To think we don’t know how lucky we are under Starmer.

[SevenYellowHammers]

Russia have a mad despot who is responsible for the deaths of Russians and Ukrainians and has caused untold damage on the world’s environment and economy. But he’s still in power.

The USA have a mad despot who’s causing deaths worldwide and has started a war he can’t win causing untold damage to the world’s economy and environment. But he’s still in power.

Israel have a mad despot who is committing genocide and putting Jewish people at risk across the world. But he’s still in power.

In the UK, we have a dull bloke who’s doing his best to stand up to the mad despots while not leading us into war. And we’re all trying to get rid of him.

Kemi - nothing to do with her political affiliation, but a liking for her clear thought. It’ll be whoever is leading the strongest pack at the time of a GE. If it’s Nigel, then they live with their choice, that’s how it goes.

It would be worth asking this question to the many victims of Jimmy Saville.

“I truly believe this current furore isn’t about party politics, it’s about seeking an individual to lead us that the country believes is trustworthy and has the will of the wider community in mind, and their wider benefit at heart.”

As a centre-left person myself, I think Starmer is exactly this person! I cannot understand the vitriolic dislike of him. I wish he hadn’t U-turned on wfa and benefit cap, these are tough decisions that should have been followed through, but he is trying to bring the country back from the economic quagmire it is in - we can’t carry on spending money we don’t have!

I suppose if the Labour Party is split over whether Starmer should continue, we can hardly expect a thread on Mumsnet to be any less divided.

I agree.

I think he should have stood strong on WFA and benefit cap.

Richer pensioners really don't need the winter fuel, however, no matter what people have they want more so they didn't want to give it up and campaigned to keep WFA for all, millionaires included.

The party would do much better is they concentrated on centre politics, the left will pull it down, the country cannot afford the benefits to pay out more than pooer working people (perception or reality is that benefits can pay more for some large families with lots of ADHD children, or high rents etc).

I'm not being radicalised, I'm centrist but I want a prime minister and cabinet that does not damage our economy so badly that we have to mothball one of our factories and make long standing skilled staff redundant because of the idiotic politics that this government has inflicted on us.

We need someone who is competent as well as sane.

Stable? Seriously?

Are you referring to Keir Starmer? Who won a landslide election victory less than two years ago, has delivered very little of what he promised, U-turns on countless decisions he makes, either because they were poorly thought out in the first place or because he is too weak to stand up to his loony-lefty backbenchers.

He makes one bad decision after another and is so deeply unpopular with the electorate and his own party that they can't wait to see the back of him.

Even the Conservatives managed to stay in power for fourteen years before getting booted out. If the opinion polls and bookmakers are anything to go by, Labour under his leadership would be out of power tomorrow if there was a general election today. It took him less than two years to get to this stage.

If that's your idea of stability, I wonder what you think chaos looks like.

Chaos would definitely be Boris Johnson or Liz Truss!

I understand your point on the u turns.

But the point about not delivering is unfair. There are lots of positive changes which will take time to come to fruition eg in social housing, NHS reform, balancing the books, getting employers to pay fair wages that don’t need to be constantly subsidised by the taxpayer whilst some take huge profits and don’t pay tax in the uk. It’s too early to say if the things they have done will have a positive impact long term.

This is an interesting tracker https://fullfact.org/government-tracker/

I'm not keen on Starmer but I've always supported Labour and they generally align with my politics.

The media campaign against him/ the party is beyond extreme.

There are websites tracking the positive changes that have happened since they've been in government and I am pleased about what they've done so far.

However, the only time I read about the positive things it's because I've gone to look for them on those specific websites. They just aren't being reported at all.

Everything feels much more stable than it did under the Tories, they chopped and changed leaders all the time. 14 years they had to make a positive difference...all the promises, leaning on saying they were 'rebuilding after Labour' which is utter balls, not to mention they also get blamed for the banking crisis. (Before anyone brings up the 'note' Labour left saying the money was gone... that was a traditional 'inside joke' that had happened between outgoing parties for years, it just so happened that year it was leaked to the press and has been used as a stick to beat Labour with ever since! This is despite the fact Tories had left previous notes the same... it was a genius backstabbing manoeuvre but also dirty politics.)

