Why is Keir Starmer so hated (Guardian article)?
Discussion
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/may...
My theory differs a bit from the Guardian commentator.
I think he has a totally unique ability to alienate all sides on every argument - some examples:
1. Winter fuel allowance. My guess on this one is that there was massive public support for abolishing this. Obviously the Tories had to oppose it and ‘pensioner groups’ needed to be seen to make a fuss, but almost nobody needed what was just a minor Gordon Brown ‘feel good’ measure in the first place. The limited number of ‘pro any benefit’ Labour left made a huge fuss about it, but could easily have been ignored at that point.
What did he do? Rowed back on the proposal, leaving everyone annoyed, including the Labour left, who were shocked that he proposed it in the first place.
2. PIP payments. Again there was huge support for reforming a chaotic system that appeared to be paying out vastly more than in the recent past for no obvious reason. Instead of going ahead, he disappointed the electorate, and, as with point 1. Just emboldened his enemies who were never going to like him anyway.
3. Small business/Farms inheritance tax. Annoyed those potentially affected (for fairly obvious reasons), then annoyed the people he was trying to impress by rowing back (a bit) on some of the proposals.
4. Gaza. An issue far removed from the average British voter, who was already a bit peeved with endless demonstrations, attacks on public property and the apparent targeting of a pretty well integrated and inoffensive religious minority. Sir Keir was proceeding reasonably well on this, but why then go ahead and recognise ‘Palestine’?
There are quite a few other examples where he has demonstrated this unique ability. What do others think?
My theory differs a bit from the Guardian commentator.
I think he has a totally unique ability to alienate all sides on every argument - some examples:
1. Winter fuel allowance. My guess on this one is that there was massive public support for abolishing this. Obviously the Tories had to oppose it and ‘pensioner groups’ needed to be seen to make a fuss, but almost nobody needed what was just a minor Gordon Brown ‘feel good’ measure in the first place. The limited number of ‘pro any benefit’ Labour left made a huge fuss about it, but could easily have been ignored at that point.
What did he do? Rowed back on the proposal, leaving everyone annoyed, including the Labour left, who were shocked that he proposed it in the first place.
2. PIP payments. Again there was huge support for reforming a chaotic system that appeared to be paying out vastly more than in the recent past for no obvious reason. Instead of going ahead, he disappointed the electorate, and, as with point 1. Just emboldened his enemies who were never going to like him anyway.
3. Small business/Farms inheritance tax. Annoyed those potentially affected (for fairly obvious reasons), then annoyed the people he was trying to impress by rowing back (a bit) on some of the proposals.
4. Gaza. An issue far removed from the average British voter, who was already a bit peeved with endless demonstrations, attacks on public property and the apparent targeting of a pretty well integrated and inoffensive religious minority. Sir Keir was proceeding reasonably well on this, but why then go ahead and recognise ‘Palestine’?
There are quite a few other examples where he has demonstrated this unique ability. What do others think?
WFA was a U-turn on a cut in pensions IIRC, rather than a feel good policy.
I never really liked him or thought he was particularly honest but I also don't understand the depth of hatred towards him that many have. I also think we'll miss him if he does get replaced by Burnham, Miliband, or Rayner.
I never really liked him or thought he was particularly honest but I also don't understand the depth of hatred towards him that many have. I also think we'll miss him if he does get replaced by Burnham, Miliband, or Rayner.
I think there’s a fair point in this to be honest. The issue isn’t even whether the policies are right or wrong, it’s that Starmer often seems to start tough, get pressure from one side or another, then partially row back and end up annoying everyone anyway.
Winter fuel allowance, PIP reform and the farms inheritance tax stuff all felt a bit like that. Trying to sound fiscally tough while also keeping everyone happy rarely works politically.
Personally though, when I hear Starmer speak he just seems to lack something. Call it sincerity, conviction or authenticity. He came in with a massive majority and I still don’t really know what Starmer’s Labour actually stands for beyond “we’re not the Tories”. It almost felt like they got in and immediately told the country things were going to get worse before they got better.
I’m not saying the problems aren’t real because they clearly inherited a mess in areas, but people want to feel there’s a clear direction and sense of purpose. At the moment Labour often feels more managerial than convincing.
Winter fuel allowance, PIP reform and the farms inheritance tax stuff all felt a bit like that. Trying to sound fiscally tough while also keeping everyone happy rarely works politically.
Personally though, when I hear Starmer speak he just seems to lack something. Call it sincerity, conviction or authenticity. He came in with a massive majority and I still don’t really know what Starmer’s Labour actually stands for beyond “we’re not the Tories”. It almost felt like they got in and immediately told the country things were going to get worse before they got better.
I’m not saying the problems aren’t real because they clearly inherited a mess in areas, but people want to feel there’s a clear direction and sense of purpose. At the moment Labour often feels more managerial than convincing.
I think Kier has the intelligence and strategic mind, but not the backbone to follow through. He is not a natural leader. It has been his downfall, plus the daft social media campaigns being run. Even more surprising is the majority Labour have, imagine Kiers behaviour if the lead was more marginal.
