sundowngirl
I am not a labour supporter and no fan of Starmer but I would much rather he had stayed as PM. I do not trust Andy Burnham over the way he has handled himself.
However considering calling Keir Starmer a tool maker's son as disparaging is a bit of a stretch, when posters are happy to be disparaging to Boris Johnson and Nigel Farrage. Just a couple within this threat:-
Johnson - "that ragged mop head Johnson"
Farrage - "he's a complete and utter grifter"
Cossy - "It’s the element of sheer spite towards another human being which I so vehemently object to, however, as time goes by it’s just what I’ve come to expect in our world of dog eat dog, “goadyness” and utter rudeness.
It won’t stop me, and others, calling it out"
One of the above quotes was from your own post - so do you only "call out" goadyness and utter rudeness to those politicians that you support??
There is a difference between referring to someone's deliberately 'tousled' hair, and to their parent's occupation. One is a reference to the appearance of someone who represented the UK to the rest of the world, and the other to a rather outdated hierarchy of status.
Kier Starmer, love him or hate him, is a very successful man in his own right. He got to the top of the legal profession, and to the top in politics, entirely independent of his father. He always looks the part - rather staid, corporate, but respectful of the people he is talking to and to the role he occupies. The parts of people's appearance that they can control (eg hair or clothing) say a lot about their attitude and sense of responsibility. There is not a lot to say about Starmer's appearance, precisely because he does show respect and responsibility. The fact that people commented on Johnson's appearance (which showed no such respect or restraint) does not give anyone a free pass to make snobbish remarks about Starmer's father - it's really clutching at straws to suggest it might.
The 'tit for tat' attitude about criticising politicians is perplexing. If someone lies, cheats, grifts, gives contracts to cronies, whatever - there is every reason to criticise them, regardless of their party. But criticising one person (regardless of party) does not mean that scrabbling to find something negative to say about members of a different party in some sort of 'revenge' is ok - why would it?
We should criticise actions, otherwise criticisms are just an expression of dislike (although if the occupation of someone's father is a basis on which to dislike someone it says more about the disliker than the disliked).