I honestly don't know why Labour doesn't immediately just bring up Attlee, the most boring politician in living memory who led one of the most progressive governments in modern UK history. It instantly shoots down the necessity of a leader needing to be massively charismatic.
It's actually astonishing how much Atlee flies under the radar. Seemingly the only people who've heard about him are people who've purposely looked it up.
Well yeah I'm not expecting them to know them all, certainly Churchill, Thatcher, Blair... and you'd think Atlee, considering how much changed under him.
Cannot mention him because in those days politicians of all sides actually worked together
What Attlee did was popular on both sides of the house as both sides worked on it before Labour won the election that meant he enacted it
Politicians today will not work together
> What Attlee did was popular on both sides of the house as both sides worked on it
Keir Starmer doing the same, not because of compromise but because Labour fills both sides of the Chamber loll
When Churchill said that Attlee would need to create a British Gestapo to implement his policies, that was really a classic example of politicians working together.
I disagree. I think our politics is a lot less adversarial than the US for example, and that our politicians can and often do work together. We just tend to remember instances of conflict more readily, which is only natural. The media also has little incentive to continue to report on a story for very long if it's a bill that's wrapped up quickly.
For example: Ukraine, Covid legislation, the Net Zero Emissions Target back in 2019 (before Rishi extended it), the Windsor Framework, the 2022 Online Safety Bill, the smoking ban.
There's a common refrain that British politics is 5/10 years behind American politics.
I agree right now that we have politicians that are willing to compromise and work together. I do worry that this election is going to see more hardiness getting into parliament, who would rather gum up the gears of parliament than actually work together to run the country. Kinda like the British equivalent if the tea party, or even more extreme.
And proof can be in the pudding; policies of adding VAT to private schools and starting a public energy company are a lot more left leaning than Brown and Blair would have put their name too.
The scrubbing of character we are referring too is the only attack line opponents and pseudo supporters have.
Probably because his town and country planning act is one of the reasons our country is in the mess that it is. How's Labour supposed to talk about building housing or infrastructure while bigging up the guy who invented nimbyism
Atlee was actually quite right wing by today's left wing standards. Was a staunch supporter of Nato, sent troops to South Korea. Thatcher was even a fan.
He also started our nuclear weapons programme, and invested co siderabky into our military and defence programmes.
He was an excellent leader, but his record wasn't perfect. He oversaw the partition of India, which was utterly awful and disastrous. It led to the largest migration in human history and caused millions of deaths.
We still feel the effects of this today.
It doesn't bother me. I'd rather a serious lawyer running the country than the usual "someone I'd have a pint with in 'Spoons" yardstick that many seem to judge by.
> What happened was that Walker's displaced Golden Wonder as the market leader.
And the country has been on a road to ruin ever since. Makes you think.
People complained for years that politics is boring, and now that a boring person might be in charge of the country they're unhappy with that too.
A boring politics is probably a healthy politics.
You'd have thought people would reflect on this after how badly the election of *Boris* Johnson, an actual made up persona - the political Mr. Bean - went.
If you want dramatic politics, go to Russia. It's literal theatre; everything is on the verge of going to shit, and then the heroic, manly prince rides in and rights all wrongs, keeps the factory open, arrests whoever is doing a Corruption, restores order after the Western-backed riot of degenerates and traitors.
Anybody who actually gets impressed by that stage-managed rubbish deserves to be sat down and made to watch Triumph of the Will, while the most patronising person on Earth constantly pokes them and goes, "Cor, that Hitler sure looks impressive! He's so confident!" I like living in a country where a guy can play D:Ream over the Prime Ministers' election announcement and not get disappeared.
>A boring politics is probably a healthy politics.
This is exactly what we need to remember when it comes to the election. We've got plenty of rubbish but entertaining "reality" TV shows without making Parliament another one.
Honestly, after the shitshow the last 10 years have been, I want politics to just be a bunch of boring people in grey suits again who just keep the keep the country running and arent in the news cos of scandals every other week
I'd quite a like a pint with Boris, to laugh at some of his stories. But I absolutely didn't / don't want him running the country.
Gordon Brown would be dull as anything down the pub but did a decent job running the country.
Starmer to me seems to straddle that line that he'd have some decent bantz in the pub but also be able to run the country effectively. I like that.
> Starmer to me seems to straddle that line that he'd have some decent bantz in the pub but also be able to run the country effectively. I like that.
Exactly this. Well, except that I'd have no interest in listening to fat, posh, Worzel Gummidge lying through his teeth about how brilliant he is with some made up stories.
I'm not even sure I'd like to go to the pub with Tony Blair, Not after seeing that Christmas card where it looks like Cherie looks like she's holding him back from trying to deck you at the bar.
I disagree on lack of coherence. I'm also less concerned about people who change their minds, so long as I get an explanation *why* they change their mind.
As an example, contrast this with Sunak's "I have a plan" mantra. I don't want someone who'll stick to a plan that's not working, just so they can say they have one.
I want many more things than the current manifesto offers, but I am happy at the Idea of returning to competence in the first instance. The bar is low right now. I will expect bolder policies in 4 years time.
People always said Corbyn didn't seem statesman-like. Then they say Starmer is too serious and lawyerly.
In terms of persona, putting aside policy, I think he's what you'd want in a PM.
I dont want my PM drinking horlics and getting an early night sleep. I want him in a Spandex union jack leotard that's 3 sizes too small, zip lining across the country
corrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr i'd love to have a pint with Nigel. He's real salt of the earth........and by some weird extension that makes him the ideal man to run the country.
His private school upbringing and career as a stockbroker, i.e. the exact same story as Sunak, really just makes him one of us working class chaps, you know?
I think after Boris and the idiots that came after him, people are just used to having a clown or a lettuce in charge.
I'm quite looking forward to having a PM who's quirkiest line is 'My father was a toolmaker'
I mean I'm not sure this is true. They've definitely exasperated the phenomenon but people have always wanted something a bit extra from their leaders. Tony Blair was very charismatic, and David Cameron basically copied the formula. John Major was criticised for being so boring. Margaret Thatcher got enunciation lessons for this very reason. Harold Wilson played up to the image with his pipe because he knew it would inject a bit of charisma into his image. It's always been there.
Yes charisma in politics is actually pretty important, especially if you want to lead.
It is the power of persuasion and trust and communication, which is quite a power.
Starmer does lack some charisma unfortunately. He was really caught off guard in the debate yesterday with the robotic thing.
But, he has strengths in other ways. He’s a highly decorated and professionally accomplished man.
He could easily play up to the fact that he doesn’t need charisma because he’s a serious man, who gets shit done, and if you want substance over style, then that’s him.
He's absolutely uninspiring as a speaker and orator. He only feels appearing in comparison to the absolute pit of scum and villainy we've endured for the last how many years.
Right now, many of the public view voting Labour as a way to get everything the Tories promised but failed to deliver over the last 14 years. But at some point, the public is going to discover that it wasn't just the Tories being inept and that the country has deep structural problems that will take a considerable amount of time, effort, and hardship to resolve - and that's the point where Starmers lack of charisma is going to become a big problem.
Oh no I get you, my take is that Starmer does have charisma, he just looks wooden next to the cavalcade of fuckery we've had recently.
He doesn't strike me as another May/Brown/Major
That’s exactly it. I don’t want a character running the country. I want a calm and collected professional in charge. Rishi *tries* to be like that but only when he’s not interrupted or questioned on what he just smoothly delivered. Then he becomes the tetchy git we all know and hate.
The thing about everyone finding that funny is it shows that part of the brand has sunk in, while Sunak mentions working weekends in his parents’ pharmacy business as an attempt to sound like an everyman and it just won’t stick.
I think when he has to talk as The Leader he gets a bit too politician like with some responses that avoid committing to certain statements.
When he gets to talk about himself and what he likes and does, his personality seems far more relaxed and open as well as the way he speaks. During the interview last night, when he spoke of his fatherhood, he gave one of the best responses he's ever done.
My favourite part was where he'd skewer someone, usually Bojo, on a point, and then when they'd respond with the usual brand of waffling bullshit, he'd just look at them like they were a particularly nasty bit of shit he'd found on his shoe.
