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.

You have decided on a limited interpretation of the OPs post. You are now trying to police my posts based on that limited understanding.

The irony is that you are dimishing your own credibility by trying to assert your limited view of what is acceptable, whilst also being hypocritical.

FYI I dont need your approval or advice.

People haver incredibly short memories. Yes, the business with Mandelson was a dreadful error of judgment, but it is nothing compared to the sheer incompetence and corruption that was routine during Johnson's premiership. People also forget that what Starmer took over was a total mess, and blame him for not having a magic wand to sort it out. The truth is that dealing with that shitshow was always going to involve some awful decisions, but at least he has the honesty to admit it when he gets things wrong - something that the likes of Johnson and Truss are failing to achieve to this day.

Amongst lawyers, there are an awful lot of stories about the numerous acts of quiet kindness Starmer showed to people who were struggling when he was at the Bar.

People who worked with organisations campaigning against violence against women also very much rated him when he was DPP and worked his socks off to try to improve arrest and conviction rates for rapes and sexual assaults.

People don't need charisma to lead. It's a common misconception that they do purely because many charasmatic people climb the ladder whereas others don't. Some of the best leaders I've known haven't been charasmatic but have been incredible at their job.

Would I say Starmer has been incredible at his job? Probably not but he's been a million times better than the several preceding him.

You are very unnecessarily aggressive.

You need to get people onside though rather than in a battle and rn the majority of the electorate are not the former.

It’s his emptiness I think.

He was just supposed to be a vessel for Labour together until Streeting could be made leader.

Whoever does his comms is/was tone deaf- loads of stupid pictures of him at football matches or flanked by huge union jacks. Seemed desperate and false.

He lied to get the Labour leadership

He hasn’t seemed capable of taking a moral position despite everyone saying he is a ‘decent man’

He is rich but still took goodies and handouts

Robust responses to your questionable responses to my posts is not aggression.

I prefer piglets when they are on their way to market, staying at home, having roast beef or none. Or just going weee! weee! all the way home. Not overinvested in my posts, being controlling and trying to police them.

He was just supposed to be a vessel for Labour together until Streeting could be made leader.

Could I ask how you know this / where this is confirmed @Skinnysaluki ..?

I cannot believe any political party can operate on a trojan horse strategy like that. It's not at all credible. The destabilisation of the economy, the party and the risk to Labour's electoral prospects - it wouldn't be worth it.

What corruption?

> 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?

I think it's ENTIRELY this. As a culture we REALLY like the rich/The Royals to be in charge. We basically feel that's the natural order of things. We always have. It's our English nature. We love being serfs.

Compare with the French, who are always busy with revolutions and overthrowing the gentry and setting fire to things. We don't do that because we are quite lazy but also we think that rich boys should be in charge, even if they are corrupt bastards. It just makes us comfortable.

A labour government is always a slight aberration from the natural order. So we pick pick pick until it falls apart. Every time.

You could START with Michelle Mone - I think that's such a good example of how corrupt Johnson's government was.

Starmer was a McSweeney project. And the last of the Blairites with Mandelson and co getting into power.

I feel like it’s becoming a “thing” lately that prime ministers are binned and replaced frequently. The media create the hype and the general public bite. I don’t see how we can ever move forwards if we change PMs and cabinets every year or two. And it must be costing a fortune- ex pms get security guards and other perks (first class travel) for a long time. All paid for by taxpayers. I also feel like some of them should have to stay and fix the messes they made.

Starmer's previous career in Law suited him well, he will say whatever he thinks will persuade those who matter to him, so he pretends not to know what a woman is to please the TRAs. He has no belief system, no backbone and no vision, he can't even seem to make up his mind about anything and stick to it. I think a prime minister needs to have a strong moral compass, a serious belief system, vision, ability to communicate and love of their country and it's people. He has not been able to demonstrate any of this as far as i can see. He only seems comfortable amongst his little group of male minders or on private jets to escape from the UK. He just comes across as distant, cold and robotic. And his naked greed in taking bungs of designer goods, trips and treats from wealthy powerful men is very troubling.

Mone was never in government. The Tories started civil proceedings against Mone to recover the money two years before Labour took office. She was also stripped of the whip.

The National Audit Office found no evidence of government corruption. The GLP lost every case it brought about PPE procurement.

It’s detailed in various places. The book The Fraud is one. The faction Labour Together.

Maybe it's my age but I've always thought he sounds more like a Dalek

This isn't true at all.

She can't be 'stripped of the whip' as she's not in the commons. She took leave of absence from the house of Lords while her businesses were found to have fraudulently taken tax payers' money.

The National Audit Office reported that billions of pounds of pandemic contracts were awarded without competition and highlighted massive levels of fraud and lack of governance in procurement.

The GLP won various cases including judicial reviews that showed the government unlawfully issued contracts to a pretty blonde lingerie company owner, who now sits in the house of Lords as a reward.

You might not call in corruption, but others may see that differently.

For all those calling for Starmer to step down I have yet to hear who from the Labour Party they would like to replace him?

The likelihood is that the Labour faithful will feel that they are low in the polls because they are not left wing enough and that by choosing a more left wing replacement they will be able to claw back votes from the Greens.

They are not going to choosing a more electable replacement such as Wes Streeting. It's a mid government leadership replacement so what the public thinks or wants doesn't matter.

The reality is that this will further trash the economy, of course all the other parties will benefit but at what financial cost to all of us.

This 100%

The best that could be said of him when he was in chambers was that he was a half decent footballer.

You’re just wrong. Here’s confirmation of the Lords whip removal and expulsion from the Conservative Party.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgy8l1km8lo

All the other stuff you’ve said is similarly untrue. As just one big falsehood, the GLP had one ‘win’ when a court found that the VIP lane was technically in breach of European rules, but the breach was so insignificant that the court refused to make a declaration of unlawfulness. The GLP paid costs in every action it brought.

Because most people are fundamentally right wing and the few who are not expecting him to wave a magic wand and make their life better

What I don't get is how Trump gets a bye. He associated with Epstein for years himself whereas Starmer just employed someone associated with him

The difficulties of clean cut and paste on IOS 26!

Exactly this!