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.

Yes he gets angry quickly and rattled.

Johnson was thin skinned, Truss was thin skinned. Sunak was thin skinned. Starmer really isn't.

Thank you! That is a nice compliment. 😊

I am neither a barrister nor a solicitor advocate. My practice is non contentious, in a pretty technical area. But as I’ve mentioned, I have a parallel qualification in voice, which enables me to identify immediately the issues with the way someone speaks.

Lawyers do tend to be all “up in their heads” and working on the voice is fundamentally a physical, rather than an intellectual endeavour. They are also usually used to doing well academically and being the “clever” ones: when they receive constructive feedback, they are immediately inclined to challenge it, rather than to consider whether there’s anything valid in there. They are also shocking managers and leaders because they are emotionally unintelligent.

Finally - they tend to advise a client, to allow that client to make a decision, rather than take the decision themselves. They are risk averse and perhaps more reluctant to accept accountability for that reason.

As well as the presentation issues, I’ll wager all these play into Starmer’s discomfort in his current role.

I should have added the way he speaks to my original comment. I have had my fill of the convincing and influential.

In my view, persuasive speaking and political influence are no substitute for substance and delivery. Substance and delivery is where the UK has a fundamental problem. We don’t need more performance politics - we need strong, workable ideas, genuine substance, and a leader with a competent team capable of delivering them. Without those, we’re left with the usual noise, strawmen, the politics of envy, and increasing systemic failure as growth limps to a stop. Infrastructure is sold off, inflation is imported, and an ever increasing burden falls on the shrinking middle.

I don’t see how replacing Keir with a more convincing orator improves any of this. What we have is a short-sighted backbench pulling the strings to drive policy changes and U-turns that actively weaken both the country and its credibility. Whoever they decide is 'influential' will still be steering a ship committed to underinvestment, outsourcing decision-making to private companies/ shareholders/ investors whilst elevating the morally bankrupt. The outcome will be the same: weaker infrastructure, poorer health outcomes, reduced social mobility and as usual with blame still aimed at the middle (dressed up as the rich), while those with the greatest wealth continue to contribute the least.

Yes, yes, all very well. But Starmer’s still a terrible speaker.

Quite possibly, but actions speak louder than words. Without substance and a workable plan to back it up, a silver tongue won't balance the books or create the long term growth and security the UK needs.

How can we possibly not have a General Election if Angela Rayner is made PM, when she repeatedly said there has to be a General Election if the PM is replaced mid parliament?

Look back to the original question. The OP didn’t ask how we fix things or with whom we should replace Starmer.

She asked why he’s unpopular (among the electorate, I assume). How he presents is a big part of the reason why and denying that reality is to put one’s head in the sand.

It’s a tough but prestigious job; the governing party should have their pick of people who are both competent and can speak to the people.

FWIW I’ve always liked Yvette Cooper.

I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment.

But Starmer has offered nothing of substance. A big thinker or big hitter he ain’t.

And he talks like Zippy from Rainbow.

I have no idea. I like him and would vote for him again.

So you actually think the foul ups that Starmer has presided over will "balance the books" or "create long term growth". Most of what has been announced/implemented will do the opposite. He is barely better than a sixth form debater playing the "politics of envy" card at every opportunity.

But will you vote for the person who got him kicked out?

The OP didn’t ask how we fix things or with whom we should replace Starmer.

Who made you the authority on thread interpretation?

Re: Fixing things

The thread started with an open question, and with the OP musing possible explanations. It's clear they were inviting opinions.

I answered that question in good faith and addressed a point made on accent. You qualified it was Kier's eloquence which was in question + the PP was mistaken in interpreting it as accent. I responded again in good faith. Quite reasonably qualifying why I don’t think persuasiveness is a useful test of leadership. It's not off topic it is a natural response/ evolution of the discussion.

One could argue that your response was both in bad faith (see above) and hypocritical (see below):

Re '...with whom we should replace Starmer.'

And yet here you are introducing Yvette Cooper as a replacement. A tad ironic, given that you are implying that I have in someway overstepped with my answer.

That said...

I have heard a number of people favour Yvette Cooper. I would need to understand what she stands for, how well thought through her plans are and whether she can control the back benchers or whether it's just more same.

