Before the election, 42% of Britons said they had at least a broad idea of what the Labour leader stood for, compared to 49% who were unclear. Now, nine months into his premiership, just a third of Britons (33%) say they know what the prime minister stands for compared to 60% who are uncertain.
Overall, Britons are now most likely to think that Starmer has been a “poor” or “terrible” leader since he first took the reins at Labour. Just under half (45%) of all Britons now hold this view, which is up 17 points since March 2023. In contrast, only 16% of Britons think he has been a “great” or “good” leader during his five years in charge (-6), whilst 30% think he has been an average leader (-4).
He's not doing very well !
Posted : 05/04/2025 8:13 am
Theres a whiff of Chamberlain around the man which does not bode well for dealing with the dranged bunch on the other side of the Atlantic.
Posted : 05/04/2025 8:37 am
Surely it is too soon to judge yet isn't it. Don't we need to wait at least 4 years before making a judgement.
Posted : 05/04/2025 11:39 am
Pmsl.
Wait until the bills pile up.
Apparently there's a plan in place to deal with what comes next from Trump.
(No there isn't. )
Posted : 05/04/2025 1:32 pm
Theres a whiff of Chamberlain
God I wish so.
Chamberlain is somewhat maligned by history, probably because Churchill wrote it, as whilst he did try and negotiate he also went "and lets buy a ****load of weapons. Oh and that 'radar' thing? lets build that".
Posted : 05/04/2025 2:26 pm
For those who arent boycotting Amazon.
"Get In" is a kindle deal of the day (Saturday 5th).
It has somewhat mixed reviews and I wouldnt bother at full price but am giving it a read for a couple of quid (well once it works through the backlog)
Posted : 05/04/2025 3:38 pm
@dissonance I have him as trying to do the best he can whilst suffering from a self-imposed handicap (EU red lines and all that rubbish) which restricts the room for manoevre.
Posted : 05/04/2025 5:19 pm
kimbers reacted
I have him as trying to do the best he can
Are you part of the 33%?
"just a third of Britons (33%) say they know what the prime minister stands for compared to 60% who are uncertain."
If so could you sum up in a few sentences what you think the current prime minister stands for?
Posted : 05/04/2025 5:58 pm
If so could you sum up in a few sentences what you think the current prime minister stands for?
Three words - “pound shop Farage”
Posted : 06/04/2025 12:45 pm
If so could you sum up in a few sentences what you think the current prime minister stands for?
You first.
I have no idea, I am part of the 60% who apparently don't know what Starmer stands for.
Since Sandwich seems to think that Starmer is "trying to do the best he can" I was hoping for maybe a clue from Sandwich.
Posted : 06/04/2025 4:08 pm
I can appreciate someone trying to do their best with what they have to hand but, remember Ernie, "Assumption is the mother of all **** ups"!
The Prime Minister has been a vaccuous waste of time and I made the mistake of thinking that the silence on policy was down to clever Wellingtonian strategy of not interupting your opponent whils they are making a mistake. No it appears that there were no ground-breaking policies to be enacted to better the lot of the basic rate tax-payer. What I'm seeing is not socialism in any way shape or form and we (the country) made a mistake not backing the alternatives when Johnson stood for election.
Posted : 06/04/2025 5:54 pm
MoreCashThanDash reacted
I can appreciate someone trying to do their best with what they have to hand but, remember Ernie, "Assumption is the mother of all **** ups"!
Sure, I fully appreciate that. I might have misunderstood your suggestion that Starmer is "trying to do the best he can" but it gave me the impression that you had some sort of idea what he stood for, I would be genuinely interested in any clues!
But I can see now that you are as baffled as most people apparently are.
However if I was pushed to answer the question I suspect that Starmer probably sees his job as delivering Tory policies and maintaining the status quo but in a more efficient and competent way than the last shower. And to be honest that is a goal that he could reasonably expect to achieve.
Although I doubt that is enough for the electorate.
Posted : 06/04/2025 8:45 pm
but it gave me the impression that you had some sort of idea what he stood for
I can't remember when he said it, but even Starmer was quoted as saying "There's no such thing as Starmerism, and never will be" At best he's an anodyne functionary, he says that he sees a problem, and tries to work out the best way to fix it. And that's pretty much the start middle and end of his political philosophy.
Posted : 07/04/2025 9:19 am
Well according to YouGov :
Now, nine months into his premiership, just a third of Britons (33%) say they know what the prime minister stands for
I am intrigued to know what those 33% thinks Starmer stands for!
Or even what Starmer himself thinks he stands for.