Starmer is one of the best Barristers this country has ever produced, if he hadn't chosen to go into politics he would be a Law Lord or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court right now.
QC before 40, DPP before 45, Knight Commander before 55, and Privy Councillor before 60. Many people would have been satisfied with that career, he could easily have taken a partnership at any major law firm and earned millions, but wants to be in public service.
He's a serious man for serious times.
Not bad for a Leeds University graduate!
The reason he doesn't talk about it is human right's lawyers are a wedge issue with upper middle class swing voters.
I was talking with a Barrister friend about this the other day, as I was curious about Braverman's reputation (abysmal), she was saying that Kier's entry into politics was a surprise because he's so well regarded in the profession. National and international profile, people were expecting a senior judicial appointment followed by either the Supreme Court or The Hague, and a lucrative of-counsel or partnership.
He's in the top 1% of barristers in general and the top 1% of human rights specialists internationally.
Most people don't know that the McLibel case would never have gone ahead without him. The two defendents, who had made flyers showing things which McDonalds didn't want customers to know, represented themselves, but made clear that Kier Starmer was where they were getting their legal knowledge from. He did it all for free until the case reached the UCHR.
[https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/keir-took-mcdonalds](https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/keir-took-mcdonalds)
He's won a number of awards for pro bono work, most notably the *Bar Council's Sydney Elland Goldsmith Award in 2005 for his outstanding contribution to pro bono work in challenging the death penalty in Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, and the Caribbean.*.
Sunak is an upgrade on Call Me Dave and George Osborne who weighed in with a 2:1 in Modern History, Sunak got a first and a Stanford MBA. Kier has an LLB and postgrad BCL and a whopping 7 honorary doctorates.
Yes - not me, but I can absolutely admit and see that it was charisma that got him elected. I'm not a fan of Starmer's policies - I think he's been fundamentally and catastrophically wrong on Brexit ever since he became leader - but I must admit that he's neutralised Johnson, who had seemed unassailable in 2019 very effectively.
Personality will always be something people want to see from their leaders - Starmer is just a bit boring. But boring is something the country could probably do with for a bit!
But historically, rightly or wrongly if you’re coming across as a bit of a wet flannel, you could have the best policies ever but I think people deep down just go *really, YOU’RE going to get that into law?*
I think someone with a bit of charisma etc just comes across as a little more *I can do this, you can tell I can do this*
Starmer seems very efficient, and once he’s in power he’ll be able to show he can do things he wants I’m sure, but charismatic people will always come across better
Jfc GIVE ME BORING POLITICIANS. Politics shouldn’t be exciting. Politics should be about calmly and competently getting on with the job of improving the lot of the citizens of the UK. “Exciting” politics is exhausting.
Theresa May was boring as shit, both in her politics and her personality. Not sure many people fancy making her PM again.
Boring and competent aren't the same thing.
I feel like May would have been a fairly average unremarkable PM in normal times. She just had the misfortune of being handed the impossible task that was dealing with Brexit
Well, she got the job because she accepted the poison chalice, let's be honest. I agree she'd have been a middling PM but that still puts her head and shoulders above her successors.
I didn't agree with May, but I never felt she was actively trying to cripple the country for personal gain.
May was boring but she was only the head of a government that was chaotic and undecided even in itself which way it wanted to take Brexit. It's been chaos for a very long time.
Yeah but boring politics leaves a door wide open for the populist far-right to come in. It happened in the US in 2016, it's currently happening in Germany and France.
Unfortunately, in a democracy with free press, boring is a luxury only afforded us when things are going great for most people ... They aren't at the moment
Swings and roundabouts though, the reason Starmer is way ahead despite being boring is *because* we had populism last time round, and we saw the results of populism.
Boring politics should not be the objective.
To mobilise a society towards one concerted effort you need exciting and engaging politics that captures peoples’ emotions and feelings. If we were all neurodivergent autistic robots I’m sure ‘boring’ politics would work, but that’s not what human beings are.
People also forget he works with Angela as a team and she has enough charisma for both.
This isn't the Tory party with one person at the top clinging to power. They work together, and they compliment each other perfectly.
And if he doesn't get the UK back on track? (track to what? From where to where?) He doesn't seem to be advocating for much apart from being more competent than the Tories, but still following Tory economics (focus on growth and wealth creation, Lizz Truss is that you?)
Both, they're abolishing non dom status which at least is a start. They need to increase corporation tax and taxes on the rich.
They also need to borrow and invest it in upgrading the railways, water, education.
Thames Water is on the brink of collapse and London is 7th on the drought list. Check out Gary Stevenson, this guy knows what he is talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/@garyseconomics
I don't think you appreciate how well and truly broken the systems are, be it the NHS, water, housing, energy costs. None of these have easy solutions and will likely take years to show any noticeable change for the better. I fear that in 5 years it'll look enough like it is now that collective amnesia will take over and they votes will swing to another round of free market falderal.
Sunak doesn't strike me as slippery, Trump is slippery, Boris is slippery.
Sunak comes across as a man out of his depth. He's far too young for his current position and the Tory party never ever should have allowed this leadership situation to happen.
Starmer comes across as a smart guy, stern I suppose but he is intelligent. He's not scared either, I think he seems strong.
Starmer doesn't pound the podium or act like a man of the people like Trump or Farage do, but his statesmanlike style works.
Two of our greatest prime ministers in Sweden, Tage Erlander and Per Albin Hansson, were boring as fuck. They had no charisma and literally had the personalities of old men. Didn't stop them from running the country competently, though.
People who are not that interested in politics like to have a good laugh at the PM and want someone whos either got the charisma of Hitler or the clowness of Johnson. Sadly those people make up the bulk of the electorate so parties need someone like that at the head to garner votes from most people. The focus on the leaders and away from policy really ruins our elections as well as the voting system imo.
We're talking about someone to run the country in the best interests of the population.
I'd rather have a stiff and humourless, boredom-inducing nerd than a sexually incontinent chummy clown who just wants everyone to like him.
I've spent the last 10 years having to actually care about politics because of this shitshow. I want a break.
I don't want my politicians to be interesting or charismatic. I want them to be boring and have a genuine sense of public service.
Hate the way the media always peddles this angle.
Sometimes I think Starmer needs to more actively embrace the boringness. Politics done right *should* be boring because it would be things just working. A bit like admin. If you want entertainment, go to bojo, or take up lettuce-watching.
Because he has opponents that will smear him with any criticism that sticks. He’s leagues ahead of Sunak. Only leader that measures up to him is Davey, in my opinion. Sunak is a spineless, slimey elitist, Farage is Farage, Swinney is irrelevant, don’t even know who leads the Greens …
Well... people kind of do want a kids show presenter.
The idea that the leader of a political party has to be charismatic is just pushing the idea that the electorate vote for a person rather than a plan. Sadly this seems to be true.
People's problem is that he refused to actually say what he will do for a long time, and often went back on those promises by watering them down. He seemingly has no vision for the country, no energy really, just boring managerial stuff. There are massive problems in the country which need actual change, not a slightly tweaked version of the same shit we've had for as long as anyone can remember.
To be successful as a politician, at least during hard times, you need to convince people you have a vision. Not rocking the boat might work well when the boat is going the right way, but we're headed full speed into the rocks, we need to turn now. Starmer needs to make certain decisions that will be difficult and unpopular, and he's given me no reason to believe he will make those decisions, his entire "pull" is just basic competence without causing problems, but the solution to our current problems just don't lie that way.
The Starmer being boring line is so prevalent because he purposefully makes himself boring. I don't get why this gets glossed over, both on a personal level and a political level he has made himself the most bland and inoffensive candidate imaginable.
Couldn't give less of a fuck that he's sometimes a bit stiff, I actually don't think he is that much anyway tbh.
Sunak comes across as vapour, Boris is a global joke, May was stiffer than a lamp post herself, Truss a nightmare, Cameron an elite.
Why such focus on Starmer now all of a sudden vs that lot.
Because at the risk of sounding like a snob, many disinterested average people look at some charisma and let it sway them. They aren't interested in if policies work and such. They need their attention caught and sound bites to sway them.
