To think no one can SERIOUSLY want Starmer to go now, it’s media created instability designed to damage the UK.

[partmermaidpartplant]

trump, wars, Israel invading Lebanon, US mid terms…….

it would mental for Starmer to go and it’s a trap.

yabu - of course Starmer has to go, despite what is happening in the world right now.

yanbu - time to move on and deal with trump and the blatant manipulation of the media by Russia, right wing billionaire interests.

I'd be delighted to see Trump go, but who would replace him That's the problem. Apparently Vance is even more militant than Trump.

Are you saying that you think the British media want to damage the U.K.?
Do you not think turning a blind eye to people who are friends with rapists has something to do with it?

I totally agree with you. The UK media are toxic.

This post looks awfully like a bit of propaganda as well.

I agree that Starmer does not ‘need’ to resign, despite the hysterics of the Quentin Letts class.

I hope he sacks a lot of those ‘top’ civil servants tbh, who have a lot to answer for, from being Stonewalled to overriding the Supreme Court to ignoring their ministers’ clear needs for truthful information.

ETA: I’m not voting Labour though!

Sorry, misread the question. But the same applies. I'd love to see Starmer go but who would replace him? Diane Abbot? Nightmare! Rachel Reeves? The Ginger Whinger? Lammy? 😫

Agreed. It would be crazy to destabilise now, look at all the relationships he’s nurtured that really hang quite delicately in the balance

I agree. It’s certainly pushing an agenda.

Almost two-thirds of those who voted in the last general election did not want him in the first place.

As for replacing a Prime Minister when there is a war overseas, it would not be the first. Margaret Thatcher being replaced by John Major is an example.

I don't think the likely Labour replacement at this time would be any better.

The Tory dramas for the last few years have led many to believe changing PM regularly is normal. It’s not. He’s been elected for a term, he’s most likely going to complete that. If it’s getting close to the next general election and it’s really clear from polling that he is a problem that would cause them to lose the election, but changing leader would cause them to win, he might step down. However the Labour Party are shit at back stabbing compared to the Tories, even when the polling was clear that Corbyn himself, not his policies was a problem for the electorate, he chose to stay on and no one pushed him out until he lost 2 general elections.

if the public didn’t want Starmer to be the PM they shouldn’t have voted Labour last election. You’ll get a chance to pick someone else next time.

Are you saying that you think the Russian British media don't want to damage the UK?

Yes, I definitely think the media does not have UK best interests at heart.
Starmer should not go, as no one can manage the world stage any better right now.

It's seems that there's a media call for his resignation every other week. It would be damaging for the country, we don't need to keep changing PM's. He has a sizeable majority, no need for him to go anywhere.

A lot of people think he's been weak and duplicitous and not upheld the lofty virtues he said Labour stood for immediately after the election. And it's going to be very interesting and possibly quite crucial when he faces the Commons on Monday over the latest Mandelson developments. I don't think he'll necessarily be able to ride it all out. But should he go now - no. For the reasons the OP has listed, there is too much instability in the world and the UK is affected by it. Uncertainty about our leader on the world stage would not be helpful right now. Simply because he's already in that position, he is the best person to represent us.

(And then of course there's the question of who would replace him. Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting are seen as the most promising in terms of leading the party, but both of them have skeletons in their closets)

It’s no secret that UK newspaper owners never wanted a Labour government and that the super wealthy make mega bucks from instability like 9/11 and this current war with Iran.
Starmer is shit and made a monumental fuck up with Mandelson (what dirt does he have on Starmer etc?) but not convinced that a replacement would improve things. It would be like Truss and Sunak after Johnson- biding time until the next General Election.

The media wants drama it can report on, and they’ve got used to the changing of leader drama of the last conservative government.

The media doesn’t want what’s best for the UK or to damage the UK - they want what’s the best story.

Same here. We desperately need stability not another roundabout of party leaders that we had with the Conservatives for years. And I am no fan of Starmer particularly.

Exactly this. Getting on with difficult and complex things, making slow progress - none of this suits them. Easier to shout 'resign!' and opposition party leaders are happy to supply that drama.

The large majority didn't vote for him. He wasn't even close to Labour getting 50% of the vote share.

No more than pushing the agenda that the media are currently doing. They all seem to want Starmer's head on a block.

There’s always wars going on, seems like a cheap excuse for Starmer to stay.

Yes the media do.

look at brexit and the airtime they gave farage.

We have a first past the post system - it’s not ideal but Labour won far more seats than any other party, to the extent the other parties couldn’t get close to a coalition even if they could all agree to work together.

under your logic, we’ll never have a “true” prime minister again.

Labour have 403 seats. The next biggest party (conservatives) have 116, the third largest is actually LibDem but the media would have you think it’s reform.

(You could argue that only the people who live in Starmers constituency actually voted for him.)

Labour have a significant majority, they can push through pretty much whatever they want- eliminating the other political drama for the media of “if x number rebel, they won’t get the policy though.”

He has 403 Labour MPs. He’s not failed to get any policies through parliament. He’s not failed to hold cabinet together.

Him not being popular with people who didn’t vote for him/Labour in the first place is a cheap excuse to get him to go.

I appreciate that Labour's large majority is due to the FPTP system. However, you specifically said that if the public didn't want him, they shouldn't have voted Labour. I was responding to that point, in that most didn't, they were screwed over by FPTP.