Posted : 07/04/2025 9:31 am
Looks like British Steel is about to be nationalised via legislation compelling its private sector Chinese owner to follow direction by the govt. You see it really is that easy.
All the arguments that nationalisation of other nationally important industries is not possible or too expensive are now moot.
Posted : 11/04/2025 5:20 pm
easy if there’s cross party consensus, and the current owner doesn’t give a shit!Looks like British Steel is about to be nationalised via legislation compelling its private sector Chinese owner to follow direction by the govt. You see it really is that easy.
All the arguments that nationalisation of other nationally important industries is not possible or too expensive are now moot.
Posted : 11/04/2025 5:44 pm
Why on earth would there need to be a cross-party consensus when the government has a majority of more than 150?
Passing any legislation with a majority like that should be a piece of cake.
Edit : Good point about cross-party support though, it's such a radical move that even Badenoch's Tory Party supports it!
Well Badenoch kind of supports it, she says that it should only as a last resort. I am sure Starmer would agree with that.
Posted : 11/04/2025 6:34 pm
Looks like British Steel is about to be nationalised via legislation compelling its private sector Chinese owner to follow direction by the govt. You see it really is that easy.
All the arguments that nationalisation of other nationally important industries is not possible or too expensive are now moot.
I have just realised that the government isn't planning to nationalise British Steel after all it will remain in private hands but the government will control it, the complete opposite to arm's length nationalisation.
It turns out that Starmer is in complete agreement with Kemi Badenoch that British Steel should only be nationalised as an absolute last resort.
Meanwhile Reform UK is calling for the immediate and full nationalisation of British Steel.
With Badenoch becoming increasingly more extreme and right-wing than Farage it seems that it's now the turn of Sir Keir Starmer.
Starmer has already blurred the distinctions between "Labour" and Reform UK with his 40% cut in the foreign aid budget, denying asylum seekers arriving in small boats the right of ever having British citizenship, and proudly boasting how tough he is on immigration and claiming to have a higher rate of deportations than occurred under the Tories. Now Starmer appears to be moving the so-called Labour Party's economic policies to the right of Reform UK, and in line with an extreme right-wing Tory leader.
Because of my profoundly antifascist upbringing I could never under any circumstances support a far-right party but I can understand that many perfectly decent people might not be feel restrained by that particular taboo, especially that the Tories and now Labour have blurred the distinctions so much.
The by-election and local elections in a couple of weeks time will be interested.
Posted : 12/04/2025 3:57 pm
Once again frogface farage is throwing his tuppence into the ring, crying out for steel industry to be nationalized.
Which is kind of odd as frogface is a free market capitalist, who are dead set* against such nationalizations.
* Unless of course its themselves that have owned it, asset stripped it, and run it into the ground. Then they want it renationalized and will demand they are compensated for their loss
Posted : 12/04/2025 5:30 pm
Why on earth would there need to be a cross-party consensus when the government has a majority of more than 150?
That's why he is such a disappointment. With imagination and will UK could be much improved for the people in the bottom 60% of the populace. Instead of which he fannying around trying to Reform-lite instead of ensuring those that would vote for the light blue fash are discouraged because the Labour party has their backs.
Posted : 13/04/2025 7:57 pm
MSP reacted
I stll believe that the problem is not so much Starmer as the folk he has surrounded himself by and listens to
Posted : 14/04/2025 3:09 am
Starmer is merely the one chosen by Labour Together to front their project. He doesn't have any political commitments at all, just a strong commitment to his own personal career ambitions.
Which is precisely why he was the perfect person to lead the Labour Together project.
Starmer didn't choose his advisors, they chose him.
And that is how Starmer can go with seamless ease from his 10 pledges based on, quote, "the moral case for socialism", to proudly announcing that he is perfectly happy to be called, quote, "a conservative".
Posted : 14/04/2025 7:35 am
proudly announcing that he is perfectly happy to be called, quote, "a conservative".
...at what point does distortion become lying?
This is something he never said at all let alone "proudly announced".
Posted : 14/04/2025 8:52 am
kelvin reacted
Starmer seems perfectly proud of his conservativism, as proud as he previously was of his socialism, quote, "And look – if that sounds conservative, then let me tell you: I don’t care."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-stamer-conservative-new-labour-b2337901.html
Btw I'm lovin the supreme irony of making accusations of lying when trying to defend Sir Keir Starmer
Posted : 14/04/2025 9:17 am
.and what he actually said:
We must understand there are precious things – in our way of life, in our environment, in our communities – that it is our responsibility to protect and preserve and to pass on to future generations,” he said. “And if that sounds Conservative, then let me tell you: I don’t care. Somebody has got to stand up for the things that make this country great, and it isn’t going to be the Tories.”
