Публикация

Because there's not just *one* point. There are lots and lots of them. “Island of strangers” relentlessly attacked migrants Arming a genocide Rollback of LGBTQ+ rights 3,000 pensioners arrested for terrorism Cutting disability benefits Removal of trial by jury Mandelson

That is the point. With each of those 30 things he alienated a part of his base and the wider electorate and then kept pushing them back. He didn’t do one career ending thing. Everything he did was rubbish.

"No obvious blunders," they give you thirty plus, and you strawman that down to an attack a throwaway hyperbolic statement. Well played you, very clever.

If you've been given 30 different reasons so far explaining why people don't like him, that may be a clue as to why he's unpopular

Start with the 'Blue' Labour immigration- and asylum-fascism of Mahmood, whom he appointed in a failed attempt to appease RW xenophobes, and who has gone more hate-filled than even RefUK… … and go from there.

Really? Because that would seem to be the key issue: he has a knack for pissing everyone off.

In fairness, you'd probably get a similar result if you asked social media how gravity works. Presumably, most people with political opinions aren't political scientists.

Doesn't the fact that people think that there are at least 30 things, rather tend to prove your "no obvious blunders" claim to be a little wide of the mark?

Yeah - he's managed to fight and lose battles on every possible front. He could have been legitimately bold, sought to dramatically improve people's lives, but instead we've had relentless, beige cruelty. Harming trans people, disabled people, those in poverty, refugees - you name it.

You said "no obvious blunders" and you responses have given you 30 different answers. So maybe that's actually 30 obvious blunders.

Fuck yeah. Don't learn anything.

If there are 30 different reasons to hate him then that seems like an answer in itself.

Anyone can give a one-line answer as to why each PM from Thatcher to Sunak got kicked out of office -- sometimes just one word. I don't think that's the case with Starmer. Clearly he didn't shine as PM, hence he's out. But the diversity of views as to what he did wrong is what's unusual.

So because there are numerous ways in which he was a complete disaster that somehow... makes you more right? Sure you don't want to back up a bit and have a go at that logic one more time?

so you've been given at least 30 different things and you don't understand how all of that means he messed a lot of things up which is very different to "no visible blunders"?

"No obvious blunders", and yet you're quickly given 30 distinct reasons why he's disliked.

So that's 30 things he messed up. Sounds like 30 reasons to kick him out

'No-change' - if you will let me away with the hyphen. Across pretty much every important area of public policy the change candidate delivered a 'No-change' experience.

This...isn't true at all, though? Most of the responses are giving you the same general answer.

Many obvious blunders! people can pick their most salient one of course but to say ‘no obvious blunders by Keir’ is just to not have paid attention

"He has had no obvious blunders" followed by people responding with 30 different things he obviously did wrong is quite a miss

You think political scientists are going to have a hard time parsing "He sucks at everything!"?

So people have told you a multitude of failures and you still don’t understand what went wrong?

The astounding amount of self-referential pseudo intellectual bullshit in this post alone is a reason for people to never take you seriously again. Good job making yourself irrelevant.

Almost like he’s done loads of different glaringly obvious bad things that’s pissed off a broad range of people

If you need to collect them all under a single rubric, try "too much punching left"

people wanted change, which requires doing something. he did fuck all. that killed him. the fact that people wanted him to do 30 different things didn't help, but doing nothing was not the answer.

30 different answers = 30 ways he pissed off his potential base *just of respondants*. There's only so many ways you can alienate your natural base before you get booted.

do you not think that might mean there were quite a few blunders after all

I would think having 30 different reasons he sucks would make it a lot easier to understand why he's an unpopular failure

"Gosh, I wonder why Keir Starmer isn't popular." "Here are 30 different reasons." "Can't figure it out." "Racists are firebombing houses in immigrant neighborhoods." "Just a total mystery." "Trans people can't pee in public bathrooms." "Political scientists will be soooo confused...."

Liar, is only word you need to understand Starmer. 30 different answers are a result of his lying.

With this degree of unearned self-confidence, have you perhaps thought about throwing your hat in the ring for the prime ministership yourself?