The average person is either too narrow minded or too busy to actually pay attention to policy and views politics through the lens of a popularity contest. Unfortunately that's also how we end up with ridiculous circus situations such as Donald Trump holding nuclear codes and Boris being elected.
Normal politicians who are there to do politics are too boring to compete with them because the electorate is stupid. There's not really a nicer way to say it.
For me it's not about being boring, I have no issues with boring politicians.
The issue is that he talks like a stereotypical politician, talks a lot but doesn't say anything. I'd equally dislike it if his waffle was amusing.
If he was dull but saying something of substance, I would like him a lot more.
His best answer last night was about what he feared and he gave an honest, not a typical politician answer.
"In my mind, people with Charisma are often somewhat false and disingenuous."
In my experience its because most good scammers are charismatic. Not because mot charismatic people are scammers though.
In the end its all about YOU - the voter - if you don't check your preferred candidate's words, actions for logic/morality/consistency, then you are part of the problem.
I partially agree, in that he comes across decent and competent, but not remotely "honest", that's people's problem with him more than the stiffness. He's cultivating a duplicitous politicker image and I think it'll harm him a bit in the long run.
Exactly, it's like he's pre-programmed to give certain answers, bash Corbyn, claim no tax increases etc.
He'd gain far more credit and respect if he came out and describe which taxes he would increase and why (outside of VAT for private schools which has been done to death).
The issue isn't a lack of charisma or charm - no one really cares about that. It's a lack of trust.
Yes. And because he's so vague in what he says, Labour activists project whatever they or the person they're trying to convince of Starmer's merits supports onto him. Which is bound to lead to disappointment and resentment, and, ad you say, look super untrustworthy.
You do wonder about ad hominem nature of the criticism that Starmer is facing.
Case in point being last nights Sky interviews where several audience members made comments about Starmer being 'boring' or 'robotic'
If you're in Stramers position and the worst that can be levelled against you is the perception that you're a little boring or wooden then perhaps he's doing something right.
Trump, Farage and Boris have charisma, and are all awful people (and in Trump's case, and possibly the others, an outright sociopath).
Give me a dorky Ed Miliband any day of the week.
Of course charisma and a gift for oratory in a good man is even better. But it's quite rare.
> dorky Ed Miliband
Ed Miliband had and still has way more charisma than anybody ever gave him credit for. He's got that podcast these days and I straight up like the guy, a lot. I would hang out with him.
Doubtful, all I’ve seen is ‘he lacks charisma’ oh and by the way he is hiding whatever I vented thing we’ve just imagined. He is a centralist who is too boring to do anything yet also a raging communist who is going to change everything … both at the same time…. apparent,y
Definitely - we’re asking someone to take responsibility for managing a country and handling crises. The ability to protest, come out with latin jokes or excite ex-eastenders by dogwhistling about forrins is probably not in that skillset. I like Starmer because (a) he has done well in life coming from a working class background and (b) he clearly is in it for the country - he could have a much more peaceful life as senior partner in a law firm.
Anyone but slimy Sunak or bumbling Boris - last few leadership choices for the Conservatives have been atrocious. Which makes me worry about the MP's in the party, and their ability to choose a strong leader, not a showman with a spitting image smile!
I am happy for someone with some actual common sense and a serious complexation to take on the job and take it bloody seriously. No bullshit, no gimmicks, just an actual bloke who cares about the UK, and a government that wants to be progressive, truthful and thoughtful of peoples needs. Couldn't care less about Charisma.
Honestly, this is the biggest risk with the Tories. No matter how moderate your local MP, the membership have become radicalised by the Telegraph and will carry on voting for the most unpalatable option. Sunak is toast so those members - a tiny selectorate of aged out of touch ideologues - will likely be doubling down on the lunacy.
They destroyed Ed Milliband on a speech impediment and a photo of him eating a bacon sandwich. It's an attack line that some morons are picking up and running with.
The point is that, that is the criticism ls Starmer. He is a bit dull. He is not incompetent, hasn't ran a country into the ground and can out last lettuce.
It is brought up as a criticism because it is the most negative thing most people have to say about him
I’m not sure it’s that he’s stiff. He’s a serious professional and this is a serious job. On Matt Fordes podcast, He’s hilarious at times. I think he can settle in and connect a lot more.
https://shows.acast.com/the-political-party/episodes/keir-starmer-replay
I think at this point it's a bit of a meme that he's going to find hard to shake. He's no stiffer than Gordon Brown and certainly a hell of a lot more natural than Ed Milliband.
I think (hope) that when he's in power with a whacking majority, he can convince people through actions not personality.
You want a firebrand, look at Rayner. She's getting plenty of Optics.
Starmer is being plain so the press can't go after him too hard and it's worked.
Attlee was boring and Bevan was an interesting subordinate. We've got good shit from that before.
I prefer my politicians boring and focused on policy. My issues with Starmer are that he's dragging Labour to the right so it doesn't matter which of the neo lib parties get into power.
How’s Rishi any more charismatic? That dude is a dork just as much if not more than Starmer. Feels like a media bias to me. They want each candidate to be equal to a degree and got nothing better to shoot at Starmer for while the list only grows for Rishi
The reality is that reddit audience is not representative of the electorate. History tells us that people perceived to be strong win votes. Keir does not perform well enough - he is lucky that rishi is also pretty poor. People that are popular leaders of their time - Obama and Blair for example, were fiercely charismatic and nimble in debate. When they spoke, people listened and they would not let a jumped up pipsqueak rant on unchallenged about fake 2k tax rises. Keir by contrast appears mummbly and ineffectual and like he was letting himself be bullied. That's a sure vote loser among people that have very little interest in the detailed policy arguments
I was surprised at how poorly he comes over in a debate format given his training as a barrister. I thought he'd be more articulate and sharp witted.
I don't necessarily mind boring. Gordon Brown was uncharismatic compared to Tony Blair but he always seemed like a decent man.
>given his training as a barrister. I thought he'd be more articulate and sharp witted.
Very different environment, in a courtroom everyone knows what evidence has been allowed and because of that arguments that are possible to make or likely to appear often fall into a narrow window. You can't throw random stuff in like in a political debate.
As a barrister the requirement is to build a coherent argument. Heckling, interruptions, being talked over and snappy soundbites aren't a part of that. He's arguably still too much in courtroom barrister-mode, and the TV debate formats haven't played to his strengths, rather than being unable to debate per se.
The online legal tribunals I've been watching had barristers frequently interrupted, having to manage difficult barracking witnesses and needing to come up with sharp, witty retorts on the fly. There is certainly an element of performance that Keir seems to lack.
I heard a lawyer (think Radio 4 not sure) talking about how it was a tactic to get someone to repeat a lie on multiple occasions to then hang them with it. Maybe more effective in a courtroom 😂
‘Some people’ are usually political journalists, who are very much into the theatre of politics. For them, active charisma is a crucial characteristic because it gives them something to write about. If they don’t have much to write about, they default to accusations of boredom.
I think most people don’t mind boring politicians *just because* they are boring. If they are being honest they probably notice the exciting ones a bit more, but boring is ok.
People who love Starmer’s Labour will probably defend him against being ‘stiff’, or claim that boringness is a virtue.
People like me who don’t particularly like Starmer’s Labour probably think he is a bit stiff. But it doesn’t really have much to do with why we wouldn’t vote for him. Most of us don’t actively criticise him for that aspect at all.
In fact at the centrist part of the spectrum being boring probably makes you more palatable to people who normally wouldn’t vote for your party but fancy a change - it’s the ‘safe’ version of Labour.
> He comes across like a decent honest guy to me.
This will get downvoted a lot because—ironically—a lot of people here can't abide a bad word being said about him (remind you of any other Labour leaders?), but I don't think Starmer has been all that honest. He's u-turned on numerous policies alone, many very shortly after becoming leader standing on a fairly left-wing platform and saying that something needed to be done about wasted votes in general elections.
He fully endorsed the manifesto under Corbyn and then used it as a stick to beat the Tories with a few days ago. Which Starmer was telling the truth: the one that defended the manifesto in 2019 or the one that said that manifesto was fantasy this week?
