Is Starmer soon to be toast?

[Rockets]

3 minutes ago, vladi said:

Where's the hate and where's the crime?

There clearly isn't one but this is a well trodden path that some of us, me included, have been on the receiving end of previously. Some people have been warned about this in the past but, seemingly, never learn.......

[malumbu]

On 15/10/2025 at 18:44, vladi said:

Really? I made no comment on any of his facial features whatsoever.
I observed that he was "expressionless" and suggested that  "if only his face could break out into a smile occasionally then that would help ". These observations refer to behavioural aspects  of Starmer's performance as he appears on the media.

Where's the hate and where's the crime?  
 

Fair point.

But this is the same Starmer, as I said before, that was seen to be the adult in the room pre-election, following the recent run of chancers, crazies and failures?  I really think the demonisation of him is wrong and it seems to be an epidemic.

Johnson got away with things because he was this funny clown.  May was seen to be wooden but didn't attract the same backlash and she facked up Brexit.

I saw Corbyn speak as a back bencher and he was excellent.  Didn't make him a great leader.  What would are country have looked like if Brown had got in.  Another person demonised by the media due to his bank manager persona.

Yes, I get it, that we lampoon our politicians, based on some of their personal characteristics.  Life was so much more fun during the original series of Spitting Image,  Many politicians loved their send ups.  Some even bought the models/puppets.  Blair was first seen as a little school boy sitting between Prescot in his boiler suit, and Becket perhaps unfairly characterised.  Not sure how they'd send him up as a (alleged) war criminal.... 

Just concerned that we are now so shallow in considering politics.

Anyway, it is not just Starmer, it is his party, in particular his advisors. But perhaps give him a break.

 

 

 

[Spartacus]

I wonder, if the budget is as painful as some predict, if there will be protests in the streets against the government which might result in either Starmer falling on his sword or chopping Reeves out with it 

[vladi]

The people who will probably be most adversely affected will be will be those who  are asset rich but income poor such as the elderly and these are less likely or less able to take to the streets and protest.

[sjsl]

Malumbu makes some good points re the value of 'charisma' in a leader, it can be a dangerous thing. Starmer, from reports I have read, is not good at taking the party with him, there's not enough consultation with or listening to his back benches. More consultation might have avoided some of his mis steps... I don't think we should be replacing him for the reasons already stated. 

Also agree with Vladi, potentially the asset rich/income poor older people are vulnerable, but don't think they're not up for protesting – check out the number of pensioners arrested on the Palestine Action protests!

[malumbu]

43 minutes ago, vladi said:

The people who will probably be most adversely affected will be will be those who  are asset rich but income poor such as the elderly and these are less likely or less able to take to the streets and protest.

Those in largish houses with just one or two occupants who have done very well (on paper) due to the massive rise in property values since the 90s.  As opposed to those struggling to pay for housing whether owning or renting (and many of the latter may never own).  Hmm.  Perhaps a centre left government can rebalance the situation.

[Sephiroth]

Anyone with a negative opinion of Starmer is well within their rights, and often correct 

But if you are going to demand some replacement his over a year into a landslide you need a reality check 

And if you went to suggest someone like Farage as a replacement (as polls indicate) then you have lost all connection with reality, credibility and possibly toilet functions 

[vladi]

One month on and Never-Here-Keir is getting ever closer to the toaster.

It seems that he goes AWOL at every opportunity. He's done 34 foreign trips to 26 countries since becoming PM. 

Surely, with all the in-fighting going on at #10 and with some MPs and one Labour mayor on manoeuvres,  should he not be staying at home and fighting for his premiership and the interests of the Labour party?  or does he reckon he is already doomed and feels better away from it all?

[CPR Dave]

He's always been clear he'd rather be elsewhere than Westminster:

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2024/06/18/starmer-davos-interview/

"Westminster is too constrained. It’s closed and we’re not having meaning. Once you get out of Westminster whether it’s Davos or anywhere else, you actually engage with people that you can see working with in the future. Westminster is just a tribal shouting place."

 

That's who he is.