I dunno, this seems to completely obliterate your suggestion that he made no obvious blunders. But I'm sure you're right and it's just crazy chance that his entire shit fell apart and he's resigning. Definitely not because he's terrible on multiple fronts and made many obvious blunders.

Pretty much all the answers amount to the same thing though. That he attacked groups that were meant to be his base and was surprised they stopped supporting him.

All 30 are probably fair. Your point is idiotic.

People have given your 30 different examples of things he's fucked up and you think this SUPPORTS your point??

I understand your point but it is kinda funny to imagine you sitting in a pub with like 50 people tripping over themselves to explain how Starmer went to each of their houses, rang the doorbell and kicked them personally in the nuts and you ponder aloud “hmm… I don’t get how he’s so unpopular tho”

I think you’re mistaking 30 different ways of phrasing the same thing as different answers. Most of the replies are variations of this one: bsky.app/profile/meli...

Yeah, I think that's you being told all the symptoms, in a way that is a bit like "but everyone's pointing to a different rake that hit him in the face, so confusing" Scientific summary: "Didn't look down and carefully walk round the rakes"

Sideshow Bob's Rake Misfortune - Russian DespairALT: Sideshow Bob's Rake Misfortune - Russian Despairstatic.klipy.com

That he didn't make One blunder, he actually made many dozens of blunders?

Have you tried actually reading them and seeing how broadly consistent they are?

>"no obvious blunders" >people line up to tell you about all his blunders >"aha but you can't settle on a single blunder to complain about! that means i was right!"

So people can point to 30 obvious blunders. How does this help your point?

Every answer was he lied about being left wing, no?

The replies show that Starmer fucked up in 30 different ways, all of which have people really mad at him, therefore I stand by my point that there were "no obvious blunders"

Gee, I've been given at least 30 reasons why people hate his guts and won't vote for him. It's a real mystery why his political career imploded.

The first 20 replies all say the exact same thing with slightly different language.

He's hated in numerous ways by anyone remotely normal.

all 30 things have one thing in common. the man has no backbone, nothing he believes in, no moral stance he will not abandon with negative polling.

Isn't 30 obvious blunders enough?

Have you tried being right, instead?

That sounds like he did a lot of things that annoyed a lot of different groups, which adds up to universal unpopularity.

'No, you don't understand, Starmer being terrible in 30 different ways is better, actually!' 🤡

It does disprove "no obvious blunders" when people can name 30 incredibly obvious blunders

The thing is that he sucks at a whole lot more than 30 different things and most of those thing betrayed his more liberal base. The government's far-right turn on immigration was quite visual with the proliferation of the St. George's Cross across England, the riots of Tommy Robinson, the recent

My favorite genre of Bluesky post, "everyone yelling at me just proves how right I was"

You say no obvious blunders yet people can apparently point out 30 of them and you still think that makes your argument stronger?

There are a lot of failings with Starmer, he tried to maintaim a status quo that is clearly failing. We are now like 16 years intp austerity, transphobia is the order of the day, the government is trying to get into bed with big tech (usually from the US), he was chasing the reform vote

No you shouldn't stand by your point, what you're being shown is that there are at least thirty (your number) different reasons.

“A victor has a thousand fathers for one reason, but the defeated is an orphan for all reasons.” — a modified play on an old saying. Everyone wanting to orphan a loser finds their own reasons or principal reason. This is not novel.

Oh so you're just not listening to all the clear answers

Having multiple blunders is a thing and quite different from “no obvious blunder.”

you guys get paid for this?

The fact that he did many things wrong to pass off many different interest groups is exactly the point. You realise that that's worse right?

That's exactly the point. In just under 2 years in office, Starmer alienated just about everybody for a variety of reasons.

Do you have difficulty understanding that if you do thirty harmful things, that's worse than doing one harmful thing, because you cast you harm over a wider range of demographics. This isn't rocket science, dear.

That’s 30 parts of the same problem, which is that the 2024 manifesto and the “ten pledges” were big fat lies. I think you already know this but I recognise it’s your job to pretend not to.

Sounds to me like people are giving you a lot of reasons why Starmer sucks.