Now Labour have been in for a couple of years, have made some great changes and those stories are getting buried. Reform are getting an excessive amount of air time for the minimal amount of power they have around the country.

Not to mention those same members of the public who accepted the Tories 14 years of excuses, blaming the short time Labour were in power before them for the fact that the country 'was screwed', have been non-stop critical of Labour from the second they've got in this time and continued to bash them for not making enough changes, quickly enough in two years.

You couldn't write it... the double standards are ridiculous.

I don't agree with all Labour's policies but I also understand that it's a 'best fit' approach, so it's what best represents my views. I just wish the media would fairly report their successes.

As someone who suddenly became disabled and who relies on the NHS to survive (I still work, for those who believe the 'Labour shirkers' rubbish) I am dreading any party who even hints towards privatisation or insurance based contributions because I certainly couldn't afford it. I also am in groups for people who have my health conditions and I have seen what happens when their insurance no longer will cover their medication. It's harrowing.
It all feels reasonable until life smacks you on the arse and you end up being someone who will die without life-saving medication.

I really wish people would consider who they would want in power on their 'worst' day. Who would you want in power if you suddenly had a stroke? A catastrophic accident? A terminal diagnosis?

Since my life changed: that is pretty much all that matters to me. If I can't afford or access medication my life is over anyway.

So, no, I don't think life under Starmer is bad at all.

Well said @TeaCupTinsel - I agree with everything you've said here.

The way the press can just choose what to report is shocking, dangerous, and actually quite sad.

Even ignoring policies, Farage has a more extreme version of Starmer's problem - unpopularity.

Only about a quarter of the population like either of them, with the vast majority holding negative views.

In Starmer's case, he at least had positive approval ratings before winning the election - which have dropped since he became where the buck stopped.

If Farage becomes PM, he will likely do so as (by far) the most disliked PM in history.

People often point to Labour's historically low share of the popular vote when they won with a 33% share in 2024. Even with Reform's success in the locals, their share was far less.

Every single Westminster party leader has negative approval ratings, which is symbolic of where we are as a country. The only ones even approaching "net favorability" are Davey and Polanski, largely because a sizeable chunk of the electorate aren't familiar with them.

That's just an example of some of the deranged nonsense people spout about Starmer.

I really wish people would consider who they would want in power on their 'worst' day. Who would you want in power if you suddenly had a stroke? A catastrophic accident? A terminal diagnosis?
And, proving your point, if the US went to war with Iran.

(A note that Farage and Badenoch have both u-turned on their support for the war, but mostly avoid scrutiny since they're not in-office).

Yes, I am.

He's calm. He's measured.

He isn't the reason Labour is less popular. The UK historically is a right leaning nation.

And FYI, chaos is what we had before. Boris the buffoon. Drunken/drugged Gove off his face in the Commons. Horny Hancock getting it on in the DoH office before going full Celeb on TV. Visionary Cummings with dodgy eyes. Lettuce woman. And then fortunately, Sunak, who was actually fairly stable. If you were on board with that lot, you're clearly happy for the lunatics to run the asylum.

I liked Ritchie Sunak and I’ve never voted conservative. It’s a shame he came in so late. They should have chosen him over Liz Truss really, but that’s one for political pundits and the professionals to ponder why they didn’t. He did well at the hustings and was competent. They really did get it so wrong.

YANBU. Annoyingly I pressed the wrong voting button (lying down on te sofa and my thumb aim was off!) so YANBU should be further ahead 😅

I disagree with Starmer on many things, but there has been a concerted effort since he came into office against him and many people can't see past this and overlook all the positive things he has brought about

Ha ha ha ... he's useless, but I don't know what the alternative is.

