I never thought I would see it, even The Observer, (and therefore, presumably, the Guardian) have given up on Starmer

He isn't in trouble, the media just like to make out he is!

keepingquiet

He isn't in trouble, the media just like to make out he is!

What even the media that consistently support the party he represents and have been his staunchest allies - until today?

I am sorry we get too much of this if the media say something we agree with, they are seen as being fair and reasonable and when they don't it.is all lies.

There are people in Britain who would make wonderful Trump supporters. No matter what their leader does they continue to believe the sun shines out of his fundament. Anyone who dares to say anything against their leader is a malicious liar. Sorry I do not buy it.

I think he is unpopular with some of his own.

I think he’s been thoroughly bashed by most of the media since he became PM.

I don’t think he can be comparable with Truss.

Just my opinions, of course

Truss was monumentally politically and financially incompetent, Starmer is neither. But once the media get their teeth into someone they do not let go - that is how they sell papers; and how our democracy is corrupted by press barons.

The Observer and the Guardian are no longer from the same stable, Monica, the Observer was sold a few months ago and has changed a great deal since then.

The Observer was bought out by Tortoise Media apparently. It looks like the standard has dropped
Reporting that Keir Starmer is in Liz Truss territory is both inaccurate and preposterous and nasty criticism of the PM's personality is poor journalism imho.
I don't know if the PM can weather the storm but bias reporting will no doubt influence readers.
It look like the saga over Mandleson's appointment will drag on too.

The Guardian broke the story about Mandelson and the security vetting and has been running multiple articles day after day. Tedious and out of proportion given what is going on in the world.

Is it Starmer, the person, that everybody dislikes, or is it what he is doing to the country? I find him somewhat arrogant, and cloth-eared, but I don't believe he is as detrimental as Liz Truss was.

If he is disliked so much, then what can be done to change things? Not a lot for the moment, but I think he will have lost a large percentage of votes at the upcoming elections, and the general election will be a disaster for the Labour party.

The media don't paint him in an appealing light, for sure, but they are not entirely responsible for the feelings of despondency everywhere. That's down to the PM himself who appears to have little vision.

I read the Editor of 🐢 came across from The Times, which is pretty reliable imo.. I guess in that respect, its views will go either way so I wouldn't underestimate what it says in its analysis of KS.

Mamie

The Guardian broke the story about Mandelson and the security vetting and has been running multiple articles day after day. Tedious and out of proportion given what is going on in the world.

Yes, tedious is correct.

The Observer , as others have pointed out has changed hands and editorial imo.

Both are losing balance.

I think and hope the Labour Party in Britain will move on and revive when Starmer finally calls it quits or gets ousted. He hasn’t helped them one little bit. Arrogant man totally out of touch.

i think Starmer is a classic example of the application of the Peter Principle - that someone who is successful will keep getting promoted until they are promoted into a job they cannot handle. Starmer has had a successful legal career and risen to the top inthat career. A staunch Labour supporter and voted into Parliament, it was assumed he would excel as a Prime Minster, but that was the promotion too far

He has proved to be cloth-eared, deaf to the sensitivities of his job and flat-footed on the international stage.

As for those who castigate the papers. if we do not get our news about Parliament - or anything else for that matter - from the news media where do we get it?

Where do the people who do not believe anything in the media, get the information that tells them it is all wrong? if there are private information sources going only to the select few, surely this is both counter productive and deeply sinister.

But it is all about balance and critical thinking. Information can be gleaned from many sources, use this to form your world view not simply based on publications that are owned and disseminated by extremely wealthy owners who make clear their political leanings.

In fact always question what you read or listen to.

Of course you will have you own bias which will frequently accord to your chosen news outlet, but never lose your critical reasoning.

People who do not believe the media when they see that others have selected pieces to critique from one or two sources only are generally those who read from as wide a range of sources as they can find I think M0nica. It’s always helpful to look for the source material too, eg from the Labour Party itself in this case, as it will be them who decide Starmer’s fate.

I fail to understand how anyone can support Starmer having once learned that he, in conjunction with Richard Hermer, worked pro bono for Phil Shiner. in the false prosecution of soldiers who had served in the Iraqui war. Starmer was involved once, Hermer for several years, but Starmer as Prime Minister, set about repealing the Legacy Act, opening the way for further prosecutions of serving soldiers. This has apparently now been shelved following strong representations from the Military until the next Parliament, not sure when.

The fiasco of Starmer's intention to promote Mandelson is outstripped by his 'ennoblement' of Hermer to create him Attorney General, without any previous parliamentary experience, unable to speak, or be questioned, in the Commons yet wield an immense influence over Labour policy. Mandelson is not in post; Hermer is.
I became aware of this some time ago when researching the previous career of Starmer, then Hermer, not via the media who are accused of making things up.
Perhaps the intention of the poster is simply to provoke an interesting debate.

I have no problem with Starmer. He is not perfect - which politician is? - but he is the right person for the job at this moment and I hope the media do not hound him out. We will all live to regret that if they do.

You aren’t a Labour Party member eazybee, so I can understand why you don’t understand.

I am a voter of long standing and I understand perfectly what Starmer thinks he is about. He is also a laughing stock, a very difficult position from which to recover. In common with many other people I thought he would be a safe if dull pair of hands to replace Corbyn as leader, and later as PM. He has proved to be a disaster.
I also understand that at present there appears to be no obvious successor in the Labour party, certainly not Angela Rayner who fatally believes her own publicity. In 404 MPs there are definitely some candidates but perhaps they don't want the responsibility.

You didn’t get what I meant I don’t think eazybee. The Labour Party are keeping Starmer in post for their own reasons, which are not to do with what you, as a voter who probably didn’t vote for him in the first place, think.

Starmer is a lawyer and counts lawyers among his political supporters. A education and a career in law is to be desired in a politician: it shows intelligence and a sense of justice within the law

eazybee. The few who still support Starmer have blind faith.

When most of his own MPs don’t even support him that should tell them something. Then there are all the newspapers, TV channels, the general public, social media, polls etc etc all of whom want rid of him.

Not blind faith. Just realistic.

^ An education and a career in law is to be desired in a politician: it shows intelligence and a sense of justice within the law^
Which is exactly what I thought of Starmer.......until he came into power. All Phil Shiners prosecutions were proved to be false.

All PMs are flawed - they are politicians after all - and humans.

At this moment in time I would rather have Starmer's flaws than anything that has gone before or is on offer as a substitute.

Starmer has done good things, but the media ignore these and concentrate on headline-grabbing stuff that gives them power.

The MSM influences so many, which is why autocrats make great efforts to control those forms and formats.