I think Corbyn, for all his many, many faults, was much more honest than Starmer.
If you genuinely think Starmer comes across as honest then you are either blinkered or not paying attention.
The man reneged on most of his "pledges" to win the leadership and will have no qualms doing the same once in power.
Regarding his dullness, he has been playing politics on easy mode, receiving little to no scrutiny or smears when compared to his predecessor, yet still shows his short temper when midly challenged and offers repetitive answers - that is before we even get on to his endorsement of war crimes!
With all this in mind, the lack of personality is merely another unattractive trait; beyond getting the Tories out, what exactly is Starmer offering the country?
People will say if he gets the country back on track it doesn't matter, and they are correct.
But.... The moment something goes wrong he will get hammered. He isn't very likable, and it's this likability that gives leaders a bit of room for error. If people like their leader and they make a fuck up they get forgiven, if they don't then they won't get forgiven.
He needs to build a bit of report with the public if he wants that, as much as a clown as Boris was people clearly like him. It's the same with Farage. Early Sunak was like this, people liked him as he was seen to be doing the decent thing, then he got more public attention and people no longer liked him. Now he's getting slagged off for saying he didn't have sky as a child as if that matters.
rapport\*
I think he's very likeable tbh. Seems down to earth, keeps fit, family man and is hands on with his kids. He didn't go to Oxbridge, he (sort of) didn't go to private school and he plays football every week. He is clear when he speaks, and respectful in the face of laughably biased questions.
I don't think it's related to his lack of charisma - it's the fact that everything he says appears to be so calculated, there is no room for 'speaking his mind'/ appearing relatable.
Even the toolmaker comment - it's completely the truth but the way he has regurgitated it in the same way, again and again, leads to him being tagged as stiff.
I don't think people really care about his personality or life - I think it's a much deeper criticism on the fact that there's a lack of trust in how he interacts with the media/the public and even his own party. It's cold, calculating and robotic.
Cognitive dissonance in the anti-starmer folks I've spoken to. They switched from labour to tories and don't want to be wrong so look for reasons to dislike him.
I find him a bit dull at times, but hope that he becomes pm and that politics is off the front page for a while. Bring on a boring bureaucrat who steadily improves our lives.
Don’t be fooled by his act.
His absolute lack of charisma is not an indicator of honesty. He’s a cold and calculating lier.
Look at how he treated Corbyn, he stood there supporting him for PM and then kicked him out when he could. Yesterday admitting that he only supported him because he knew he would lose.
Very honest indeed.
>He comes across like a decent honest guy to me.
That got a chuckle out of me.
The man lies and changes his policies constantly, often after private meetings with businesses.
And charisma is important, it's the person representing your country on the world stage.
Is it actually a problem? I think people care more about getting a leader who will improve public services, access to affordable housing, better living standards, etc
Charisma is often confused for being loud and obnoxious unfortunately. In my opinion most people aren't really interested in politics. As a result, a lot of people attach themselves to "personalities". People have their reservations about Starmer and i think it's a healthy approach towards all politicians frankly. A vocal group of people dislike Starmer for going back on pledges and ousting Jeremy, and that's understandable. But not voting for a politician because you view them as boring, is embarrassing.
Politicians come under a lot of criticism, and rightfully so, but they have enough to contend with, without having to entertain the general public. Like you said do you want a clown or a professional as your surgeon?
Some people don't thrive under the public limelight either, that doesn't make them boring. Starmer has talked about being wary of the power that comes with being party leader and being prime minister. He's even talked about the impact of his political career on his family. All of this is a good sign in my my opinion, any sane individual should be wary of holding such responsibilities and power. I would be fearful if someone didn't give these issues a seconds thought.
The people don't care about charisma but the media want a clown.
I'd expect people to be sick and tired of politics and just want professionals who get the job done and done well.
Media want drama and headlines to sell advertising, I hope they can move on from politics and cover trashy nonsense, tell me more about a footballer's wife bonking a tv chef or something, please media!
Absolutely! Surely he and his party should be valued on how they run the country. Personally, I want to go back to boring politics that just does the job. I am aware it's a complicated and arduous job and any political part are not going to be perfect. They are going to make mistakes and the right wing press and all will slate them for the slightest thing - whether true or not it seems - but would definitely like to see proper honesty and some real integrity. I will certainly make sure I keep a check on how and what they are doing.
Just an idiotic mental-chewing-gum thing the strategists of the parties think about and therefore the pundits say, and people blindly repeat it to sound like they know something
I think the interview yesterday showed he communicates and relates with the public far better than most of our PMs atleast in my lifetime (32 years).
IMO thats better than being some slick operator in a fixed environment for me personally. Does anyone really want someone like Farage for PM for example?
I sometimes think it's a result of the Reality TV/Social Media culture. People view the general elections as a popularity contest between a small group of 'personalities'.
It's as if the leaders of the main parties are in I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here and would explain much of the campaigning is just sensationalist nonsense.
Things like dodging the D-Day event and saying that going without Sky TV makes you poor are the equivalent of eating kangaroo testicles and taking part in dangerous Tik Tok trends. It's all for the views/followers/shares/comments/karma etc.
I feel like this is more something that the media complain about than most actual voters - which is why Labour are riding high in the polls. It also helps that Sunak lacks charisma too.
I honestly don't know why Labour doesn't immediately just bring up Attlee, the most boring politician in living memory who led one of the most progressive governments in modern UK history. It instantly shoots down the necessity of a leader needing to be massively charismatic.
More than blair. Attlee is who labour should be talking about. He's basically our FDR, and kids probably don't even know who he is.
It's actually astonishing how much Atlee flies under the radar. Seemingly the only people who've heard about him are people who've purposely looked it up.
I don't think most people under 35 could name post-war UK Prime ministers. Churchill, Thatcher, Blair and so on...
Well yeah I'm not expecting them to know them all, certainly Churchill, Thatcher, Blair... and you'd think Atlee, considering how much changed under him.
If I could upvote this 10x, I would. An Attlee-like government would be the absolute ideal outcome.
Cannot mention him because in those days politicians of all sides actually worked together What Attlee did was popular on both sides of the house as both sides worked on it before Labour won the election that meant he enacted it Politicians today will not work together
> What Attlee did was popular on both sides of the house as both sides worked on it Keir Starmer doing the same, not because of compromise but because Labour fills both sides of the Chamber loll
When Churchill said that Attlee would need to create a British Gestapo to implement his policies, that was really a classic example of politicians working together.
Attlee’s policies were absolutely not popular on both sides of the house.
I disagree. I think our politics is a lot less adversarial than the US for example, and that our politicians can and often do work together. We just tend to remember instances of conflict more readily, which is only natural. The media also has little incentive to continue to report on a story for very long if it's a bill that's wrapped up quickly. For example: Ukraine, Covid legislation, the Net Zero Emissions Target back in 2019 (before Rishi extended it), the Windsor Framework, the 2022 Online Safety Bill, the smoking ban.
>our politics is a lot less adversarial than the US That's not exactly a high bar...
There's a common refrain that British politics is 5/10 years behind American politics. I agree right now that we have politicians that are willing to compromise and work together. I do worry that this election is going to see more hardiness getting into parliament, who would rather gum up the gears of parliament than actually work together to run the country. Kinda like the British equivalent if the tea party, or even more extreme.
oh they’ll work together, just not on a large, progressive project to benefit the actual population of the country !
You're stretching the definition of living memory there. An 21 year old (old enough to vote) in 1945 would be 100 today.
> An 21 year old (old enough to vote) Not really necessary to be that age.
Atlee seems pretty iconic with that pipe
And proof can be in the pudding; policies of adding VAT to private schools and starting a public energy company are a lot more left leaning than Brown and Blair would have put their name too. The scrubbing of character we are referring too is the only attack line opponents and pseudo supporters have.
Probably because his town and country planning act is one of the reasons our country is in the mess that it is. How's Labour supposed to talk about building housing or infrastructure while bigging up the guy who invented nimbyism
They wouldn't bring up Attlee because if he was an MP in the current Labour Party Starmer would have had him deselected for being too left wing.