"No obvious blunders" *people give a bunch of blunders* "Well no those don't count because you all gave different ones."

“The fact so many people have so many different reasons for passionately hating Starmer is further proof that I am correct about it being hard to see how he became unpopular”

people providing you with 30 different obvious blunders makes you stand by your point "no obvious blunders"?

Yes, he was awful in a myriad of ways, real puzzler Stanley

if your political theory requires everyone to agree about politics then you're always going to be angry and confused

bsky.app/profile/emce...

Your brain is an LLM incapable of cognition. It's not at all surprising that you can't see the most obvious common thread in your replies.

skimmed through the replies here and it just seems to be a lot of different people pointing out a lot of different problems, can you direct me to all these people saying it was just one thing?

As many other people have said and you seem determined to ignore because he didn't do a brexit, if you want it boiled down to one point: he abandoned his own base to try and chase the votes of people who will never vote for him.

So his lack of popularity was for multiple reasons. Sounds like he was generally unpopular on many issues and failed to find a group that supported his policies as a whole

I think Big Brains really don't understand how the Gaza genocide looked like for regular people.

So people being able to rattle off 30 different blunders reinforces your belief that there were zero blunders?

have you considered maybe that having 30 people giving you 30 different reasons to dislike his management is reason enough in itself?

"no obvious blunders" Many blunders "No if there's more than one it doesn't count"

Doing 30 different things wrong is bad, not good, Stanley.

The real problem is that any of those 30 things would have been politically devastating alone.

This means he did everything wrong

You don't get to say he made "no obvious blunders" then act smug when people point out the 30 obvious blunders he made.

so you got 30 different reasons he sucks so badly he was unsalvageable. time to revisit your hypothesis here!

bsky.app/profile/livi...

Maybe he did 30 different things wrong and you're being a disingenuous hack by pretending that no one is acknowledging that there can be more than one thing.

People have given you 30 reasons they hate this guy yet you remain confused about why they hate this guy. Perhaps you are simply stupid?

"There are thirty different awful things about Starmer and his government, but I can't understand why people don't like him." -You

Maybe people would have better luck getting through to you if you listed the criteria for what is or is not "a blunder"

“I have been handed a long list of reasons why he became unpopular, we will never know!”

Those 30 different answers would all be obvious blunders.

"Traitor of the working class" is such a complicated concept.

You got 30 different answers because there were MANY reasons he failed. You were unable to divine a single one, which suggests you're pretty out of touch, not that everyone else is wrong. You're getting hammered because you were so obviously wrong that everyone on Bluesky is taking a poke.

I assume your point is that he was terrible for a multitude of reasons.

So you're standing by "what have the Romans ever done for us" despite being reminded of the aqueducts and so forth?

Do you think the fact that he managed to piss people off in thirty different ways might've contributed in some way to his downfall, or do you think a politician can only be unpopular if they fuck up in just one specific way? I'm really interested in this homeopathic theory of unpopularity.

Third Way types thinking Starmer taking the unpopular position on dozens of issues would prevent any one issue from taking him down

a cartoon of a man in a lab coat opening a door to a green monster .ALT: a cartoon of a man in a lab coat opening a door to a green monster .media.tenor.com

Some nonsense this. So you say you don't get why it went wrong for him.... people then give you a tonne of reasons, yet somehow YOU'RE point is proved by his litany of errors being pointed out to you??? You're going to put your back out.

Shrinking into a corncob, I see

yeah dude, he was bad at literally everything. that's why everyone hates his slimy guts. how do you write for a living and yet have no reading comprehension?

Respectfully, if there's 30 different problems that people are pointing with Starmer's leadership and you think that proves your point, you're really not thinking this whole thing through.