[He said Rishi Sunak’s party did not stand up for] “our rivers and seas, not our NHS or BBC, not our families, not our nation”.
Posted : 14/04/2025 10:16 am
Yes I know what Starmer said because not only did I link the article but I also read it.
I fully agree with the sentiments behind The Independent's headline :
I don’t care if people think I’m a conservative, says Starmer
That ^^ very much sounds like Starmer declaring being proud of his newfound commitment to conservativism.
Which is in very sharp contrast to him publicly declaring "the moral case for socialism" 3 or 4 years earlier. Most people understand that socialism and conservativism are not the same thing. And Starmer's transition from one to the other has been seamless.
That is not a distortion, as you falsely claim, nor is it a lie.
Posted : 14/04/2025 2:05 pm
That ^^ very much sounds like Starmer
Apart from him not saying it.
Posted : 14/04/2025 2:14 pm
kelvin reacted
I don't think Starmer has changed in the last 3 or 4 years, Ernie, he's just not as nervous about saying what he really thinks.
I also feel that he's being about as socialist as he can be and still have any chance of being reelected. I had a week back in the UK recently and pretty much every person I met or media source I consulted was way to the right of me, and after years of sparring on here I think you'll agree I'm not exactly far left myself. A worrying number were definitely in the Reform zone.
There seems to be a complete disconnect in people's heads between the socialist stuff they want (NHS, public services etc.) and the fact they'll have to pay for it one way or another whether it's in national insurance or tax on something that means they'll ultimately conctribute.
Posted : 14/04/2025 2:36 pm
AD reacted
There seems to be a complete disconnect in people's heads between the socialist stuff they want (NHS, public services etc.) and the fact they'll have to pay for it one way or another whether it's in national insurance or tax on something that means they'll ultimately conctribute.
I'm definitely seeing a lot of this. Also, more and more the term "lefty" is being used in a massively derogatory way. I did challenge someone to define what left wing was and they floundered.
I also feel that he's being about as socialist as he can be and still have any chance of being reelected.
Again, the term socialist is viewed very negatively in the mainstream press and on some social media platforms.
Posted : 14/04/2025 3:09 pm
Once again frogface farage is throwing his tuppence into the ring, crying out for steel industry to be nationalized.
Farage will say the thing that he thinks will get him the headline he craves.
Posted : 14/04/2025 3:49 pm
There seems to be a complete disconnect in people's heads between the socialist stuff they want (NHS, public services etc.) and the fact they'll have to pay for it one way or another whether it's in national insurance or tax on something that means they'll ultimately conctribute.
I'm definitely seeing a lot of this. Also, more and more the term "lefty" is being used in a massively derogatory way. I did challenge someone to define what left wing was and they floundered.
I also feel that he's being about as socialist as he can be and still have any chance of being reelected.
Again, the term socialist is viewed very negatively in the mainstream press and on some social media platforms.
It's unfortunate... Like some very vocal Americans desperate to 'own the lib-tards'.
They probably have no idea what liberal actulay means.
There pensions are worth less and they get less health care but that's somehow a price worth paying for the feeling of one-upmanship.
It's like they want to punish certain demographics, but failing to realise that they too benefit from the benefits.
Imagine being diabetic in the USA and working a job that doesn't provide very comprehensive healthy insurance.
Anyone can be afflicted with any manner of health condition at any time and it could literally bankrupt you in the USA.
There are stories of married couples getting divorced in the USA following a diagnosis as a financial strategy, so the medical bills of the unfortunate partner won't bankrupt the family unit and force them to sell the house to pay for it, etc.
It's insane.
Posted : 14/04/2025 3:50 pm
That ^^ very much sounds like Starmer
Apart from him not saying it.
So The Independent's headline is false too! Is there anyone not falsely reporting and lying about what Sir Keir Starmer said?!?!
Starmer is without doubt a liar and a fraud, everything about him is dishonest - he fought the Labour Party leadership election on a platform of lies and he also fought the general election on a platform of lies.
But let's pretend that he is the victim of misrepresentation!
Posted : 14/04/2025 5:19 pm
Sandwich reacted
Independent's headline is false too!
It is clearly distorting what he said. It's attention getting but misleading as headlines sometimes are, and is not what he said. This is apparent if you read his quoted words. Which again were “And if that sounds Conservative, then let me tell you: I don’t care. Somebody has got to stand up for the things that make this country great, and it isn’t going to be the Tories.” which you translate as him telling folks he's a Tory.
