Never here Keir?

Allira

MaizieD

Casdon

MaizieD

I admire your defence of Starmer, Iam, but the fact remains that he is better at foreign relations than he is at running the country.

Forgive me stating the obvious, but foreign relations are an essential part of running any country?

Objectively, yes, but what is the use of good foreign relations when you have a country full of discontented citizens because their lives aren't improving. In fact, in many cases, are getting worse?

And why appoint a Foreign Secretary?
We don't hear much about her at all - is she ok or is she being sidelined? If so why?

Because the Foreign Minister manages diplomacy, manages the portfolio. The PM represents the country at the highest level. They are the one who ultimately sets the direction. International meetings often require the head of government, not a delegate. They’re different jobs.

I don’t believe Starmer prefers international issues or that he sees running the country as mundane.

Trump’s bullying narcissistic shouting that he will end the war in Ukraine by insisting land is given to Russia and Ukraine will reduce its military has implications for all European heads of state. Thats why they’re all meeting.
Not only did our government inherit a dogs breakfast at home, the world is facing instability that can’t be dismissed

Allira

Casdon

We’re allowed to disagree Galaxy. The world is so volatile at the moment that if the foreign relations ball was dropped we may not need to worry about the UK specific issues. It does surprise me that more people aren’t recognising that yet.

Yes, I do.
But he does have a very competent Foreign Secretary too.

He does, but the events he attends are also attended by his equivalents, not foreign secretaries, I think unusual times such as we are in at the moment are requiring the highest level of engagement. Would that it were not so.

Yes, true.

It's all extremely worrying.

^Yes, I still think he has integrity but I do wish he wouldn't flip-flop. Perhaps he does that because he's a worrier, worries about the consequences of his decisions.
^

He is a people pleaser - always stands by whoever has got into hot water.

He is also a Country pleaser - said[but it disappeared from goo gle] that we have to keep the french happy.
And China happy.

Allira

MaizieD

Casdon

MaizieD

I admire your defence of Starmer, Iam, but the fact remains that he is better at foreign relations than he is at running the country.

Forgive me stating the obvious, but foreign relations are an essential part of running any country?

Objectively, yes, but what is the use of good foreign relations when you have a country full of discontented citizens because their lives aren't improving. In fact, in many cases, are getting worse?

Cue Galaxy:

If things go wrong 'at home' he will lose the next election, then it will likely be reform managing foreign policy decisions.

😲

For once I absolutely agree with Galaxy.

I would say that he's lost the country already.

He's scared a whole lot of people already. Poor pensioners with the appalling winter fuel allowance blunder, disabled people with the threatened 'reforms' to PIP, immigrants with settled status who are now being threatened with 'return' to their country of origin any time within the next 20 years because they won't be able to get citizenship until then. Telling immigrants that they're turning the country into a 'land of strangers', releasing prisoners early so people are scared of who is being turned loose onto the streets (yes I know why it's being done and I doubt it's rally sinister, but people still are fearful)

What has he done about our polluted waterways? About making energy cheaper? About improving the justice system so that rape victims don't have to wait years for their cases to come to trial with their rapists still at large?

All the signs look like more needless austerity for us in the next budget and probably higher taxation. Not higher taxation for the wealthy, of course because they have his ear and defend their generous tax allowances and avoidance ploys to the death.

He's heading a cruel and uncaring government which is hand in glove with the wealthy and placating the racists and people know it.

Do those attacking Starmer now accept that he is at the meetings he is being criticised for attending, because that's his job?

With the world at a very frightening point in history, trying to attack our government seems very unpatriotic. The OP has picked up and reported the words of those who would gladly put themselves and their future before our country and its future.

Do those attacking Starmer now accept that he is at the meetings he is being criticised for attending, because that's his job?

Leave me out of that one, DAR. I'm not attacking Starmer for being out of the country. I'm attacking him for being a very poor PM. and paving the way for Reform in 2029

MaizieD

^Do those attacking Starmer now accept that he is at the meetings he is being criticised for attending, because that's his job?^

Leave me out of that one, DAR. I'm not attacking Starmer for being out of the country. I'm attacking him for being a very poor PM. and paving the way for Reform in 2029

That’s evading the question MaizieD. It is possible for a PM to shine in one area and not others, in fact nearly all of them do. Are you in fact saying that you think Starmer is performing poorly in his handling of foreign affairs?.

DAR - doubt you mean me either.

Starmer should be doing both!!
It is not an either or situation. Far from it!

The budget preparations are an absolute shables.
Worse than that, as it is snarling up so many things while people wait.

I also think, since they have changed course too many times to even count, that even when it is done, they will regret it.

They have no clue whatsoever on finance.

Is that worse or better than war?
Well better.
War is worse.
But a Countrie's finances are vital.