Whatever they’re paying you it’s too much

thirty different answers for why he was terrible implies he was terrible on thirty separate issues, making it more obvious. that’s how bad you are at political analysis

so what you're saying is he did A LOT of things extremely wrong

I think the one issue is the centrism. Its the ideology equivalent of water droplets falling down different sides of a cone from the center. It is the shape of the thing itself which causes those 30 different responses/droplets to fall differently each time, not any difference between the droplets

Man your point is that he was massively disliked by more people than you think deserve respect and rights, I hope this getting cooked by thousands has you rethinking your own perspective instead of doubling down and posting through it out of idiotic stubbornness

imagine crowdsourcing chewing your food for you then quibbling about its consistency

'Here are 30 reasons why he sucked.' "nO onE CaN tELl Me whY hE suCKeD"

That sounds an awful lot like you got thoughtful responses about a number of different issues and chose to disregard them entirely. Here's one: my wife used to go to the UK for work pretty regularly (she's an academic), and now she won't enter the country. Because she's trans.

Stanley Cochonnal.

That's because he alienated 30 different constituencies. Which, granted, is a remarkable feat. I don't think he managed to convince any group at all that he was on their side. So, no, I don't think history books will have any problem explaining that. Apart from the simple question: Why did he do it?

Well, you shouldn’t. Your point was that the reasons for his failure are opaque and inscrutable to the layman. A deluge of explicitly given reasons why Starmer sucked doesn’t exactly reinforce that notion.

Buddy, it's a microblogging website.

Are you a child? Why would it be one thing?

wow! seems like he pissed off a lot of people. wonder if that has anything to do with his unpopularity

You're being so glaringly obtuse, this is just rage bait at this point. Feigning political analysis to weirdly protect Starmer's legacy, one of the worst and most damaging PMs in British history.

People tell me 30 different reasons they hate him which means there must be none.

HOW TF ARE YOU A JOURNALIST?! Seriously. The level of STUPIDITY in these posts is astounding.

He alienated people who would possibly vote for him, trying to appeal to people who would never vote for him, and ended up with no-one who would vote for him. The 30 different answers are 30 different things he did to alienate supporters. That's why he no longer has any. That's the actual point.

Yeah man I wonder what all these people could mean. Impossible to tell, really. Almost as if he sucked in general.

Kinda sounds like he did everything wrong.

HOW DO YOU HAVE A JOB?? Who’s yr daddy?? Because this is the stupidest shit I have ever read.

Well, but the claim "There isn't one big blunder, but 30 smaller ones that jointly together alienate most of the electorate" is a perfectly sufficient answer to your original question. A ship can easily sink by 30 holes, it doesn't have to be one big one.

Cope.

did not have 'revisiting how lots of things added together make one big thing' on my monday to do list, but here we are.

It’s not “one thing” unless the one thing is centrism writ large. This is not difficult to figure out, it just requires you to spend five seconds reexamining your priors. The market for centrism is 20 people including you, but they all happen to be political consultants

That's because you're a dipshit.

Sounds like it’s 30 different points of him being a shitty politician and that’s the overall consensus.

Wasn't your point that no one knows, and yet you got 30 different answers? So it seems like a lot of people know why. So standing by your point makes you intentionally ignorant which isn't good.

Uh ... you do realise that the fact people were able to point out 30 obvious blunders doesn't validate your claim, but in fact were able to refute it 30 times over? This is like saying "I can't believe I didnt get an A on this test! I didnt make one single error" after being told you made 30 errors.

No one said “this ONE thing”, Stanley. You made that up.

"No obvious blunders" is how you put it, and there were many. Starmer could have saved his career and his party in a single day simply by announcing he would pursue a path back into the EU. Polling on this has been clear for years now.

Then you're being wilfully blind. It sounds to me like you were given 30+ very good reasons why Starmer failed, and you decided to listen to none of them

Why are you being like this?

fucking turd

so ppl are giving you multiple reasons as to why he’s so unpopular and you still think it’s some sort if mystery. 🙄

You're so fucking close man, just put it all together now

wow so there were actually a ton of reasons you’re pretending not to notice cause it’s inconvenient to the cancer that is centrism?

The fact that people can mention thirty different things really makes you saying he made no obvious blunders look really stupid.

I think the only person I'd trust to answer this is Hari Seldon...

Not really, its giving a lot of reasons why he's hated. Which you didnt know before and are now pretending not to understand.

Well, you know, it's hard to make someone understand something their salary depends on them not understanding...

"Why does this man who gave everyone a personalized bespoke reason to hate him not have any support?"

