[mattomac]

I’m not even sure what the point is here.

[Oboogie]

I’m not even sure what the point is here.

I assume that Bush thinks Labour should be pro-Russian to attract Reform voters, instead of siding with the Ukrainian aggressors.

[The Weeping Angel]

David Aaronovitch has echoed similar sentiments as well.

[Youngian]

Marr's 'Starmer is finished' narrative is perucliar for a political correspondent by not leaving himself any wriggle room. One compelling reason is that the public can't articulate why they hate Starmer so much in the way those who loathed Corbyn, Johnson or Farage for eg could.
If the economy improves and he looks in charge he could be re-elected just for being 'better than the other lot.'

[davidjay]

The electorate 'hate' Starmer because they've been told since the election to hate him. Reasons why are as vague as Reform policies.

[Oboogie]

The electorate 'hate' Starmer because they've been told since the election to hate him. Reasons why are as vague as Reform policies.

On a daily basis I see demands that Starmer should be on trial for treason. However there's never any indication of what treasonous act he is being accused of just a vague 'he hates Britain' which, even if that were true, isn't treason.
It's all very odd.

[Boiler]

The electorate 'hate' Starmer because they've been told since the election to hate him. Reasons why are as vague as Reform policies.

On a daily basis I see demands that Starmer should be on trial for treason. However there's never any indication of what treasonous act he is being accused of just a vague 'he hates Britain' which, even if that were true, isn't treason.
It's all very odd.

And very wearing, too. Okay, I'd rather Labour didn't test policy in the court of public opinion but to me at least, they seem to be doing a reasonable job, free of the chaotic behaviour of the Tories and their "my turn now" PMs.

So why the hate?

[Abernathy]

It kind of raises the question of whether, if we did have Prime Minister Burnham, or Rayner, or Mahmood, or Streeting, or whoever else instead of Starmer, they'd be subjected to similar levels of unprecedented hatred and detestation. I think the answer to that question has to be "Yes". Of course they would.

One of the perennial whinges/excuses of the Corbynites used to be that their man could not succeed because of the uniquely hostile treatment that he received from virtually all news media. It wasn't true, of course - there were plenty of other reasons why Corbyn was always destined to fail, and his hostile treatment at the hands of the news media was by no means unique for a leader of the Labour Party. The hostility towards Keir Starmer, in my view, kind of proves the point.

[Yug]

Looking back, I can't recall a time when there was this much media hostility towards a Labour leader or Prime Minister. The amount of hate, the sheer number of confected "political crisis" stories, all seems unprecedented to me. Even Corbyn didn't have to face this much hate. It's a measure of the man that our Prime Minister is able to rise above all this bullshit and carry on doing a bloody good job.

[Bones McCoy]

The electorate 'hate' Starmer because they've been told since the election to hate him. Reasons why are as vague as Reform policies.

On a daily basis I see demands that Starmer should be on trial for treason. However there's never any indication of what treasonous act he is being accused of just a vague 'he hates Britain' which, even if that were true, isn't treason.
It's all very odd.

And very wearing, too. Okay, I'd rather Labour didn't test policy in the court of public opinion but to me at least, they seem to be doing a reasonable job, free of the chaotic behaviour of the Tories and their "my turn now" PMs.

So why the hate?

Starmer is Goldstein.
Farage is Big Brother.
Brexit Failed and MAGA's fellow travellers have lost their right to rule placemen in number 10.
The billionaire and near billionaire class are executing the endgame of their "take over the world" plans.



This is the same hissy fit we saw when England beat Australia to win th Rugby World Cup.

How dare they, it's ours by right,

and

Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard is most famously associated with the 2003 Rugby World Cup for his stoic, swift, and widely criticized medal presentation to the winning England team. Described as appearing "surly" and a "poor loser" after the Wallabies' loss.

[Oboogie]

I agree that the vitriol directed at Starmer is on a another level to that experienced by previous Labour leaders and I'm certain that changing leaders wouldn't change that and would probably make it worse.
Looking back the only Labour leader who I can recall having the press onside was Tony Blair for a brief period. We can argue about dates, but I don't recall too much criticism from around 1996 until WMD and the death of David Kelly in 1993.

[davidjay]

Blair, for all his many, many faults knew how to get the press onside and in Alastair Campbell he had the best media operator of this and several generations. If it wasn't for Iraq we'd now be looking towards thirty years of progressive government.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The new leader would get some respite from the left who particularly hate Starmer, even if they did mostly the same policies. Before too long though, the ridiculous impatience and "jUST sCRAP tHE fISCAL rULES" would kick in.

But the rest of the media will maliciously cheer on Streeting (who they know will lose) then attack the winner as being the same as Starmer, before they become worse than Starmer.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Blair, for all his many, many faults knew how to get the press onside and in Alastair Campbell he had the best media operator of this and several generations. If it wasn't for Iraq we'd now be looking towards thirty years of progressive government.

That media operation wouldn't work now, with social media and the big detrioration at the BBC and others. Even with Murdoch onside.