Starmer sounds deranged at PMQs

[Dragonflytamer]

Stamer's lost it. He sounds like an angry lunatic in response to questions.

The loss of temper at Ed Davey is very strange because lawyers who are advocates are trained to engage in oral argument without losing their temper. It runs through them like words in a stick of rock.

In courts particularly plenty of people are deliberately provocative and try to get under the skin of an advocate including opposing counsel, witnesses and even sometimes the judge.

To me the fact he lost it at Ed Davey just shows that he is really under serious stress and losing control. No barrister would react like that normally in a professional situation no matter what the provocation.

You had full chapter and verse on what Mandelson had done? Because not a single person reported it previously.

Kemi and Ed are calm and clear, Starmer’s reaction to Ed in particular is latent anger. Not just when he’s shouting but as Ed responds calmly, his face looks ruinous.

to use the excuse a second time is starting to look like idiocy.

The Doyle time line is here:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15550411/House-Lords-TRASHES-Starmers-claim-stop-ex-spin-doctor-getting-peerage-learning-ties-sex-offender-councillor-PMs-crisis-deepens.html

"December 3, 2025: Reports surface that Matthew Doyle is being offered a peerage

December 4: A figure in Scottish Labour is said to have raised concerns that Mr Doyle had an association with convicted paedophile Sean Morton.

No10 apparently looks into the allegations.

December 10: Downing Street unveils a list of political peerage nominations, including Mr Doyle. By this point he has been approved by the House of Lords Appointments Committee.

December 28: The Sunday Times reports on its front page that Mr Doyle campaigned for Morton after he was charged - although before he pleaded guilty over indecent images of children.

Downing Street acknowledges that Keir Starmer was aware of the allegations from this point.

January 8: Lord Doyle elevation to the peerage is confirmed in the London Gazette. At this point the spin doctor's title has been agreed and the King has signed letters patent.

February 10: Lord Doyle is suspended from the Labour whip over his ties to Morton, which he has apologised for.

February 11: Sir Keir tells the Commons that Lord Doyle did not give 'full' information during his vetting.

Downing Street argues that the peerage could not be stopped by the time Lord Doyle's campaigning for Morton had emerged.

This is disputed by the Lords authorities. "

Doyle was front page news before he was appointed to the Lords a month ago. The was appointed on Starmers proposal - this sits 100% on him.

There was more than enough info available about Mandelson for him not to be considered for ambassador to the US, including that he had stayed at Epstein's home whilst he was in prison.
John Smith's widow has confirmed that Smith wouldn't touch Mandy with a barge pole.

You have a short memory OP. Remember Boris Johnson at PMQs?

Even though Keir Starmer has been worse than expected and the appointment of Peter Mandelson was an awful decision, he is nowhere near as bad.

There was more than enough info available about Mandelson for him not to be considered for ambassador to the US, including that he had stayed at Epstein's home whilst he was in prison.

There was more than enough information about him even if you totally ignore Epstein. There already was a US ambassador who was doing a good job. If you are kicking out someone like that then you want an exceptional person. Mandelson had had to resign from government twice under a cloud. That alone should have been enough to rule him out and that's before you even get to contact with Epstein.

If he shows no emotion hes criticised and called robotic.
He shows frustration and he's a lunatic

I honestly don't know why he's putting himself through it he should just fuck it all off and Go play golf. He certainly can't win

No, and I’m fed up of the Lib Dems being tolerant of noncing and poncing too. I used to vote for them locally pre-Rennard.

Where’s the decent opposition? Answers please on a postcard.

But she was a women. What have learnt is that Starmer has greater leaning to misogyny than we might have expected.

He shows frustration and he's a lunatic

This wasn't showing frustration. It was an uncontrolled loss of temper which you do not normally ever see with experienced and trained advocates in a professional situation.

Good idea. But no he can do better than that. Ed didn’t lose it, Kemi doesn’t either.

The main problem is that he and his governmant have lost control of just about everything and have no idea how to gain back the control. After 14 years in the shadows they should have hit the ground running ( a la Trump)

Fully agree with your points.
Starmer's supporters seem to think otherwise.

Where are the decent MPs and statesmen (or women)?

