Starmer's resigned

[Sadcafe]

So the admittedly boring but truly decent PM has announced his resignation and the egotistical, pompous Burnham will doubtless become PM. God help the country

You don’t think Russians committing arson and Thai business men donating millions could be described as foreign actors? Ok then.

You really think that’s all there is to it? Thank you for your comments. They prove my point.

So many people must be so glad this absolutely worst PM in history has finally gone.

I don’t get this. I can understand people not agreeing with him, even disliking him, but ‘worst PM in history’? That’s just nonsense. You must know it is. What makes you (and others) say it?

Even if PMs are very bad for a few years (even five) that is one thing, but what Cameron did with Brexit structurally impacted the economic fabric of the country for many, many years to come. That trumps most things in my book.

Its not nonsense.

In September 2025, Ipsos polling showed Starmer had the lowest satisfaction rating of any leader since records began in 1977. This earned him the title of worst pm we've ever had.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/reform-uk-leads-12-pts-over-labour-both-pm-and-chancellor-hit-historic-low-satisfaction-ratings?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pulse-check

This is based on the populations subjective perception and the popularity of a leader, not hard economic fact. As a poster was saying upthread it's feelings that drive these metrics not actual performance. It will take years to evaluate the whole impact of Brexit.

So its not 'nonsense', its a fact.

Why do you assume that anyone who doesn't like Starmer has no understanding of economic facts? Or that they aren't judging him on actual performance?

Look on the bright side - there were 250 years of PMs before 1977. I think the worst ever in history is hyperbole. Just think no one will be able to say it about Burnham because that would be to much of a coincidence to have the 2 worst ever in succession.

Liz Truss held the record before Starmer, and I've never seen that described as hyperbole.
Let's see on Burnham, he may exceed them both and reach another all time low, or he may be brilliant. Nobody knows yet.

It's not a fact, it's subjective perception. It's popularity of persona and policies, which is something distinct. I'd say exactly the same if it were another politician, nothing to do with it being Starmer. I was making the point that the scale of the disaster that is Brexit is very long term and structural and incomparable with the misdemeanours of the recent and current lot. The full quantification of the fallout is not yet possible but I would bet my house that it will eclipse anything anyone else has done or will do in current times.

The polling is a fact, and I was answering a different post describing the title as nonsense.

Yes the polling is a measure of subjective popularity based on some fact but mainly feeling.

You don't know why people answered that polling as they did. Why assume they aren't basing their opinion on the economy or performance of the PM?

I was corrected by a poster the other day when I was ok about Sunak - they said his policy could have lost him 2m votes in the GE. Others on this thread have mentioned the man in the fridge - Johnson. We can't have just had all the worst ones - can we?

Possibly not, but they can only prove it with a number since they started keeping records in 1977, which is within living memory for most.

People who blame "Brexit" for everything have no grasp of economic facts, those are the kinds of voter that KS hoped to appeal to as he followed the globalist blueprint.

The worst? What very short memories some people have.

All those 250 years of be-wigged Whigs and Tories must be thanking their lucky stars that there was no ipsos and so they can't be "the worst PM in history".

Lowest satisfaction doesn’t mean worst. It means people are - like ypu apparently - saying what they’ve been told.

I don't understand what you're implying. What do you think I've been told, and by whom?

We're a democracy. We should have had referenda on joining the EU in the first place when it morphed from the EEC that we originally voted to join. Our political leaders were arrogant to take us into the EU without public approval and the voters got utterly fed up of our "political elite" and the Brexit vote was to give them a good kicking. Our politicians over the past 2/3 decades caused it all by their arrogance etc.

That he’s the worst PM in history, by the media. And it wasn’t you 8 said had been told it - I was commenting on the popularity rating.
He’s achieved 60% of the manifesto in 2 years.
Improved rights for workers and renters.
Growth better than our peers.
I could go on.
What facts support your assertion?

"The full quantification of the fallout is not yet possible"
Really? After ten years, isn"t it more likely that the EU as a concept is just over-hyped and overrated?

Exactly, the original vote was for a "common market", not all the nonsense that came later, we are better well away from the EU project, really surprised Germany has not pulled the plug by now but it can still happen.