Keir Starmer stepping down as an MP

We’re destined not to agree on this M0nica. John Major only stayed on until the next election after he lost the leadership, quite a few former PMs do that. I always feel sad for them that they feel obliged to do that - if they were happy as backbench MPs they would stay on longer, but I can’t think of any that have done that.

Casdon

I don’t agree M0nica, anybody who is demoted would be less motivated. You make it sound as though it’s a bad thing for an MP to be ambitious beyond looking after their own constituents, but surely anybody who wants a better country would stand a far better chance of achieving real change if they had more influence? An ex PM is a spent force.

We obviously mix with different people to me. Demotion is not necessarily demotivating. It depends on the circumstances. John Major stayed on as an MP for sometime after he was sacked by both party and voters - and without loss of stature in party or country.

I am not against ambition, but an MP's prime responsibility is to those who elected him - If he is sacked from the cabinet, whether prime Minister, or just a minister, he is still left with his prime responsibility to his constituents.

With Starmer we are faced with a situation for him which is lose/lose. Either he was lying when he said he would stay on as MP until the next election or he meant it at the time but has since received an offer he cannot refuse and sold his constituents for whatever he will be paid.

As for ex PMs being a spent force, Do not mistake their names being less in the papers as being a spent force. David Cameron certainly has been, reduced to mixing with dodgy Australian financiers to turn a penny, that and manage his significant inheritance, but he always struck me s being a real clever clogs, but not intelligent. On the other hand his partner in government, George Osbourne, also a clever clogs, but highly intelligent as well has done very well indeed.

On the Labour side. Tony Blair has done very well for himself since retiring. Gordon Brown would have also done as well, had he chosen to. But he was always the 'sea-green incoruptible', which was why he was not a successful Prime Minister, but he has since he was PM committed his time to Social issues on an international scale and won awards and plaudits worth more to him than all Blair's money.

AB on Radio Manchester:

“25 September 2025
Andy Burnham has said he has "no intention of abandoning" his work as the mayor of Greater Manchester after speculation about a potential challenge for the Labour leadership”

… said whilst the plotting to oust KS was already in motion.

Apparently, it’s fine for AB to go back on his word but not KS.

Hypocrisy is a weird thing!

He soon found out that being PM and all it entails is vastly different to being Leader of the Opposition.

I couldn’t stand the man and I am so glad he is no longer there for all my remaining British family’s sake. I am sure he will make a better whatever he wants to do than he did a politician.

Actually I’m wrong! Starmer did say in an interview that he would stay on as an MP as the clip just came up on the tv news.

The wallpaper is a good example, because we all remember Starmer bangingbon about it in the Commons to criticise Boris' freebies. Starmer even researched the price of the actual wallpaper per roll
Why then do exactly the same thing himself with glasses and dresses, regardless of the price?

I've never held any spite for Starmer, I've never wished him ill in any way. Being a leader is a poisoned chalice for sure, but squeaky clean somehow has to be a priority.

Nice try Doodledog to make out Starmer was the best thing since sliced bread but the fact that his own MP’s wanted him gone says it all.
Starmer was useless once in power and it was there for all to see.

Well said, Doodledog.

Doodledog

Casdon

I don’t see it quite like that Oreo, I think once you’ve been PM it’s very hard to continue to motivate yourself, watching things change that you have set up and believed in is profoundly dispiriting, and you need a new challenge, leaving the MP role clear for a new young enthusiastic MP to make their mark.

I agree with this, and the comments on this thread show that whatever Labour politicians do they will be accused of duplicity and dishonourable motives by the mind-readers amongst us.

In his position I would find it very difficult to hang on, and fully understand why he feels the need to move on. He has proved himself an excellent international statesman, and feel sure that he will do well in that role without his every move being sneered at and second guessed - that must be so dispiriting. I wish him well.

I haven’t accused KS of being either duplicitous or dishonourable but can’t agree that standing down from his MP job is honourable in any way.
It just isn’t.
It’s called doing what you want to do because you can’t face being a backbencher.
All praise to Sunak that he was able to carry on being an MP.
Cameron stopped being an MP too even tho he promised his constituents that he would stay.
KS never promised that he would stay, so his resignation isn’t dishonourable but neither is it honourable in any shape or form.

I feel for Kier in all of this, but just as we are constantly told that running an economy is not the same as running a household budget, running a country is not the same as leading a branch of the WI, or a department at work. There is no room for friendship and loyalty if it means not getting elected again, and seeing genuinely-held beliefs unable to bear fruit - even worse if there is a real chance that Putin might further destabilise the UK by getting Farage into power. The stakes are very high.

Yes, Labour had a huge majority, but as many of those expressing anger at Burnham pointed out - some of that was because the Tories made such a hash of things, and for many Labour were seen as a more caring and less authoritarian alternative to Reform.

Starmer had a lot of good ideas, and I think he was/is a good man who was seeing a lot of them through, but he was unpopular and subject to the sort of vitriol I never saw with Johnson or any of the other Tory shoe-ins, except perhaps for Truss, who ruined many lives with her budget.

Yes, people always criticise politicians, but the spite against Starmer went way beyond criticism of the policies he was accused of not having. As this thread shows, that spite is continuing even after he resigned. I’m not surprised he’s going. Yes, it would have been better for Labour if he’d stayed, but given the way his colleagues failed to back him from day one, I’m not sure why he would prioritise that.

For comparison - Johnson was criticised for lying to the Queen and to parliament, for things like spending thousands of pounds of donated money on wallpaper, for cronyism and more. Starmer accepted spectacles, and was treated as though he had swindled us all out of millions. The press were against him and his personality was not the type to fight back - he preferred to put his head down and get on with the job.

Had that worked, and had the electorate seen through the slogans and manipulative reporting, he might have built on his majority, but it didn’t work, and there was a risk that the vision of a fairer Britain would never be fulfilled. Burnham could see that, and stepped in to do his best to turn things round. He is a lot more media-savvy, but even so he will be up against hostile media too.

Of course he was motivated by personal ambition too - all politicians, from all parties are. Why is that so surprising? Look at Polanski! A chancer if ever there was one.

(My own MP was pretty involved in the coup, and I must say I didn't like it and in my branch there was a rueful feeling from many and recognition of Starmer's best qualities, but generally it was felt "sadly needful".)

it's not like him to go for the gravy boat 😆

Yet then you mention his faux pas with the freebies. That to me looks a person with a desire to enjoy a wealthy lifestyle on someone else's account. He didn't need to do that, he was already well off enough from his past earnings.

Alas those stab marks are pretty common in politics. It ain't nice, it ain't fair, I disapprove, and I didn't cope when it came to me at work, skin far too thin, but there will be lots of covert examples.

I'm not a Labour voter but I really felt for Sir Keir Starmer and the way he was treated. He brought Labour to power with a thumping majority but was still cast aside when things were not going well. If every PM was ousted when times are tough they will need to install a revolving door at No 10.
He seems a decent family man so I hope he finds a future where he is valued and doesn't have to inspect the back of his jacket to look for stab marks. Good luck for him.

Yes Galaxy true for me on both counts. A good traditional Green MP tho, to my mind will help change along.

Yes it is, Galaxy.

As for the HoL, it's a mixed opinion here. There are some Lords doing a really good job giving the tine to issues that the HoC are not - but frankly I can't see him there, I think he can achieve more in those other roles.
As regards the coup in the LP to get AB in, my opinion is that sadly it was necessary, and it was a coup. The Starmer/Reeves partnership was not working well enough for us all. They actually made many small but valuable changes, but over shadowed by certain issues, and the Mandelson one was the killer. He should never have been appointed, and Starmer chose his back up staff badly imo.

The press had ripped into him on the glasses issue, pretty b**** unfair when you consider what Farage as an example gets up to, but he never should have accepted anything.

The Greens have gone done a rabbit hole that is going to be difficult to extricate themselves from.
Starmers decision isnt at all surprising, I dont really know why he would have stayed. His whole life has been altered very suddenly, of course, he is going to look at where he wants to go next.

A good Green MP, even tho I am a LP member, is fine by me - I mean one who focuses on Climate change, like the one who stood up yesterday at the end of AB's inaugural speech in the HoC and indeed, spoke on climate change.

Goodness, me, needed after this summers lessons and drought through the world and consequences. Don't go by the leader - go by the candidate is what I'd ask. Polanski may or may not last.

As regards Starmer, frankly, it's up to him. He did show talent on international matters and it's not like him to go for the gravy boat.
But I'd see him best as a barrister working within the CPS to change what is needful there.

I don’t agree M0nica, anybody who is demoted would be less motivated. You make it sound as though it’s a bad thing for an MP to be ambitious beyond looking after their own constituents, but surely anybody who wants a better country would stand a far better chance of achieving real change if they had more influence? An ex PM is a spent force.

It will only fall to the Greens if the voters vote for them in large enough numbers to win.

Well quite a few of the anti Starmer posts are from labour voters so it is a bit more complicated than that.

Well said MOnica I totally agree with you it was all about him and now his safe seat could fall to the Greens doesn't bare thinking about.

An MP's first responsibility is to his constituents. If he then gets preferment and becomes leader of hist party, then Prime Minister, he still needs to be an MP and serve the constituents who elected him.

Surely, having stepped down as MP, Starmer should have done what he said and stayed on until the next election to serve his constituents, who are now to be put to all the expense of having to pay for an election campaign.

As for those who said 'Well, it won't be very nice for him, having to work with people who so let him down.' Oh, for heavens sake, what is he a man or a mouse. If he cannot cope with a bit of aggro from his peers what was he doing being Prime Minister? Did he retire to his hotel bedroom and have a little cry every time another countries leader said anything nasty about him.

I assume the attractions of the peerage, which must inevitably come, were too great. I mean membership of the House of Lords, must add a lustre to his credentials on the international scene and be worth at least another £100,000 income a year.

It is clear that Keir Starmer, like his Conservative predecessor David Cameron, was only in politics for what he could get out of it and when their laurels slipped and they lost their political pre-eminence, they hightailed off to all the wealthy friends they had made and whose libations of well paid sinecures was balm to their bank balances.

And people castigate Nigel Farage for being an opportunist!