Starmer is careful with his choice of words and I think most people can understand what he's actually saying.
Posted : 14/04/2025 5:31 pm
AD reacted
There's no point hammering this, Ernie, we can all read, we can even differentiate between a small "c" and a big "C". Context is everything, I vote left of center/green but in some respects I'm conservative in the sense that I'm in favour of some traditional social and cultural values; a good education for example. That's conservative but doesn't make me a Conservative as in Tory as a good education is not incompatible with socialism.
The "platform of lies" I sympathise with but take heart from shreds of the manifesto that are being followed.
Posted : 14/04/2025 5:32 pm
a good education is incompatible
With reaching the upper echelons of the Tory/Fash parties is probably more en-point.
Posted : 14/04/2025 6:00 pm
we can all read, we can even differentiate between a small "c" and a big "C"
Apparently not. No one has used the"big C". Have a read again.
Posted : 14/04/2025 10:48 pm
There seems to be a complete disconnect in people's heads between the socialist stuff they want (NHS, public services etc.) and the fact they'll have to pay for it one way or another whether it's in national insurance or tax on something that means they'll ultimately conctribute.
I think this is a fair description of a lot of normal working people. Ten years ago I think a fair few people , not all , would have not been averse to say a penny on income tax for investment in the NHS . But now people on pretty reasonable incomes have found their disposable income heavily reduced after the cost of living crisis.
People want the services , they know the Tories broke them by underfunding them , they know that more money is needed, they just feel like they can't afford to contribute any more .
If Britain is the 6th largest economy in the world there's obviously money around , maybe someone could see where all that money is and maybe see if we could tax a little bit of that .
Posted : 15/04/2025 12:27 am
maybe someone could see where all that money is and maybe see if we could tax a little bit of that .
yep... the 'elites' are not who you think they are, it's not the middle earners mortgaged up to the eyeballs with a brand new 5 series beemer on finance who are 3 pay checks away from bankruptcy, who are desperatly trying to appear sucessfull.
It's Amazon, it's Meta, It's Alphabet, etc.
A really heavy digital/offshore operation tax is needed on operations like this if they want to do business in the UK.
They won't like it, but if they are allowed to make 'reasonable profits' rather than insane tax free profits, they won't leave..profit is profit.
Posted : 15/04/2025 1:57 am
Said several times the evidence says there's no appetite for taxation apart from question time audiences.
Trying to pretend we need to get money to pay for things is broken across the board.
If we separate the reality (government creates the money) and taxation for redistribution (removal of money) then we might get somewhere.
Look around you. No amount of taxation is going to fix the mess we have.
Factually deficits are not big enough currently to make inroads into solutions. Unless, of course we shifted interest income to deficit spending instead. Systematically, it's by design easier to create money (happens every day) than take money from the wealthy which only serves to limit their power etc.
Time to accept currently politics and the economy is organised to never fix the problems we discuss on here.
Imagine 45 years of transfer of state assets. You think 1% tax here and there is going to reverse that? That's ridiculous on every level.
I was quite upbeat when Labour started talking about saving S****horpe (it's a no brainer and should have been prepped ages ago) but Reynolds is talking like a stupid Tory - propping up until commercially viable. Really?
Certain things should not have 'commercially viable' attached to them - but for public purpose. I don't know what it's going to take for this ridiculous party to see the big picture
Posted : 15/04/2025 8:16 am
A major rebellion appears to be hardening on the Labour benches rather than subsiding, despite frantic efforts by whips and government ministers to talk MPs round.
Many of the several dozen Labour MPs who are angry at their party’s cuts say they will refuse to get involved in any such “trade off” involving children in poverty and the disabled.
Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, who is planning to vote against the legislation, said: “You can’t compromise with a trade-off under which you say you will take more children from poor families out of poverty by placing more disabled people into poverty. That simply cannot be right.
Another Labour MP opposed to the cuts, Neil Duncan-Jordan, who won the seat of Poole in Dorset by just 18 votes last July, overturning a Conservative majority of 19,000, said he had more than 5,000 Pip recipients in his seat.
He said he could not support any compromise or “trade off”. “There is not a hierachy of need,” he said. “The whole policy is wrong. It goes without saying that if these benefits cuts go through, I will be toast in this seat.”
It would appear that the centrist's central argument "unfortunately we cannot do as we wish, we have to listen to voters, because that's how you win elections" no longer applies.
Posted : 20/04/2025 8:28 am
rone reacted
Page 440 / 440
Prev