Atlee was actually quite right wing by today's left wing standards. Was a staunch supporter of Nato, sent troops to South Korea. Thatcher was even a fan. He also started our nuclear weapons programme, and invested co siderabky into our military and defence programmes.
Yeah he was an aristocrat at the end of the day. He enacted a lot of social reform, but he still believed in the class system.
Because Starmer's people would have purged a modern-day Attlee.
He was an excellent leader, but his record wasn't perfect. He oversaw the partition of India, which was utterly awful and disastrous. It led to the largest migration in human history and caused millions of deaths. We still feel the effects of this today.
It doesn't bother me. I'd rather a serious lawyer running the country than the usual "someone I'd have a pint with in 'Spoons" yardstick that many seem to judge by.
I want to be able to afford to go to the pub, I don't want the PM to tag along.
Even if he buys the Bacon Fries?
Only if he's got a solid theory on why people think the crisp packets switched colours.
They didn't switch. Walker's have always been the wrong colour. What happened was that Walker's displaced Golden Wonder as the market leader.
> What happened was that Walker's displaced Golden Wonder as the market leader. And the country has been on a road to ruin ever since. Makes you think.
Blue and Green, you mean?
At this rate blue and green might also be switching place in the polls
That's the one.
He can come as long as he promises to bring back Brannigans roast beef and mustard
There’s an election pledge I could vote for.
They were pretty good. See also: Smith's Savoury Vinegar and Pork n Beans or Bacon Rancheros.
Sunak would be the kinda guy that would eat your last Scampi Fry and not think a thing about it.
People complained for years that politics is boring, and now that a boring person might be in charge of the country they're unhappy with that too. A boring politics is probably a healthy politics.
I really fucking miss boring politics.
You'd have thought people would reflect on this after how badly the election of *Boris* Johnson, an actual made up persona - the political Mr. Bean - went.
If you want dramatic politics, go to Russia. It's literal theatre; everything is on the verge of going to shit, and then the heroic, manly prince rides in and rights all wrongs, keeps the factory open, arrests whoever is doing a Corruption, restores order after the Western-backed riot of degenerates and traitors. Anybody who actually gets impressed by that stage-managed rubbish deserves to be sat down and made to watch Triumph of the Will, while the most patronising person on Earth constantly pokes them and goes, "Cor, that Hitler sure looks impressive! He's so confident!" I like living in a country where a guy can play D:Ream over the Prime Ministers' election announcement and not get disappeared.
>A boring politics is probably a healthy politics. This is exactly what we need to remember when it comes to the election. We've got plenty of rubbish but entertaining "reality" TV shows without making Parliament another one.
Exactly, why people suddenly decided they wanted literal circus clowns running the country "becuase they're a bit of a laugh" I have no idea.
Boris Johnson
Honestly, after the shitshow the last 10 years have been, I want politics to just be a bunch of boring people in grey suits again who just keep the keep the country running and arent in the news cos of scandals every other week
Also, I don't understand why anyone would want to have a pint with someone like Boris anyway. He just seems unpleasant to be around
Also something I've never understood: listening to somebody talk about themselves endlessly, how fucking fun
He'd grope your wife while you went to the bar
He would say he wasnt there. When he was photographed with you.
This... But also, to add to the thought... I'd rather have a pint with Starmer than any of the last ~6 or so PMs.
As would I. He seems like he’d be really interesting to talk to.
His interview with Nick Robinson - Political Thinking: The One With Sir Kier Starmer - is a fabulous and interesting listen
Normal guy and will likely have some very good stories from the DPP days.
I'd quite a like a pint with Boris, to laugh at some of his stories. But I absolutely didn't / don't want him running the country. Gordon Brown would be dull as anything down the pub but did a decent job running the country. Starmer to me seems to straddle that line that he'd have some decent bantz in the pub but also be able to run the country effectively. I like that.
> Starmer to me seems to straddle that line that he'd have some decent bantz in the pub but also be able to run the country effectively. I like that. Exactly this. Well, except that I'd have no interest in listening to fat, posh, Worzel Gummidge lying through his teeth about how brilliant he is with some made up stories. I'm not even sure I'd like to go to the pub with Tony Blair, Not after seeing that Christmas card where it looks like Cherie looks like she's holding him back from trying to deck you at the bar.
Not just a lawyer, but a human rights lawyer. I'll take that every day of the week thanks.
This country is in dire need of serious and boring right now.
I have no problems with his persona, he's a good speaker, it's his flip-flopping and apparent lack of any coherent vision that worries me.
I disagree on lack of coherence. I'm also less concerned about people who change their minds, so long as I get an explanation *why* they change their mind. As an example, contrast this with Sunak's "I have a plan" mantra. I don't want someone who'll stick to a plan that's not working, just so they can say they have one. I want many more things than the current manifesto offers, but I am happy at the Idea of returning to competence in the first instance. The bar is low right now. I will expect bolder policies in 4 years time.
People always said Corbyn didn't seem statesman-like. Then they say Starmer is too serious and lawyerly. In terms of persona, putting aside policy, I think he's what you'd want in a PM.
I dont want my PM drinking horlics and getting an early night sleep. I want him in a Spandex union jack leotard that's 3 sizes too small, zip lining across the country
I agree, though I wouldn't actually mind having a pint with him.
corrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr i'd love to have a pint with Nigel. He's real salt of the earth........and by some weird extension that makes him the ideal man to run the country.
His private school upbringing and career as a stockbroker, i.e. the exact same story as Sunak, really just makes him one of us working class chaps, you know?
I think after Boris and the idiots that came after him, people are just used to having a clown or a lettuce in charge. I'm quite looking forward to having a PM who's quirkiest line is 'My father was a toolmaker'
I mean I'm not sure this is true. They've definitely exasperated the phenomenon but people have always wanted something a bit extra from their leaders. Tony Blair was very charismatic, and David Cameron basically copied the formula. John Major was criticised for being so boring. Margaret Thatcher got enunciation lessons for this very reason. Harold Wilson played up to the image with his pipe because he knew it would inject a bit of charisma into his image. It's always been there.
Yes charisma in politics is actually pretty important, especially if you want to lead. It is the power of persuasion and trust and communication, which is quite a power. Starmer does lack some charisma unfortunately. He was really caught off guard in the debate yesterday with the robotic thing. But, he has strengths in other ways. He’s a highly decorated and professionally accomplished man. He could easily play up to the fact that he doesn’t need charisma because he’s a serious man, who gets shit done, and if you want substance over style, then that’s him.
He's absolutely uninspiring as a speaker and orator. He only feels appearing in comparison to the absolute pit of scum and villainy we've endured for the last how many years.
Right now, many of the public view voting Labour as a way to get everything the Tories promised but failed to deliver over the last 14 years. But at some point, the public is going to discover that it wasn't just the Tories being inept and that the country has deep structural problems that will take a considerable amount of time, effort, and hardship to resolve - and that's the point where Starmers lack of charisma is going to become a big problem.
Oh no I get you, my take is that Starmer does have charisma, he just looks wooden next to the cavalcade of fuckery we've had recently. He doesn't strike me as another May/Brown/Major
Exacerbated rather than exasperated, by the way!
That’s exactly it. I don’t want a character running the country. I want a calm and collected professional in charge. Rishi *tries* to be like that but only when he’s not interrupted or questioned on what he just smoothly delivered. Then he becomes the tetchy git we all know and hate.
The thing about everyone finding that funny is it shows that part of the brand has sunk in, while Sunak mentions working weekends in his parents’ pharmacy business as an attempt to sound like an everyman and it just won’t stick.
I’m not a fan, but after the last 8 years, I miss the boring, steady days of David Cameron! I hope Sir Kier brings back boring but effective politics
I think when he has to talk as The Leader he gets a bit too politician like with some responses that avoid committing to certain statements. When he gets to talk about himself and what he likes and does, his personality seems far more relaxed and open as well as the way he speaks. During the interview last night, when he spoke of his fatherhood, he gave one of the best responses he's ever done.
He was also good in PMQs, it was funny to watch him get his opponents in knots.
My favourite part was where he'd skewer someone, usually Bojo, on a point, and then when they'd respond with the usual brand of waffling bullshit, he'd just look at them like they were a particularly nasty bit of shit he'd found on his shoe.
