Is Keir Starmer too boring to be prime minister?

[Tulipsroses]

I was reading an article in the Spectator this morning. Interesting to hear what people think.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-keir-starmer-too-boring-to-be-prime-minister/

"Starmer is Boring" is a trope that's been pushed by the hard-right press for a while, a classic misdirection to steer people away from the cess-pit that the Tory party has become.

Inept and effective how?

I'm gender critical and can see that if the Conservatives get in again there will be nothing left of any public services so no point on arguing about who gets to use a refuge: there won't be any left. No point getting agitated about pronouns on NHS emails: there won't be an NHS. My feminism is primarily concerned about addressing the poverty gap which disproportionately impacts women, which Labour are prepared to do something about and the Conservatives aren't, and is a MUCH bigger feminist issue than the trans question.

I would have hoped that the Boris Johnson disaster would have shown people that "fun" most definitely doesn't equal competent.

Look at the policies. Vote for a good local MP. The PM is not what you are voting for.

Might be because he bought his mum a donkey?

May you live in interesting times is a Chinese curse.

Boring is unfair - what does that even mean? Have you been stuck with him at a party? I know people who have met him and he is not boring in real life. He was well thought of by colleagues at the CPS. Agree he was a massive disappointment on the trans issue. I was with him until that.

Boring is the wrong word from the spectator, and on this thread has resulted in a slew of posts about entertainment. The truth is He lacks charisma and gravitas. He has failed to make his mark or mount a credible defence. Sunak also lacks charisma, although he is gaining some gravitas, simply through experience, but not close to enough.

"If the tories change leader, labour is in trouble again."

And who would they pick? The current party is a talent vacuum. Rees-Mogg? Braverman? James Cleverly. Sunak was barrel scraping. They're out of ideas now.

Cameron, Braverman, there are a few who could throw their hat in the ring .

If labour win it’s as people voted against the tories rather than for labour.

I think this is true every single time the government goes from one party to another - whether it's from Labour to Cons or the other way round.

For the most part, people tend to vote for the status quo and so a vote for something different is always a rejection of the current state.

I want boring. Remember how Spitting Image used to portray John Major...more peas Norma? Not a Tory and wasn't a fan then, but my god how amazing would it have been to have had Major in power these last few years instead of what we've had

Morally corrupt because he'll say anything in order to win power.

KS got elected head of the Labour Party on a platform of being both respectable, competent and leftish. As head of the Labour Party, he has overseen a vicious purge against even vaguely left. He has reneged on just about every pledge he has made. He said that Israel had the right to cut off power and water -- then tried to deny it when it didn't play well.

I'm still going to be voting Labour because the Tories' corruption is far far worse -- the reason the Spectator focusses on dullness is because they know the Tories are far worse vis a vis the corruption stakes. But let's be clear about who we're dealing with here.

Totally agree with this. If the Tories change leader again, it is they who will be in trouble (even more than they are now), not Labour. It's not just the lack of credible alternatives but the sheer number of leaders they have gone through in such a short space of time. They're a basket case.

Cameron, Braverman, there are a few who could throw their hat in the ring .

To replace Sunak pre-election? Cameron isn't an MP. Can you have a prime minister who sits in the House of Lords and isn't allowed to speak in the commons??

To an extent yes, I think Boris though did have a huge amount of people voting for him and at the time was popular.but of course everyone hated corbyn

Yes, he resigns his lords position. It’s been done once before.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/how-is-a-prime-minister-appointed/

Yes, at least the Tories know what a woman is. They're the ones you sedate🙄.

But then he's still not an MP so can't speak in the commons

since when did we need our political leaders to be fun interesting? I think the more boring the better. we have had enough 'exciting' bullshit artists

although don't agree with many of keirs policies - at this point I would vote for Larry the cat to get the tories out.

If boring = sensible and competent then that's ok with we. We do not need a showman running the country it's not a celebrity competition.

He can speak in the commons if in the cabinet or pm.

I want progressive centrist policies, gravitas and intellect. I'm not sure he's got the right mix of all three for me. There's such a woeful lack of decent grown up politicians (and policy) across all the parties though.

But Labour has to be better than the Tories on a range of things, and I'd like to see SNP start to lose their grip here in Scotland, so they'll get my vote.

I'm also gender critical and I despise Labour's approach on it, but there are too many ills in society just now for me let that stop me voting for them.

I am voting for labour because I like their policies. I don’t care if Keir is boring!

That link about how a PM is appointed says "A Prime Minister must be or about to become an MP. A peer has not served as premier since 19022. Sir Alec Douglas-Home was a peer upon his appointment as Prime Minister on 19 October 1963, but renounced his peerage four days later and was elected an MP at a by-election on 7 Novemberr."

He is a bit boring like John Major was but he was ok.