You asked for one reason, you got dozens of good ones, still you refuse to join reality. He supports genocide, you idiot.

Wow, sounds like you have identified a way in which he's uniquely bad. Or thirty ways. But you take my point.

You don't have a point.

Maybe because everything he has done since entering office was to hurt people amd the nation and most focus on the one that affected them to most? I think the only group he didn't ratfuck was the house of lords and only because he was too incompetent to hit them

So he was bad on multiple fronts?

I see just one thing repeated over and over: he was elected as left of centre and then did hard right-wing things. Like sure there's way more than 30 individual examples of actions that count as that (which is what makes it not a one-off) but that's the main thing people are talking about.

I mean they all amount to the same thing, which is that his centrism was shit. He backstabbed his base on so many things that they cared about; it's not a surprise that they'd loathe him. And he can't stay in office without the support of his base.

"The fact that there are 30 different reasons why this guy sucks is proof that there are no reasons for why he sucks"

corncob ass

All 30 are probably valid. If you fuck up that much, you are just in general a failure.

"I said give a reason, and you gave 30" is the quibble you get from a petulant teen with a dirty room, not a cutting rebuttal.

He became PM because the right split so badly he got a mad majority on fuck all vote, and then proceeded to tell that 30-something percent to get fucked. Hope this helps.

I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse so you can write some shitass column about how perfectly clear things are hard to understand, tbh.

Have you considered that Starmer was bad at all 30 things?

So there are at least 30 things he fucked up huh?

Or maybe it’s because he actually made so many blunders that everybody hated him, which would be the opposite of your point.

"People have given me dozens of reasons why they don't like him, which makes me not understand why he's so unpopular." Have you always been an idiot?

That's not as solid a response as you think. There are many specific reasons he became so unpopular, but the general thing is he lied about who and what he was, refused to listen to anyone, and sent anyone who didn't like what he was doing packing.

Maybe because there are so many different things??? He is hated here for many many many valid reasons. As someone who actually lives here, we know better than you do.

trust me you dont have a point, you are in fact pointless

Basically he managed to work out what everyone in the country would most hate and do it to them over and over

wouldn't that mean he just made lots of mistakes a pleased no one? not exactly a novel way to fail, no real mystery

Except they're not saying it's down to any one thing, just providing you with a list of many of the reasons, you disingenuous hack.

Lmao there are a lot more than 30 things he fucked up really badly, and more than one thing can be true at the same time, hope this helps!

Him doing so much bad shit that people struggle to choose just one is why he was such a shit prime minister and why literally everyone hates him. Its not some big mystery, if you go round being an all round cunt to lots of people then lots of people will think youre a cunt.

Why do you feel that a PM should only go if there is one major error? Consistently poor judgement and continuing on the wrong trajectory did him no favours. He was the wrong man for the job surrounding himself with the wrong people. He believed his policies won him the GE rather than voting to GTTO.

You stand by your point where he didn't appear to have done anything wrong yet have been presented with thirty things? Nice one, Stanley, top coping.

Death by 30 blunders isn’t inevitable, but it is if there’s nothing weighty on the positive side of the scales.

Logic was never your strong point, was it.

so your surprised that he's unpopular when there a list of 30 items people are telling you are red lines hes crossed. but i bet most of those people agree on most it's just 1 stands out more for them

Wow! It's almost like he upset a massive variety of people, each in a different way.

Hi Stanley do you like anagrams?

So, there are at least 30 reasons to despise him? Jolly good.

You've been absolutely shown up here, how embarrassing for you.

“Hmm people are saying this person was deeply unpopular for lots of reasons, that must mean there is no reason for him to be deeply unpopular” Galaxy brain stuff

Critical thinking not your forte then.

So you've learned absolutely nothing. Good for you🤦‍♀️

Buzz Lightyear: No Sign of Intelligent LifeAlt: Buzz Lightyear: No Sign of Intelligent Lifestatic.klipy.com

wow its almost like he did 30 bad things idk

30 different reasons for his failure prove your point that - there was no explanation for his failure? I miss critical thinking skills.