Starmer is one of the best Barristers this country has ever produced, if he hadn't chosen to go into politics he would be a Law Lord or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court right now. QC before 40, DPP before 45, Knight Commander before 55, and Privy Councillor before 60. Many people would have been satisfied with that career, he could easily have taken a partnership at any major law firm and earned millions, but wants to be in public service. He's a serious man for serious times.
I'm so surprised more isn't made of this. Maybe people just don't like lawyers, but QC before 40 puts him in the elite
Not bad for a Leeds University graduate! The reason he doesn't talk about it is human right's lawyers are a wedge issue with upper middle class swing voters. I was talking with a Barrister friend about this the other day, as I was curious about Braverman's reputation (abysmal), she was saying that Kier's entry into politics was a surprise because he's so well regarded in the profession. National and international profile, people were expecting a senior judicial appointment followed by either the Supreme Court or The Hague, and a lucrative of-counsel or partnership. He's in the top 1% of barristers in general and the top 1% of human rights specialists internationally.
Most people don't know that the McLibel case would never have gone ahead without him. The two defendents, who had made flyers showing things which McDonalds didn't want customers to know, represented themselves, but made clear that Kier Starmer was where they were getting their legal knowledge from. He did it all for free until the case reached the UCHR. [https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/keir-took-mcdonalds](https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/keir-took-mcdonalds)
He's won a number of awards for pro bono work, most notably the *Bar Council's Sydney Elland Goldsmith Award in 2005 for his outstanding contribution to pro bono work in challenging the death penalty in Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, and the Caribbean.*. Sunak is an upgrade on Call Me Dave and George Osborne who weighed in with a 2:1 in Modern History, Sunak got a first and a Stanford MBA. Kier has an LLB and postgrad BCL and a whopping 7 honorary doctorates.
Didn’t we vote Boris in purely on charisma?
Yes - not me, but I can absolutely admit and see that it was charisma that got him elected. I'm not a fan of Starmer's policies - I think he's been fundamentally and catastrophically wrong on Brexit ever since he became leader - but I must admit that he's neutralised Johnson, who had seemed unassailable in 2019 very effectively.
Personality will always be something people want to see from their leaders - Starmer is just a bit boring. But boring is something the country could probably do with for a bit! But historically, rightly or wrongly if you’re coming across as a bit of a wet flannel, you could have the best policies ever but I think people deep down just go *really, YOU’RE going to get that into law?* I think someone with a bit of charisma etc just comes across as a little more *I can do this, you can tell I can do this* Starmer seems very efficient, and once he’s in power he’ll be able to show he can do things he wants I’m sure, but charismatic people will always come across better
He's far more charismatic than the slimy fraudsters in the Tory party, all full of smarm and false chumminess like used-car salesmen
Jfc GIVE ME BORING POLITICIANS. Politics shouldn’t be exciting. Politics should be about calmly and competently getting on with the job of improving the lot of the citizens of the UK. “Exciting” politics is exhausting.
Theresa May was boring as shit, both in her politics and her personality. Not sure many people fancy making her PM again. Boring and competent aren't the same thing.
Fair! And neither are charismatic and competent! 😅
I mean, she wasn't good but I'd take her over any of the most recent three PMs any day
I feel like May would have been a fairly average unremarkable PM in normal times. She just had the misfortune of being handed the impossible task that was dealing with Brexit
Well, she got the job because she accepted the poison chalice, let's be honest. I agree she'd have been a middling PM but that still puts her head and shoulders above her successors. I didn't agree with May, but I never felt she was actively trying to cripple the country for personal gain.
May was boring but she was only the head of a government that was chaotic and undecided even in itself which way it wanted to take Brexit. It's been chaos for a very long time.
She was the best of a very bad bunch.
Yeah but boring politics leaves a door wide open for the populist far-right to come in. It happened in the US in 2016, it's currently happening in Germany and France. Unfortunately, in a democracy with free press, boring is a luxury only afforded us when things are going great for most people ... They aren't at the moment
Swings and roundabouts though, the reason Starmer is way ahead despite being boring is *because* we had populism last time round, and we saw the results of populism.
We had incompetent populism. It wouldn't hurt to have a competent leader that is also charismatic. Compare Obama to Hillary Clinton.
Populism is always incompetent. That's the whole point of it.
That's simply not true though. Do you even know what populism actually is?
> GIVE ME BORING POLITICIANS I agree, but can we throw in COMPETENT as well?
Boring politics should not be the objective. To mobilise a society towards one concerted effort you need exciting and engaging politics that captures peoples’ emotions and feelings. If we were all neurodivergent autistic robots I’m sure ‘boring’ politics would work, but that’s not what human beings are.
People also forget he works with Angela as a team and she has enough charisma for both. This isn't the Tory party with one person at the top clinging to power. They work together, and they compliment each other perfectly.
Why the hell do people care? If he gets the UK back on the right track then he can be as charismatic as a chalkboard.
And if he doesn't get the UK back on track? (track to what? From where to where?) He doesn't seem to be advocating for much apart from being more competent than the Tories, but still following Tory economics (focus on growth and wealth creation, Lizz Truss is that you?)
Even if he doesn’t, it won’t be down to his charisma level.
With little to no infrastructure investment.
So what you want to do? Higher Taxes or Borrow more? Only one thing I can see us getting on track and that is entering the single market.
Both, they're abolishing non dom status which at least is a start. They need to increase corporation tax and taxes on the rich. They also need to borrow and invest it in upgrading the railways, water, education. Thames Water is on the brink of collapse and London is 7th on the drought list. Check out Gary Stevenson, this guy knows what he is talking about: https://www.youtube.com/@garyseconomics
They are inheriting a mess from the Tories. I’m confident
I don't think you appreciate how well and truly broken the systems are, be it the NHS, water, housing, energy costs. None of these have easy solutions and will likely take years to show any noticeable change for the better. I fear that in 5 years it'll look enough like it is now that collective amnesia will take over and they votes will swing to another round of free market falderal.
> NHS, water, housing, energy costs Don't forget the courts, policing, higher education, planning, local funding, pre-school childcare...
Public transport outside London...
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1d7uq8r/britain_is_a_dump_14_years_of_managed_decline/
Sunak doesn't strike me as slippery, Trump is slippery, Boris is slippery. Sunak comes across as a man out of his depth. He's far too young for his current position and the Tory party never ever should have allowed this leadership situation to happen. Starmer comes across as a smart guy, stern I suppose but he is intelligent. He's not scared either, I think he seems strong.
Starmer doesn't pound the podium or act like a man of the people like Trump or Farage do, but his statesmanlike style works. Two of our greatest prime ministers in Sweden, Tage Erlander and Per Albin Hansson, were boring as fuck. They had no charisma and literally had the personalities of old men. Didn't stop them from running the country competently, though.
Met him in person at an event a couple of years back and was surprised by how charismatic he is in the flesh. It’s like he clams up on TV.
People who are not that interested in politics like to have a good laugh at the PM and want someone whos either got the charisma of Hitler or the clowness of Johnson. Sadly those people make up the bulk of the electorate so parties need someone like that at the head to garner votes from most people. The focus on the leaders and away from policy really ruins our elections as well as the voting system imo.
Sunak has zero charisma and is a feeble, weedy, pathetic individual.
We're talking about someone to run the country in the best interests of the population. I'd rather have a stiff and humourless, boredom-inducing nerd than a sexually incontinent chummy clown who just wants everyone to like him. I've spent the last 10 years having to actually care about politics because of this shitshow. I want a break.
I don't want my politicians to be interesting or charismatic. I want them to be boring and have a genuine sense of public service. Hate the way the media always peddles this angle.
Sometimes I think Starmer needs to more actively embrace the boringness. Politics done right *should* be boring because it would be things just working. A bit like admin. If you want entertainment, go to bojo, or take up lettuce-watching.
The media have less stories and people to present quiz shows
Because he has opponents that will smear him with any criticism that sticks. He’s leagues ahead of Sunak. Only leader that measures up to him is Davey, in my opinion. Sunak is a spineless, slimey elitist, Farage is Farage, Swinney is irrelevant, don’t even know who leads the Greens …
Well... people kind of do want a kids show presenter. The idea that the leader of a political party has to be charismatic is just pushing the idea that the electorate vote for a person rather than a plan. Sadly this seems to be true.
