[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.

[mattomac]

The “crisis stories” are all a bit meh.

If truth be told the major issues of Starmer’s period in office that government are mostly to blame is the poor handling of prison releases (though more to do with how bad the system is) and appointing Mandelson. This Romeo story just seems to be the press like to highlight those who hate her. And someone will like that will have enemies. Problem is your not going to go for those who speak highly of her as your condition and much of the press seem like this is to kick the government.

Much of the attacks on Rachel Reeves are absolutely ridiculous frankly. The Times may moan about being targeted by “LT” but then prior to that have for months being putting out stuff as front page stories how Reeves didn’t beat several top chess players at a tournament (even though like most things she beat who was there and these top names didn’t participate).

Like seriously… No wonder some people couldn’t care when you start crying wolf, I’ll speak up for journalists who deserve support not people who think Reeves winning a chess tournament with a reduced field of people (who claim themselves) who could have beaten her. Thats called a hatchet job and not seriously in the public interest journalism, its also bordering a bit on misogyny especially in relation to Reeves who uniquely seems to get this garbage thrown at her by mostly white straight middle class men. Being the first female chancellor perhaps is the issue here. Because we all know men are so good at finance.

Thats a story the press should look into, why they all went to the same schools, universities and why they are mostly white and men and question why more isn’t made of that?

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'd forgotten about the prison releases. Those were recurrent failures in a bad system, even if it seems to be deteriorating further. Mandelson is the one that stands out for me- and that was something a fair bit of the media supported.

That chess thing against Reeves was pathetic. Keir's Donkey Field standard.

[Abernathy]

I usually set quite some store by the wisdom of Mr. Phil Moorhouse. I’m a big fan, of, and even an advocate for Keir Starmer and the argument for sticking with him, but something he has just said has struck something of a chord with me. It’s this : Stuff like the winter fuel allowance, PIP, inheritance taxes on farms, the Mandelson scandal, and such like are a bit more serious than just honest mistakes that can be recovered from, but very specifically so in the leader’s case.

Phil thinks that Starmer has, importantly, lost the trust of voters, and that is something that is effectively irrecoverable. If and when things do start to get tangibly better, it will be seen as being in spite of Keir Starmer, not because of him.

As such, it may be time for the party to think aboutreplacing Starmer as leader and PM. I’m still not entirely convinced that Phil is right about this, but I’m beginning to wonder whether he is.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I think he may not be able to recover from this, but replacing the PM this soon isn't going to impress too many people. And if someone comes in with stupid "Proper Radical Labour Government Now" gobshiting, then an obvious question about mandate comes up. And an obvious question about borrowing costs.

Sir Keir might as well carry on for a while yet, and after May too.

[Youngian]

Starmer always has state craft but his 'on the other hand this' moribund Atlanticism lacks clarity, direction or inspiration. Better hope Zack doesn't put a tie on and fancy himself as Carney as well as an English Mamdani.

[Oboogie]

I usually set quite some store by the wisdom of Mr. Phil Moorhouse. I’m a big fan, of, and even an advocate for Keir Starmer and the argument for sticking with him, but something he has just said has struck something of a chord with me. It’s this : Stuff like the winter fuel allowance, PIP, inheritance taxes on farms, the Mandelson scandal, and such like are a bit more serious than just honest mistakes that can be recovered from, but very specifically so in the leader’s case.

Phil thinks that Starmer has, importantly, lost the trust of voters, and that is something that is effectively irrecoverable. If and when things do start to get tangibly better, it will be seen as being in spite of Keir Starmer, not because of him.

As such, it may be time for the party to think aboutreplacing Starmer as leader and PM. I’m still not entirely convinced that Phil is right about this, but I’m beginning to wonder whether he is.

Who would you replace him with? Specifically: 1. who do you think would attract fewer lies from the right-wing press and our various opponents. 2. who do you think would be more popular with the electorate?