The Labour Party are screwed either way. They made a small c-conservative style person their leader and then bullied him from day 1. Most “on the fence” people only voted for them because they hated the Tories and thought Starmer was fairly rationale/normal/middle of the road. Labour have proven to be an utter shit show and unless someone like Streeting gets in and performs a miracle, that is a one term government. They must know that they would never have won with Angela Rayner at the helm. The problem is that their values and attitudes fundamentally conflict with the electorate as a whole and those who actually show up to vote. So either they change their values and have some honest conversations or the lot of them team up with the Greens and remain the Student Party that the “grown ups” are not going to be voting for. If they oust Starmer, it looks like they conned the electorate. They should not have forced Starmer into multiple u-turns, that is on the Party. Changing leader does not fool anyone, it creates even more distrust towards the Labour Party.

Pretty sure what I said was:

I have had my fill of the convincing and influential.
In my view, persuasive speaking and political influence are no substitute for substance and delivery. Substance and delivery is where the UK has a fundamental problem. We don’t need more performance politics - we need strong, workable ideas, genuine substance, and a leader with a competent team capable of delivering them. Without those, we’re left with the usual noise, strawmen, the politics of envy, and increasing systemic failure as growth limps to a stop. Infrastructure is sold off, inflation is imported, and an ever increasing burden falls on the shrinking middle.

I don’t see how replacing Keir with a more convincing orator improves any of this. What we have is a short-sighted backbench pulling the strings to drive policy changes and U-turns that actively weaken both the country and its credibility. Whoever they decide is 'influential' will still be steering a ship committed to underinvestment, outsourcing decision-making to private companies/ shareholders/ investors whilst elevating the morally bankrupt. The outcome will be the same: weaker infrastructure, poorer health outcomes, reduced social mobility and as usual with blame still aimed at the middle (dressed up as the rich), while those with the greatest wealth continue to contribute the least.

I don't care if Kier has sixth form lor Oxford Union level debate skills. Replacing him is pointless - you can't make a silk purse out of a pigs ear, no amount of flair, polish or Labour seat swopping is going to change that.

I didn't say he had offered substance. I think I said the opposite.

Oh, right, apologies. I misunderstood.

So Starmer is a terrible speaker and a shallow, vacuous man. 👍

No lies detected. 😂
@DenizenOfAisleOfShame

He just doesn't seem to have any ideas or convictions or interests or vision. IIRC, he's been asked about favourite books, music, films, etc., in interviews but, aside from football, there's ..... nothing. He's a man with no inner life.

He's hesitant to take a position on anything. When asked a question (e.g. 'Do women have penises?') you can literally see him squirming over what is going to play better on social media before he answers, and he is willing to tell craven lies and look stupid rather than offend the mob. He's the living embodiment of moral relativism.

He doesn't seem to have a sense of the greater good or British interests. He's he prime ministerial equivalent of a barrister who prides himself on getting the worst criminals off on legal technicalities because his robotic duty is for the letter of the law and not the common good. (See the Chagos deal or importing Egyptian Islamists into Britain or recognising a Palestinian state.)

His solution to the immigration crisis being to crawl to the Chinese and get them to agree to briefly stop selling engine parts to criminal gangs shows such a profound lack of understanding for the actual problem or the way the world works that it's made me think he might be a very basic organism that landed on a meteor from the Crab Nebula.

I’m not interpreting the thread. I’m repeating back to you what the OP originally asked.

Of course, you immediately diminish your credibility when you stoop to insulting other posters in this way.

I have demonstrated in this thread that my understanding is the very opposite of limited.

Think you might have the music bit wrong.
"The Prime Minister has a particular passion for Beethoven piano sonatas.
Before he became a human rights lawyer – or the Prime Minister – it seems Sir Keir Starmer was something of a musical prodigy. In his early years he played the flute, piano, recorder and violin, and was once a young scholar at the Guildhall School of Music in London.
The former barrister spoke about his early musical years in an interview with On The Hill magazine, in answer to a question about his passions (which, he says, are “music, classical music”).
What kind of music, Starmer, Keir Starmer? “Beethoven piano sonatas”, he replies, pausing to add, “actually all things Beethoven.”
Not sure how you know what books he reads?

Not sure how Classic FM ad ended up in there. I am a Radio 3 person.

Sponsorship bot reading through your post, I guess?