Imagine giving the most reductionist answers the most weight and then getting mad.

this user has difficulty with big numbers such as 30

Sorry im not taking part in you humiliation kink

That just means he did 30 things wrong you doofus. This isn’t math. They don’t cancel out. They create a list of shortcomings. Thus proving you even more of a dumbass.

"he sucks for [30 different reasons]" is nothing to explain it just means he sucks for a lot of reasons. "he sucks for [30 different reasons] AND NOTHING ELSE" would be odd and give you something to say, which is why you had to pretend that's what's being said. Good job! 👍

So you’ve been told 30 different things he was disliked for and yet you still can’t understand why he wasn’t popular. Sounds like you’re thick af.

Restarting sure start

More breakfasts for poor kids

And after supporting an anti-trans genocide at home under the claim that it "protects women," no less.

Centrists are just right-wingers who are too embarrassed to admit what they are

Ding ding. The message sent by the Tories Out election wave that installed Starmer wasn't "Starmer is our man," but rather "things are in the dumpster, change them NOW." And when many felt things not only did not improve under Starmer but continued to backslide, they felt zero loyalty or patience.

It turns out trying to thread the needle between "it's bad to not be white" and "no it isn't fuck off" leaves few people satisfied

Instead of focussing on fixing the cost of living crisis they targeted even more minority groups than the Tories, continuing the assault on immigrants, & trans rights, & then also going after disabled people. Essentially the TL:DR of this Labour government: "More Tories but worse" 🤷

Starmer came in at a time when voters wanted material policy change, and then steered Labour into the same ditch that the Conservatives had driven themselves into.

And A LOT of the traditional Labour voters are appalled by Israel’s ongoing livestreamed genocide & Starmer’s unrelenting support of same, at the expense of Britons’ freedom of speech. Meanwhile the Greens are loudly and unambiguously espousing actual left wing values & standing against genocide.

The classic trying to appeal to conservatives schtick. Why would actual conservatives vote for tory-lite when they can vote for the real thing?

No they really didn't. And you way you spell "labor" show you aren't actually a UKconstituent. Bye bye bot ( and yes you have been reported)

This could go very ‘what have the romans ever done for us…’

Here I disagree. As an American, the UK’s ability to hound their leaders out of power whenever it’s called for, not just during scheduled elections, is one thing I envy about your political system.

In that moment Starmer could benefit from not being the subject of the public's ire, but it was never going to work out in the long run. He's simply incapable of inspiring any real enthusiasm. Then there was the folly of trying to chase Reform votes, as if Farage's supporters would buy that.

This is using "compromise" to mean "betray British trans people or British Muslims", right? We've all seen that dance before: the left takes a step to the right, the right takes a step to the right and complains we're not willing to compromise.

Not supporting genocide is a low fucking bar but somehow that's seen as "purity testing" by the usual 3rd way, corporate boot licking, blarite wankers that try to pass themselves off as being on the left.

Oh no you work for a magazine you should really know better

Utter drivel.

Switching leaders mid term is their best chance, not only do we get Burnham, he gets two years to let the big projects run and hopefully not mess it up some other way.

Yes, for me it’s the transphobia and xenophobia. Outshines any good stuff. But I can’t see changing leader will change that.

Literally what's happening in most western countries at the moment, and failing for all of them too!

shame that he will conveniently not see this comment

Also, Labour as founded as a Left one, not centrist. They’ve been drifting away from that for many years now, with the notable brief exception when Jeremy Corbyn was leader but Starmer and his cronies have been deliberately moving them right faster.

In short, they're taking a page or three from the US's Democratic party. Over here, that's been tried fruitlessly for decades.

Exactly. It's actually quite simple.

Yeah, it doesn’t seem hard. And this dude works for The Economist? Is this his first day?

I joined the Labour Party the day after he became leader - I am far from right wing as a liberal socialist. If we go hard left we will become unelectable yet again. The mistake Kier made was too many U-turns when the original path was the correct one.

I am going to propose a radical theory: He didn't do all that anti-trans and anti-immigrant stuff to court any voters. Keir did that shit because that shit is what he believes in

BINGO