And that is why he should never have been leader in the first place (admittedly with hindsight).
Whether he should resign is another question. I think the UK political leadership needs some stability rather than the opposition seeking to undermine government at every turn. That is not opposition. We need the country to achieve and we will never achieve with the instability demonstrated in UK politics since the Brexit vote.
And for that reason Kier should not resign.
And that is why he should never have been leader in the first place (admittedly with hindsight).
Whether he should resign is another question. I think the UK political leadership needs some stability rather than the opposition seeking to undermine government at every turn. That is not opposition. We need the country to achieve and we will never achieve with the instability demonstrated in UK politics since the Brexit vote.
And for that reason Kier should not resign.
He is contemptible. His main offering was bland competence with pragmatism before ideology, and he has failed miserably to deliver that. He is certainly bland, but hasn't done anything useful at all. He very much does have a ideology, he just doesn't talk about it because it is thoroughly obnoxious.
3. Small business/Farms inheritance tax. Annoyed those potentially affected (for fairly obvious reasons), then annoyed the people he was trying to impress by rowing back (a bit) on some of the proposals
Now that did annoy me. Why should one group of society get an inheritance tax break just by virtue of the asset they own. People moaning that they might have to pay inheritance tax on assets over 3m while the rest of us pay it ln assets over (at best) £500k f
k off.
Now that did annoy me. Why should one group of society get an inheritance tax break just by virtue of the asset they own. People moaning that they might have to pay inheritance tax on assets over 3m while the rest of us pay it ln assets over (at best) £500k f
k off. mike9009 said:
I think Kier has the intelligence and strategic mind, but not the backbone to follow through. He is not a natural leader. It has been his downfall, plus the daft social media campaigns being run. Even more surprising is the majority Labour have, imagine Kiers behaviour if the lead was more marginal.
And that is why he should never have been leader in the first place (admittedly with hindsight).
Whether he should resign is another question. I think the UK political leadership needs some stability rather than the opposition seeking to undermine government at every turn. That is not opposition. We need the country to achieve and we will never achieve with the instability demonstrated in UK politics since the Brexit vote.
And for that reason Kier should not resign.
Keir. His name is Keir. And that is why he should never have been leader in the first place (admittedly with hindsight).
Whether he should resign is another question. I think the UK political leadership needs some stability rather than the opposition seeking to undermine government at every turn. That is not opposition. We need the country to achieve and we will never achieve with the instability demonstrated in UK politics since the Brexit vote.
And for that reason Kier should not resign.
I think he's bloody useless, but then the potential replacements look even worse which is quite some going. Imagine PM Miliband.
If an election was called right now I have no idea who I'd vote for. My local MP is a good man, and has done a good job for the town, but his party are lead by an idiot. The 'mainstream parties' are clueless and rudderless, I have significant reservations about Reform, and I'd sooner eat the voting slip pencil then put a mark on the paper for the Greens.
Happy days.
If an election was called right now I have no idea who I'd vote for. My local MP is a good man, and has done a good job for the town, but his party are lead by an idiot. The 'mainstream parties' are clueless and rudderless, I have significant reservations about Reform, and I'd sooner eat the voting slip pencil then put a mark on the paper for the Greens.
Happy days.
a311 said:
Personally though, when I hear Starmer speak he just seems to lack something. Call it sincerity, conviction or authenticity. He came in with a massive majority and I still don t really know what Starmer s Labour actually stands for beyond we re not the Tories . It almost felt like they got in and immediately told the country things were going to get worse before they got better.
His career shows that the only thing he's been consistent or principled about is having absolutely no firm principles or beliefs.
He toed the line in Corbyn's cabinet until just before it seemed they were heading for electoral disaster, then resigned 'on principle' because he though Corbyn was harming the party. After the 2017 election when Labour had a historically strong showing - and certainly not the apocalypse many were predicting - he returned to the cabinet.
He pitched himself as a hard leftie, 'Corbyn but in a smart suit and a strong legal mind', to win the Labour leadership. Supporting nationalisation of water, rail, mail and energy. Increased income and corporation tax, increased taxation on big international business. Abolition of tuition fees. A Green New Deal. A Prevention of Military Intervention Act. Defend free movement with the EU after Brexit. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Abolish the House of Lords.
That got him a strong mandate from the Labour membership. Before the 2024GE every single one of those stances had been dropped - with SKS saying that he was proud to do so because he was willing to do anything to get Labour into power.
As already mentioned, his premiership has been defined by a curious mismatch between rhetoric and action. Strong policy launches followed be meek compromise or withdrawal. Even with a historically strong parliamentary majority and an electorate generally ready for some big measures. Lots of odd fanfares, like continually evoking the Beveridge Report (the 1940s study that promoted radical change to Britain's socio-economic system, was the blueprint for the welfare state and in many ways defined British daily life for the next 80+ years) when launching programmes that amount to "each local authority gets £1000 per annum to spend on new bins in public spaces" or something like that. I see they've done that again with the 'Beveridge Report for the Economy' a couple of months ago.