So should Starmer cost up to right wing media like Blair did? That whole era is super cringe worthy now in the light of phone hacking/ News Of The World scandal. We can’t really go back to that. Personally, if I was Starmer I’d be hiring shithot influencers and social media managers.

I see what you mean. After all since your "calm and measured" PM took over, we've seen no scandals at all.

No corrupt anti-corruption ministers, no fraudsters appointed to ministerial positions, no deputy PMs dodging paying tax, no ministers or MPs lying about being "economists" or "lawyers" on their CVs, no one hoping old ladies who won't vote for them will be dead by the next GE, no drunken MPs kicking the shit out of constituents in the street, no ministers with greedy snouts snuffling in Lord Ali's trough...

...and, most importantly of all, your "calm and measured" PM has never appointed a twice previously sacked, sleazy friend of the world's most notorious paedophile to the most important international diplomatic position in government, especially not one who had previously leaked state secrets to his sleazy, paedophile friend and also to China and Russia. No, no, no.

Hold on a minute...

You say all this and I still say this is all small beer compared to the Tories. File it under, if you print the stories with big enough headlines, it will make an impact. Even the Mandelson scandal - I mean, he didn't do wrong in the job this time round, did he. It was a kind of depth charge or time bomb that went off.

I agree with you OP.

He's sane, stable, doing his best in an impossible job with a toxic media deliberately stirring to get a reaction - and it's working.

Everyone just needs to bloody grow up and let him get on with it. All this drama over next to nothing is ridiculous.

I'm seriously disappointed in those members of the Labour Party who are trying to force him out. It feels very much as if they are pandering to media pressure, and all the media are interested in is getting an easy headline - they seem to be desperate for something new all the time. It's insane to consider going down the Tory path of changing Prime Ministers at ridiculously short intervals. It's very normal for sitting governments to do badly in mid-term polls and we've never had these ridiculous panics about the leader when it has happened in the past.

I don't think everything he has done is perfect, and in particular he needs to take a long hard look at how many very angry parents of children with SEN and disabilities voted against Labour as a direct result of Phillipson's SEND White Paper proposals. But that demonstrates that it is policies that they should be reconsidering, not people (though booting Phillipson wouldn't be a bad idea, actually}. If they're worried about their prospects in the next election, then they need to get it through their heads that they don't have any candidates amongst their MPs that the electorate will find any more attractive. Wes Streeting in particular simply doesn't have the personality to draw the votes in, and I don't think that people like Miliband or Reeves cut it either.

I agree @GenialHarrietGrouty
Especially your first paragraph.

I find one of the websites which is handy for seeing what any government achieves in power is 'Full fact'.

Even some of the hyperbole above just evidences the media sway. Means testing the WFA, for example, is one of those always presented as 'killing grannies' (see posts above!). The elderly population of the UK is the wealthiest generation. This is a quote from The Telegraph (so can't be accused of cherry picking from left wing publications!)

'Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964) are currently the richest generation in the UK, holding roughly 80% of the nation's wealth and owning over three-quarters of all privately held housing wealth.'

The government didn't 'get rid' of the WFA they means tested it. A generation who hold 80% of the UK's wealth do not ALL need a WFA payment. There will always be people either side of the 'cut off' point who struggle, the same with child benefit and every other payment that's ever been given to any demographic. The rhetoric around that whole situation was awful though and buried the reality of the wealth supporting that generation, especially compared against families who were struggling in poverty.

The same people cheered when benefits were capped at two children by the Tories and we saw a massive increase of children pushed into poverty in schools and breakfast clubs had to be extended.

The Tories are, by and large, voted for by the elderly and their policies are targeted as such. Labour's policies tend to lean more towards the family/workers. Their policies will naturally favour their targeted demographics.

Either way: the media reporting is awful.

fullfact.org/government-tracker/

Some (mildly) positive news that would have felt really good this week if it wasn’t for all the shenanigans 🤦🏼‍♀️

www.theguardian.com/business/2026/may/14/uk-economy-records-surprise-growth-first-month-iran-war-ons-data?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other