Starmer can be great abroad.
But if his Country is falling to pieces?...

tbh, I am a bit shocked that you appear to think that if Starmer is doing great abroad, then everything is A ok.
Really?

With the world at a very frightening point in history, trying to attack our government seems very unpatriotic.

So, if Farage was the Prime Minister and Reform the Government of the day at a critical point in history, would it be unpatriotic to criticise them?
Or that we shouldn't have criticised Johnson during the Covid crisis?
Does it encourage mistrust and instability?

Are we not able to criticise any aspect of what a Prime Minister or a Government is doing at any critical point in their term of office?

Personally, I think Starmer is probably the best we have at the moment looking at the others, but perhaps he needs to change some of his advisers re home affairs.

fancythat

tbh, I am a bit shocked that you appear to think that if Starmer is doing great abroad, then everything is A ok.
Really?

I’m certainly not saying that, but I am saying that we should acknowledge that he has so far performed well for the UK in foreign affairs, as well as acknowledging that he has performed not well at home. It’s not black and white, with him or anybody else.

Since July 2024, Starmer has spent 26 days out of the country. According to Google, Wikipedia and A1 overview, all say Starmer has made 35 foreign trips to 27 countries during his first 17 months in office visiting countries.

the same sources say Gordon Brown made 63 trips abroad as PM over 35 months- so not proportionally wildly different from Starmer. Covid travel restrictions impacting on foreign trips of course impacted on Boris term of office. Rishi Sunak was proportionally less than Starmer but faced criticism on multiple occasions for his decisions regarding international travel for non attendance- e.g. notably leaving the D Day Commemorations in France and for initially planning to skip UN climate summits. That is all PMs face criticism as the whether they represent the UK on the world stage too much or too little...

Each PM has to weigh up the balance. In an ideal world each PM would be strong and effective both in UK and abroad. Each PM faces a lesser or greater number of crises and country leader summits abroad than others. Eg Tony Blair travelled a great deal to Northern Ireland, brokering the Peace agreement but was UK travel

Starmer has performed much more positively representing the UK abroad than his PM performance in the UK. In an ideal world PM's would perform well in both roles but that is not always, or even usually the case.

All PMs are likely to have an honeymoon period, of a varying period. Starmer's was notably short. Satisfaction in all PMs then dips after that. Eg. John Major had a net satisfaction of minus 59 in August 1994, Starmer had minus 50- 51 in October 2025, currently minus 66, just prior to budget.

Satisfaction with Lix Truss was even lower- she only lasted 49 days in office!

37 countries, not 27, a typo...

I hope the ones who can, now take time to investigate any way that Russia has 'influenced' Farage, for example funding.

I really think Starmer should be minister for foreign affairs or whatever it is called. Not PM, he has absolutely no skills in that sort of leadership. I think he knows it,too.

I think, if it wasn’t for Starmer, Macron and the German guy Trump would be letting Russia completely control the peace deal with Ukraine. Which is vital for the rest of us because if Putin gets away with this he will continues to try to take over his neighbouring countries.

The reform leader isn't the Prime Minister so that comment is irrelevant.. And personally no matter how you try to spin it.. the man is a complete and utter waste of space , and a liar just like his chancellor.

He doesn’t have a chancellor Kats2, he’s the Reform leader, as you said.

nanna8

I really think Starmer should be minister for foreign affairs or whatever it is called. Not PM, he has absolutely no skills in that sort of leadership. I think he knows it,too.

But it's not yours (or mine) to choose. It's still a democracy remember? Our democracy.

I am not aware that Starmer is doing a great job abroad; at best he is networking; at worst, he is toadying.

I have no doubt he has some grand plan to change the face of Britain, to mimic T.Blair, who at least was original, but he is keeping it to himself because it will be to his advantage, not for Britain.

Note the dispensing with trial by jury, and the sly indication of making overtures to the EU. Not in the mandate, not discussed in Parliament, just introduced surreptitiously when everyone is preoccupied with the Benefit boom.

I don’t think trying to have a better relationship, destroyed by the Conservatives, with our closest trading partners ‘ toadying’. Nor do I think it’s ‘toadying’ attempting to have a working relationship with the loose cannon that is Trump. Maybe you would prefer a PM like Truss ( who is now toadying up to Trump big time) who just sniggered when asked if Macron was ‘ friend or foe’.

Toadying to China with the mega building they want for their embassy.
The PM has been warned by our security but he will go ahead and say yes to China, just you wait and see.

DaisyAnneReturns

nanna8

I really think Starmer should be minister for foreign affairs or whatever it is called. Not PM, he has absolutely no skills in that sort of leadership. I think he knows it,too.

But it's not yours (or mine) to choose. It's still a democracy remember? Our democracy.

No ? Really ? I wouldn’t have known …