Starmer has always oozed misogyny imo. The way he used to address Kemi Badenoch in the early days filled me with rage. He also completely ignored his Chancellor when she was crying beside him. He had to apologise to Liz Saville Roberts, then there's Rosie Duffield. There's also the TWAW stuff, trying to avoid an inquiry on grooming gangs etc. He talks the talk on VAWG, but his actions say otherwise.

He has spoken to the Labour women's caucus this evening. It was the first time since he became PM.

Labour haven’t governed for years and previously just used spin doctors to gaslight the public. In the era of social media, everything comes out and they are finding out the hard way and gaslighting the public. Unfortunately tropes and buzz words and lies and dodgy dealings get found it very easily these days.

Where are the decent MPs and statesmen (or women)?

There are two kinds of people who are interested in going into politics - people who want fame but are too ugly or untalented for showbusiness and people who are interested in public service.

The Self Interested group get going from a young age because they quickly know that is what they want to do. They lack life experience outside politics and by virtue of their character are not 'decent' to start with. However party candidate recruitment machines are set up in such away these people move up the ladder at high speed because they've been involved since university, know how the system works and make contacts. There are more of these people in politics than people realise because they are not stupid and can conceal it.

The people who are truly interested in public service tend to come to politics a bit later - it is their real world life experience that leads them to this view point. That they have something to offer, they see real problems in whatever sector they work in that could be solved and want to put something back. Some of the people who think like this will never really try to get into politics because they cannot afford the pay cut from their existing job or don't wish to take a pay cut. This rules out many decent high achievers. For those that do want to try, the candidate recruitment system works against them because they don't have a political footprint, name recognition or contacts. Unless you are a celebrity or related to one, it takes years from getting onto a candidates list to even be shortlisted let alone selected. So many people will give up along the way despondent at how difficult it is when they are so much more qualified and 'decent' than those in the Self Interested Group.

Finally, you have some of these people who do make it and get all the way through. You know that saying 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'? Of this tiny group of decent people, over time, some of them will become more interested in getting promoted and keeping their job and they lose that decency and become more 'dirty politics'. Some of them will feel that the shit that goes with being an MP (social media, tabloid attacks, death threats) isn't worth it and leave.

Putting all that together means that ultimately you will have a tiny % of decent people getting into politics and sticking it out.

There are definitely some but they are few and these are some of the reasons why IMO.

Its not worse than under the Tories. The chaos was hell. This isn't great but its not destructive. What is destructive is Reform/Tory rhetoric.

Gosh, Starmer showing a bit of passion and personality. I almost felt strangely aroused. 😳<joke>

I'm glad they're all on a break now.

I was embarrassed for him. And surprised actually that a KC could react like this from basic questioning. Which I think was the problem for him. His reply to the questions about Doyle and Mandelson was "partygate". Which implies he thinks eating cake is worse than sex trafficking and paedophilia.

He never answers a question and I think he thinks no one notices. I think the Speaker needs to be onto that a bit more actually. Keir is a slippery customer at the best of times in his use of whataboutery to reply to questions. No one cares at this moment what the Conservatives did a few years ago we just want to know what his plan is now to sort out the country. And PMQs shows every week that he hasn't got a plan.

The other issue isn't his fault but its his adenoidal voice and his voice is even worse when he loses control as he did yesterday.

Starmer got it wrong on Mandelson and Doyle, but also many people do care about what the Tories did and we are still impacted by their legacy and the damage they did, in so many ways. Both things can be true at the same time.

On a wider point, it’s amazing how delusional the Johnson & co revisionists are - I’m almost envious of being able to live in such a level of denial/oblivion.

But the clue is in the name. Prime Ministers Questions. Hes being asked about his own record and decisions. But he never answers. How can he reply referring to Liz Truss when asked about his appointment of a paedophile supporter?

Yes people are angry about the Conservatives. But why is he referring to their economic record when asked about his own mistakes in appointing people to government? He also lied about knowing about it. Does the fact someone else may have lied in the past give him carte blanche to lie to the country now?

Its his own hubris that has exacerbated things too. If you paint yourself as holier than thou compared to the other side then people will expect better and be angry when you deliver even worse.