There's no sense of drive, of purpose or of mission. No moral, economic or political focus. No sense that anyone in government has ever had a crystal thought about what Britain should be like or what daily life in their ideal world would be like. None of their policies or moves seem to be connected to the others, and often they seem to be perfectly designed to work in opposition to each other.
Partly I think this is because the only thing that Starmer has ever done with any sense of purpose or zeal or drive is purge the Labour Party of anyone with awkwardly left-wing principles that they weren't willing to suppress in fealty to him and his drive to get into No.10. So that meant that between 2020 and 2024 most of the people with some sort of basic blueprint for doing something, and especially doing something different were driven out. All that remain are empty-headed, shiny-suited, career pole-climbers who joined Labour during the Blair/Brown years not out of any deep sense of public service or reformist zeal, but because Labour was the biggest and best game in town at the time. Either that or they are committed neoliberals or soft-left manageral policy wonks who genuinely think that the only problem the UK has suffered in the past 25 years is that the wrong people have been in charge - the policies and ideas have been perfect because they are the Only Right Way of Doing Politics.
Previous interviews with Starmer and those who know him well and work with him closely have revealed the fact that he claims to literally not have dreams - he doesn't experience "a succession of images, dynamic scenes and situations, ideas, emotions and sensations that usually occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep". That may or not be true, but if it is certainly a striking metaphor for how he does politics.
I've read another deep-dive into Starmer that concluded that he wanted to be PM only because it was 'the top job'. He's just the sort of person who pursues, not so much power, but status and job-titles. The sort of person who really wanted to be a prefect, and a head of house, and a head boy. One of those rare types who genuinely wanted puffed-up job titles at work over pay rises. Whose burning desire is to be a middle manager and get a labelled parking space. To be a lawyer, then a really good lawyer, then a QC, then DPP - The Top Lawyer. Not out of any desire to wield power or be responsible for change but just to be acknowledged as Top Boy.
Whether or not that's the case, he certainly 'governs' as if it is.
AbbeyNormal said:
3. Small business/Farms inheritance tax. Annoyed those potentially affected (for fairly obvious reasons), then annoyed the people he was trying to impress by rowing back (a bit) on some of the proposals
Now that did annoy me. Why should one group of society get an inheritance tax break just by virtue of the asset they own. People moaning that they might have to pay inheritance tax on assets over 3m while the rest of us pay it ln assets over (at best) £500k fk off.
You can't see any benefit in farms being passed down Vs say a house.Now that did annoy me. Why should one group of society get an inheritance tax break just by virtue of the asset they own. People moaning that they might have to pay inheritance tax on assets over 3m while the rest of us pay it ln assets over (at best) £500k f
k off. TX.
mike9009 said:
I think Kier has the intelligence and strategic mind, but not the backbone to follow through. He is not a natural leader. It has been his downfall, plus the daft social media campaigns being run. Even more surprising is the majority Labour have, imagine Kiers behaviour if the lead was more marginal.
And that is why he should never have been leader in the first place (admittedly with hindsight).
Whether he should resign is another question. I think the UK political leadership needs some stability rather than the opposition seeking to undermine government at every turn. That is not opposition. We need the country to achieve and we will never achieve with the instability demonstrated in UK politics since the Brexit vote.
And for that reason Kier should not resign.
When people were, quite rightly, criticising Johnson, there was a pleas for someone who wasn't a populist. Cameron's critics, of which I was one, wanted someone who wasn't trying, and failing miserably, to be popular with everyone. Truss - too easy? And we got the answer to everyone's prayer, Sunak. A nonentity who didn't really have any backing. Starmer is the labour equivalent. Both were evanescent. And that is why he should never have been leader in the first place (admittedly with hindsight).
Whether he should resign is another question. I think the UK political leadership needs some stability rather than the opposition seeking to undermine government at every turn. That is not opposition. We need the country to achieve and we will never achieve with the instability demonstrated in UK politics since the Brexit vote.
And for that reason Kier should not resign.
Compared to Cameron, May and Johnson (let's leave the aberration of Truss) Starmer is an improvement. At the basic level he didn't run and hide when things got tough or didn't go the way he wanted, so better than the two blokes. May, I almost felt sorry for her. Actually I didn't after what she did to the police service, and as Starmer hasn't hamstrung it, advantage him.
I agree we need stability as PM but it seems with pressure from the media, we won't. I agree to an extent with the Guardian as well, but there's something about Starmer that irritates. Even when he performs well, I feel he did by accident.
The press left Churchill alone after he was finally voted in, but there was a lot to complain about in his performance. I know he was seriously ill, but he was also leading the country in theory. Do we want a return to the days when the media conspires with the party in power, or maybe just the tories at that time?
I don't know. I thought he might have made a good job of the post. Intelligent, well read, and well prepared. But he just couldn't crack it.
Can't say any party has picked a winner for some years.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff