Channel 4 9pm Keir Starmer. where did it all go wrong?

Is it? I thought his ratings were up because of his stance on Trump’s ridiculous “war”?

Agree there does seem to be a campaign orchestrating hate for Starmer.

Not seen it, but in answer to the original question:
a man promoted because of his ideology, not his ability.

Alan Milburn, who I’ve always liked, seemed to say what many of us think.

“Who else is there to succeed him though?”

No much choice of suitable candidates.

Thanks Primrose will look it up.
I think the answer is it went wrong virtually from the start, he allows others to lead him.Not PM material at all.

I disagree, I believed he was PM and even after a very shaky start I still believe it.

Reasons, he’s bright and well educated, measured and calm.

He’s not the issue, I’m not keen on RR, and I am a fan of both Andy Burnham and Angela Rayner.

The issue is the Labour Party itself, some still very angry about Corbyn, the communications/media side of the LP is utterly abysmal and I also cannot think of anyone, on any side of the house, I’d prefer to have “steering” us through the mess of our world.

Starmer never actually stood a chance, the media hated him from the get-go.

Sorry “PM material”

The mainstream media will always critisize a Labour PM but in the past he would have had support from the party members , the Unions and left leaning voters.
Starmer has, however, deliberately alienated left leaning party members, so has decimated the membership.
He has sacked MPs who have supported striking workers and alienated some of the unions. He has left himself with very few supporting voices.
It is his own fault.

Ilovecheese

The mainstream media will always critisize a Labour PM but in the past he would have had support from the party members , the Unions and left leaning voters.
Starmer has, however, deliberately alienated left leaning party members, so has decimated the membership.
He has sacked MPs who have supported striking workers and alienated some of the unions. He has left himself with very few supporting voices.
It is his own fault.

Is it though? Wasn’t he going to damned if he did, damned if he didn’t?

I’d say his biggest issue, and I truly hope he’s learned from it, is attempting to “appease” too many different groups, resulting in p*****g off everyone?

I have just read a review of the programme. The reviewer seems to suggest that the reason Keir Starmer has not improved peoples lives is because he doesn' t want to. That he does have an ideology, it is to sustain the status quo.
An interesting suggestion, I thought.

Right wing media started their campaign from day one. Ridiculous but predicted.

He hasn't a vision that is what the problem is, that leads to the strategy of trying to appease everyone. Blair managed to survive with a right wing media, and that media has much less power these days.

Does it matter? The state of the economy etc. etc. means this Government is toast and this happens to every Gov. (whatever its colour) in power when the voters turn against it.
"It's the Economy, stupid"

What does being 'toast' mean?

You would really think people would know by now, wouldn't you? The Dispatches episode titled “Labour in Crisis” reflects a particular editorial perspective rather than an objective, settled fact that the Labour Party is definitively “in crisis.”

Whether Labour is “in crisis” depends heavily on what indicators you look at.
Some argue it is in crisis because:
*Internal tensions (historically around leadership, policy direction, and factional divides).
*Criticism over handling of specific issues (e.g., candidate selections, messaging, or disciplinary processes).
*Periodic dips in public trust on certain topics like the economy or immigration.

Others argue it isn't because:
*Under Keir Starmer, Labour has at times led comfortably in national polling (especially in the run-up to the 2024 general election).
*The party returned to government after the 2024 United Kingdom general election, which typically suggests electoral strength rather than crisis.
*Internal disagreements exist in most major parties and don’t always amount to systemic instability.

Documentaries like the Dispatches one are designed to investigate and often emphasise problems or controversies. That doesn’t make them wrong, but it does mean they highlight only one side of a broader, more complex picture.

The truth is usually somewher between such partisan broadcasts and the absolute contradiction of what they say. In this case yes, Labour faces challenges just as any governing party does. But calling it “in crisis” is a debatable interpretation, not a universally accepted assessment.

'In crisis', 'is toast', 'fallen off a cliff', 'on its knees', 'rabbit in the headlights' - as long as people talk like that nobody will say anything meaningful, so discussion will become impossible.

Doodledog

'In crisis', 'is toast', 'fallen off a cliff', 'on its knees', 'rabbit in the headlights' - as long as people talk like that nobody will say anything meaningful, so discussion will become impossible.

Means ‘done for’ probably won’t get back in the next general election.

Oh. I've heard it used to mean someone is going to be killed. Or that they will get into trouble with their parents, but it means 'probably won't get back in the next general election'? We live and learn.

What about 'fallen off a cliff'? Or 'thrown under the bus'?

Doodledog

'In crisis', 'is toast', 'fallen off a cliff', 'on its knees', 'rabbit in the headlights' - as long as people talk like that nobody will say anything meaningful, so discussion will become impossible.

Sadly, you're right.

Doodledog

Oh. I've heard it used to mean someone is going to be killed. Or that they will get into trouble with their parents, but it means 'probably won't get back in the next general election'? We live and learn.

What about 'fallen off a cliff'? Or 'thrown under the bus'?

Yes, live & learn 👍🏻

I share Cossy’s view on where things are with KS and the Labour Party. DAR summarises it.
Doodledog is spot on about the terms bandied about , meaningless and designed to stifle debate.

The left in the party always said they’d support Starmer to win the election, then mobilise to get a new leader. He’s still there. His comms and willingness to properly engage abd negotiate with back benchers has caused real problems - that can’t be denied. I believe he shouldn’t have blocked Andy Burnham.
Despite this we have a better govt than in a long time. Starmer excellent on international affairs

Doodledog

Oh. I've heard it used to mean someone is going to be killed. Or that they will get into trouble with their parents, but it means 'probably won't get back in the next general election'? We live and learn.

What about 'fallen off a cliff'? Or 'thrown under the bus'?

Do you genuinely not know what those expressions mean, or simply dislike them?

Starmer will be replaced long before the next GE.

Oreo

Starmer will be replaced long before the next GE.

In your opinion? Or do you have a crystal ball?

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your guesswork, but currently, that’s all it is.