Look at the dialogue in america, its all about the person not the plan over there imo
People's problem is that he refused to actually say what he will do for a long time, and often went back on those promises by watering them down. He seemingly has no vision for the country, no energy really, just boring managerial stuff. There are massive problems in the country which need actual change, not a slightly tweaked version of the same shit we've had for as long as anyone can remember. To be successful as a politician, at least during hard times, you need to convince people you have a vision. Not rocking the boat might work well when the boat is going the right way, but we're headed full speed into the rocks, we need to turn now. Starmer needs to make certain decisions that will be difficult and unpopular, and he's given me no reason to believe he will make those decisions, his entire "pull" is just basic competence without causing problems, but the solution to our current problems just don't lie that way.
The Starmer being boring line is so prevalent because he purposefully makes himself boring. I don't get why this gets glossed over, both on a personal level and a political level he has made himself the most bland and inoffensive candidate imaginable.
I really dont think this was as big a thing before George W Bush.
Reagan has entered the rodeo
JFK entered the chat before that. Hell, it's the reason he (and his brothers really) are remembered more fondly then they otherwise should.
Compared to Boris,Liz,Rishi a sensible person possibly in charge is a breath of fresh air.
Couldn't give less of a fuck that he's sometimes a bit stiff, I actually don't think he is that much anyway tbh. Sunak comes across as vapour, Boris is a global joke, May was stiffer than a lamp post herself, Truss a nightmare, Cameron an elite. Why such focus on Starmer now all of a sudden vs that lot.
Because at the risk of sounding like a snob, many disinterested average people look at some charisma and let it sway them. They aren't interested in if policies work and such. They need their attention caught and sound bites to sway them.
The average person is either too narrow minded or too busy to actually pay attention to policy and views politics through the lens of a popularity contest. Unfortunately that's also how we end up with ridiculous circus situations such as Donald Trump holding nuclear codes and Boris being elected. Normal politicians who are there to do politics are too boring to compete with them because the electorate is stupid. There's not really a nicer way to say it.
For me it's not about being boring, I have no issues with boring politicians. The issue is that he talks like a stereotypical politician, talks a lot but doesn't say anything. I'd equally dislike it if his waffle was amusing. If he was dull but saying something of substance, I would like him a lot more. His best answer last night was about what he feared and he gave an honest, not a typical politician answer.
"In my mind, people with Charisma are often somewhat false and disingenuous." In my experience its because most good scammers are charismatic. Not because mot charismatic people are scammers though. In the end its all about YOU - the voter - if you don't check your preferred candidate's words, actions for logic/morality/consistency, then you are part of the problem.
I'll take solid, steady and sensible government for the next 10 years please
I partially agree, in that he comes across decent and competent, but not remotely "honest", that's people's problem with him more than the stiffness. He's cultivating a duplicitous politicker image and I think it'll harm him a bit in the long run.
Exactly, it's like he's pre-programmed to give certain answers, bash Corbyn, claim no tax increases etc. He'd gain far more credit and respect if he came out and describe which taxes he would increase and why (outside of VAT for private schools which has been done to death). The issue isn't a lack of charisma or charm - no one really cares about that. It's a lack of trust.
He’s the very definition of *playing it safe*
Yes. And because he's so vague in what he says, Labour activists project whatever they or the person they're trying to convince of Starmer's merits supports onto him. Which is bound to lead to disappointment and resentment, and, ad you say, look super untrustworthy.
You do wonder about ad hominem nature of the criticism that Starmer is facing. Case in point being last nights Sky interviews where several audience members made comments about Starmer being 'boring' or 'robotic' If you're in Stramers position and the worst that can be levelled against you is the perception that you're a little boring or wooden then perhaps he's doing something right.
Trump, Farage and Boris have charisma, and are all awful people (and in Trump's case, and possibly the others, an outright sociopath). Give me a dorky Ed Miliband any day of the week. Of course charisma and a gift for oratory in a good man is even better. But it's quite rare.
> dorky Ed Miliband Ed Miliband had and still has way more charisma than anybody ever gave him credit for. He's got that podcast these days and I straight up like the guy, a lot. I would hang out with him.
If the choice is stiff and boring or the clown show we have had since Brown (the last good PM we had) I will absolutely take stiff
I think it's because they have no real reason to criticise.
The criticism is that he's stiff because he's hiding things and/or being dishonest, not that he isn't fun enough to be PM.
Doubtful, all I’ve seen is ‘he lacks charisma’ oh and by the way he is hiding whatever I vented thing we’ve just imagined. He is a centralist who is too boring to do anything yet also a raging communist who is going to change everything … both at the same time…. apparent,y
Politics should be boring. If it's boring, things are usually going well!
Definitely - we’re asking someone to take responsibility for managing a country and handling crises. The ability to protest, come out with latin jokes or excite ex-eastenders by dogwhistling about forrins is probably not in that skillset. I like Starmer because (a) he has done well in life coming from a working class background and (b) he clearly is in it for the country - he could have a much more peaceful life as senior partner in a law firm.
Anyone but slimy Sunak or bumbling Boris - last few leadership choices for the Conservatives have been atrocious. Which makes me worry about the MP's in the party, and their ability to choose a strong leader, not a showman with a spitting image smile! I am happy for someone with some actual common sense and a serious complexation to take on the job and take it bloody seriously. No bullshit, no gimmicks, just an actual bloke who cares about the UK, and a government that wants to be progressive, truthful and thoughtful of peoples needs. Couldn't care less about Charisma.
Honestly, this is the biggest risk with the Tories. No matter how moderate your local MP, the membership have become radicalised by the Telegraph and will carry on voting for the most unpalatable option. Sunak is toast so those members - a tiny selectorate of aged out of touch ideologues - will likely be doubling down on the lunacy.
They destroyed Ed Milliband on a speech impediment and a photo of him eating a bacon sandwich. It's an attack line that some morons are picking up and running with.
The point is that, that is the criticism ls Starmer. He is a bit dull. He is not incompetent, hasn't ran a country into the ground and can out last lettuce. It is brought up as a criticism because it is the most negative thing most people have to say about him
I really don't understand who Starmer is being compared to. Certainly not the 16 PMs since WWII who are not Blair and Churchill.
I’m not sure it’s that he’s stiff. He’s a serious professional and this is a serious job. On Matt Fordes podcast, He’s hilarious at times. I think he can settle in and connect a lot more. https://shows.acast.com/the-political-party/episodes/keir-starmer-replay
I think at this point it's a bit of a meme that he's going to find hard to shake. He's no stiffer than Gordon Brown and certainly a hell of a lot more natural than Ed Milliband. I think (hope) that when he's in power with a whacking majority, he can convince people through actions not personality.
I blame the media for turning our parliamentary system into a pseudo-presedential one where personality matters above substance
Sunak has all the kudos of the fifth InBetweener
You want a firebrand, look at Rayner. She's getting plenty of Optics. Starmer is being plain so the press can't go after him too hard and it's worked. Attlee was boring and Bevan was an interesting subordinate. We've got good shit from that before.
The most charismatic PM of the last 15 years was Johnson. What was that worth?
I prefer my politicians boring and focused on policy. My issues with Starmer are that he's dragging Labour to the right so it doesn't matter which of the neo lib parties get into power.
How’s Rishi any more charismatic? That dude is a dork just as much if not more than Starmer. Feels like a media bias to me. They want each candidate to be equal to a degree and got nothing better to shoot at Starmer for while the list only grows for Rishi
People seem to be treating politics like a reality show. They want freaks and nutters.
The reality is that reddit audience is not representative of the electorate. History tells us that people perceived to be strong win votes. Keir does not perform well enough - he is lucky that rishi is also pretty poor. People that are popular leaders of their time - Obama and Blair for example, were fiercely charismatic and nimble in debate. When they spoke, people listened and they would not let a jumped up pipsqueak rant on unchallenged about fake 2k tax rises. Keir by contrast appears mummbly and ineffectual and like he was letting himself be bullied. That's a sure vote loser among people that have very little interest in the detailed policy arguments
I was surprised at how poorly he comes over in a debate format given his training as a barrister. I thought he'd be more articulate and sharp witted. I don't necessarily mind boring. Gordon Brown was uncharismatic compared to Tony Blair but he always seemed like a decent man.
