hate in comments sections, despite having only held the office for such a short time?

Is it his perceived lack of communication skills? I’ve seen some people criticise him for not being strident, positive, energised, chummy or any of the things we often see in modern politics.

Is it his lack of identifiable policies or political strategy, where people find they can’t get behind him because they don’t know what he (personally) believes in?

Is it ageism (yep I said it!) in that he comes across as formal and correct, in a time where we’re used to seeing other personalities on the world stage?

Or is it that thing I long suspected, that the country is by default Tory in nature, and that despite a heavy frustration at the last five years of Tory incompetence, they can’t bring themselves to accept this party, and are keen to take him down any which way?

The recent saga of the last week is awful. As a woman I can’t stand to see people like the former US ambassador be enabled.

However the hate for Keir long pre dates this.

so why?? Why do people “hate” him?!

P.S I do not work for Ipsos MORI, or Labour HQ, I am not a bot or a troll or whatever people accuse others of when they don’t like the question.

We are agreeing. It’s not about accent, or any of the social overlay that accent can bring. Starmer just sounds like a dull man with a strangled voice.

How is someone's accent not going to be a characteristic of their speech? Those commenting on the way he speaks are by default judging his accent- the way he speaks (even if it is only an aspect of speech)!

Yeah right, which is partly his bloody accent just because you don't think there is one on Surrey it doesn't make it fact.

John Major was lampooned for years for his dull voice and ‘greyness’. Part of the animus towards Johnson was his posh voice.

@GoldenbearI am going to give up after this last ditch attempt to help you understand.

It is NOT his accent. It is his constricted vocal quality, lack of range and resonance that makes him sound dull and is one reason why he’s struggled to connect with the electorate.

It is absolutely NOTHING to do with how he produces (or “realises”) vowels and consonants (his accent).

This is just plain wrong - but I don’t know how to explain it to you as you refuse to listen.

Jeez - you know when democracy and universal voting rights have been extended too far when you have people criticising Starmer for his accent.

How about a few more pressing issues such as growth of the economy, foreign policy, defence, education etc etc.

Except they’re not. Pp have been clear. Only one poster has misunderstood @Piglet89and others posts.

Nobody’s criticising Starmer’s accent. I’m pointing out that he’s a terrible speaker.

But of course that’s a minor thing in comparison to his complete lack of talent, terrible judgement and general bungling.

He’s fucking up the country at speed. And he’s doing it with a voice like Zippy from Rainbow.

He was from Worcester Park (Surrey) so again that was snobbery, I don't know why you think that is an argument in your favour.

The poshness of Boris worked in his favour, people tolerated bumbling, bloviating Boris as they imagined him like Mr Toad of Toad Hall, some found his antics endearing.

I understand your point but I don't agree with you. An accent is a characteristic of his speech as well as the other aspects, he is being judged on how he speaks overall, people aren't being discerning about this except you as it is your bread and butter! Major also from Surrey had the problem of people mocking the way he speaks, in fact they do have similar accents so it kind of proves the point.

You can disagree all you like: you’re still wrong. What’s happened on this thread is that PPs have said they don’t like his voice, he lacks gravitas and conviction sounds like Zippy etc. You have projected onto that that they were talking about his accent (tho no PPs actually mentioned his accent). I joined the thread to try to explain in more specific, technical terms what I thought the PPs had meant by the issues with his voice. You continued to insist they were judging KS on his accent although they were not.

Accent is indeed one feature of the voice: but nobody apart from you has focussed on that aspect of Kier Starmer’s voice. I couldn’t give a fuck about any PM’s accent as long as they are understandable. I am rightly pointing out that the technical deficiencies with the way he speaks (resonance, range, probably lack of support) make him sound directionless, lacking in courage of his convictions or any passion in any policy he’s supposed to be trying to effect. PPs have argued these matters are superficial and we should all be worried about the substance of what he does.

a) The OP asked why he’s so disliked: these aspects of his voice and how they affect how he presents affect his popularity in the polls - like it or not, it’s a reality.
b) the substance of what he’s done has also been poor.

He just isn’t a leader. He’s a lawyer. The two are often very different and use opposing skill sets. Trust me, as well as being a voice coach I’m also a lawyer and lawyers look at what the rules say when deciding, rather than thinking about what’s right or how the ordinary person might feel about it.

I was feeling some sympathy for him bc the Epstein thing has brought more pressure to beat him than on that awful Farage… but then I saw that DDN video with Matt Kennard pointing out Starmer's long-entrenched habit of lying and u-turning.

And now I think he’s lying through his teeth again when he says he didn’t know; and his apparent moral self-flagellation now see seems a bit sickening. He’s not furious at all, he knew all along.

Funnily enough, I didn’t like him before that bc he was so shit at Twitter. Bore the hallmarks of that stupid conspiracy circulating that he’s an MI5 pick.

Also, he once recounted a political anecdote about a trip to Scotland. He got the Glaswegian idiom so far wrong, it was obviously fabricated.

He’s an ennobled Labour Party member, a dishonest lawyer, a leader who can’t lead, and a breaker of promises.

I have no time for people who judge on accent or class nor rats trying to jump off a sinking shit. Character and behaviour matter much more.

Starmer/Labour barely got any more votes than COrbyn got the time before. He only got a landslide win because the Tory vote collapsed due to the useless Sunak.

Considering all the howls of protest about Brexit happening with only slightly more than half the vote, those same people claiming Labour got a whopping majority with just a third of the vote are not a full shilling!

2/3rds of the voters didn't vote for Labour, so there's more of a reason for anothe GE than there was for a second vote for Brexit!!

I think, as a person, he's probably a decent bloke. He's clearly a very capable lawyer. But he's not a politician and he doesn't really understand how politics works. Plus, his policies are incredibly damaging, especially to the economy..... destroying farming and small businesses, and failing to get a grip on the excesses of the benefits system. Worse, he doesn't even have any conviction that his own policies are right - us it 13 or 14 U-turns so far?
To be fair, I never wanted or voted for a Labour Government. I never voted for Labour in the Blair years either, but at least I could see that Sir Tony was an extremely competent politician. Sadly, Sir Keir is just out of his depth.

No. The public voted for their local MP. We never vote for a leader of a whole nation, as it's not a Presidential system.
Sir Keir was the leader of the party with the most seats. That's how it worked with the previous Conservative Government and their eventual number of PMs. That's how it will work if Sir Keir is chucked out by his own party. It's very simple.

Nobody has judged him on his accent on this thread: this poster just leapt on the (very valid) comments about his voice and assumed (wrongly) that people meant his accent.

Ultimately, he SOUNDS unsure and lacking in conviction. And, lo and behold, he IS unsure and lacking conviction, as his dreadful record and all the U-turns since Labour have been in power show.

The fact is that a significant part of leading right at the top is being a convincing and influential speaker. He’s unpopular because of what he’s done and because people don’t feel they can really relate to him because of the way he presents.

I cannot fathom how he was a successful advocate, if he spoke in court the way he now speaks publicly.

I don't think he's at all easily rattled. Most senior politicians have very thin skins, he is not one of them.

Most of that is libellous

👏

Are you a barrister or solicitor advocate lawyer?

I haven’t read a better summary of why it matters how (any form of) a persuader speaks.

That's just so dangerous. Shows very poor judgement. Much like Thatcher and Saville did.

On Friday he did just that

He’s very thin skinned. It’s obvious when he’s interviewed, and at PMQs

Starmer's accent is North East Surrey, a couple of miles from the Kent border. I grew up about 10 minutes away. It is absolutely typical.