>given his training as a barrister. I thought he'd be more articulate and sharp witted. Very different environment, in a courtroom everyone knows what evidence has been allowed and because of that arguments that are possible to make or likely to appear often fall into a narrow window. You can't throw random stuff in like in a political debate.
As a barrister the requirement is to build a coherent argument. Heckling, interruptions, being talked over and snappy soundbites aren't a part of that. He's arguably still too much in courtroom barrister-mode, and the TV debate formats haven't played to his strengths, rather than being unable to debate per se.
The online legal tribunals I've been watching had barristers frequently interrupted, having to manage difficult barracking witnesses and needing to come up with sharp, witty retorts on the fly. There is certainly an element of performance that Keir seems to lack.
I heard a lawyer (think Radio 4 not sure) talking about how it was a tactic to get someone to repeat a lie on multiple occasions to then hang them with it. Maybe more effective in a courtroom 😂
‘Some people’ are usually political journalists, who are very much into the theatre of politics. For them, active charisma is a crucial characteristic because it gives them something to write about. If they don’t have much to write about, they default to accusations of boredom. I think most people don’t mind boring politicians *just because* they are boring. If they are being honest they probably notice the exciting ones a bit more, but boring is ok. People who love Starmer’s Labour will probably defend him against being ‘stiff’, or claim that boringness is a virtue. People like me who don’t particularly like Starmer’s Labour probably think he is a bit stiff. But it doesn’t really have much to do with why we wouldn’t vote for him. Most of us don’t actively criticise him for that aspect at all. In fact at the centrist part of the spectrum being boring probably makes you more palatable to people who normally wouldn’t vote for your party but fancy a change - it’s the ‘safe’ version of Labour.
> He comes across like a decent honest guy to me. This will get downvoted a lot because—ironically—a lot of people here can't abide a bad word being said about him (remind you of any other Labour leaders?), but I don't think Starmer has been all that honest. He's u-turned on numerous policies alone, many very shortly after becoming leader standing on a fairly left-wing platform and saying that something needed to be done about wasted votes in general elections. He fully endorsed the manifesto under Corbyn and then used it as a stick to beat the Tories with a few days ago. Which Starmer was telling the truth: the one that defended the manifesto in 2019 or the one that said that manifesto was fantasy this week? I think Corbyn, for all his many, many faults, was much more honest than Starmer.
If you genuinely think Starmer comes across as honest then you are either blinkered or not paying attention. The man reneged on most of his "pledges" to win the leadership and will have no qualms doing the same once in power. Regarding his dullness, he has been playing politics on easy mode, receiving little to no scrutiny or smears when compared to his predecessor, yet still shows his short temper when midly challenged and offers repetitive answers - that is before we even get on to his endorsement of war crimes! With all this in mind, the lack of personality is merely another unattractive trait; beyond getting the Tories out, what exactly is Starmer offering the country?
People will say if he gets the country back on track it doesn't matter, and they are correct. But.... The moment something goes wrong he will get hammered. He isn't very likable, and it's this likability that gives leaders a bit of room for error. If people like their leader and they make a fuck up they get forgiven, if they don't then they won't get forgiven. He needs to build a bit of report with the public if he wants that, as much as a clown as Boris was people clearly like him. It's the same with Farage. Early Sunak was like this, people liked him as he was seen to be doing the decent thing, then he got more public attention and people no longer liked him. Now he's getting slagged off for saying he didn't have sky as a child as if that matters.
rapport\* I think he's very likeable tbh. Seems down to earth, keeps fit, family man and is hands on with his kids. He didn't go to Oxbridge, he (sort of) didn't go to private school and he plays football every week. He is clear when he speaks, and respectful in the face of laughably biased questions.
The trouble is that Keir also comes off as disingenuous, has flip-flopped a lot in the past.
I don't think it's related to his lack of charisma - it's the fact that everything he says appears to be so calculated, there is no room for 'speaking his mind'/ appearing relatable. Even the toolmaker comment - it's completely the truth but the way he has regurgitated it in the same way, again and again, leads to him being tagged as stiff. I don't think people really care about his personality or life - I think it's a much deeper criticism on the fact that there's a lack of trust in how he interacts with the media/the public and even his own party. It's cold, calculating and robotic.
People are too influenced by coverage of US elections and Hollywod in general.
Cognitive dissonance in the anti-starmer folks I've spoken to. They switched from labour to tories and don't want to be wrong so look for reasons to dislike him. I find him a bit dull at times, but hope that he becomes pm and that politics is off the front page for a while. Bring on a boring bureaucrat who steadily improves our lives.
Don’t be fooled by his act. His absolute lack of charisma is not an indicator of honesty. He’s a cold and calculating lier. Look at how he treated Corbyn, he stood there supporting him for PM and then kicked him out when he could. Yesterday admitting that he only supported him because he knew he would lose. Very honest indeed.
>In my mind, people with Charisma are often somewhat false and disingenuous. Fuck me
>He comes across like a decent honest guy to me. That got a chuckle out of me. The man lies and changes his policies constantly, often after private meetings with businesses. And charisma is important, it's the person representing your country on the world stage.
Is it actually a problem? I think people care more about getting a leader who will improve public services, access to affordable housing, better living standards, etc
Charisma is often confused for being loud and obnoxious unfortunately. In my opinion most people aren't really interested in politics. As a result, a lot of people attach themselves to "personalities". People have their reservations about Starmer and i think it's a healthy approach towards all politicians frankly. A vocal group of people dislike Starmer for going back on pledges and ousting Jeremy, and that's understandable. But not voting for a politician because you view them as boring, is embarrassing. Politicians come under a lot of criticism, and rightfully so, but they have enough to contend with, without having to entertain the general public. Like you said do you want a clown or a professional as your surgeon? Some people don't thrive under the public limelight either, that doesn't make them boring. Starmer has talked about being wary of the power that comes with being party leader and being prime minister. He's even talked about the impact of his political career on his family. All of this is a good sign in my my opinion, any sane individual should be wary of holding such responsibilities and power. I would be fearful if someone didn't give these issues a seconds thought.
The people don't care about charisma but the media want a clown. I'd expect people to be sick and tired of politics and just want professionals who get the job done and done well. Media want drama and headlines to sell advertising, I hope they can move on from politics and cover trashy nonsense, tell me more about a footballer's wife bonking a tv chef or something, please media!
Absolutely! Surely he and his party should be valued on how they run the country. Personally, I want to go back to boring politics that just does the job. I am aware it's a complicated and arduous job and any political part are not going to be perfect. They are going to make mistakes and the right wing press and all will slate them for the slightest thing - whether true or not it seems - but would definitely like to see proper honesty and some real integrity. I will certainly make sure I keep a check on how and what they are doing.
Just an idiotic mental-chewing-gum thing the strategists of the parties think about and therefore the pundits say, and people blindly repeat it to sound like they know something
I think the interview yesterday showed he communicates and relates with the public far better than most of our PMs atleast in my lifetime (32 years). IMO thats better than being some slick operator in a fixed environment for me personally. Does anyone really want someone like Farage for PM for example?
Because politics is a popularity contest nowadays. And a reason to say things like “I don’t like him”, or “he’s this/that/the other”.
I sometimes think it's a result of the Reality TV/Social Media culture. People view the general elections as a popularity contest between a small group of 'personalities'. It's as if the leaders of the main parties are in I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here and would explain much of the campaigning is just sensationalist nonsense. Things like dodging the D-Day event and saying that going without Sky TV makes you poor are the equivalent of eating kangaroo testicles and taking part in dangerous Tik Tok trends. It's all for the views/followers/shares/comments/karma etc.
He's nice. And his dad was a zookeeper.
I feel like this is more something that the media complain about than most actual voters - which is why Labour are riding high in the polls. It also helps that Sunak lacks charisma too.