An Indecent Man

The truth about the most hated prime minister of all time.

There’s nothing the British media loves more than to destroy someone, then build them back up.

Just as you can be utterly annihilated by the fairly trivial, you can be rehabilitated from the borderline heinous.

This process is now beginning with Keir Starmer, and it is already very annoying. Tim Farron claimed ‘the vitriol and hatred towards him is just weird’. Matthew Syed came out with the bizarre assertion ‘Starmer was hated. Says far more about the electorate than the man’, and concluded ‘Starmer was a good man leading an ungovernable country’.

And you can find many more examples currently stinking up X.

All of it, of course, is nonsense. Starmer was not a good man. And to those of us with our moral compass still intact, this was immediately clear following the horror of the Southport murders.

Starmer’s total lack of empathy for a nation stunned and disgusted by what had taken place was striking. He seemed furious that not everyone was following ‘the process’. And, with an efficiency seldom seen when it comes to actually improving people’s lives, had as many people locked up as possible.

This is not to say, of course, that rioting is the answer. But his lack of understanding of, if not outright hatred for, the British people only encouraged the unrest. Where he needed to say ‘I get it, but let’s be calm’, he went with ‘Far-right thuggery’.

But it’s not just me saying this. Tim Shipman confirms in the Spectator that ‘His second foundational error, according to voters in focus groups, was his handling of the Southport killings of three young girls…it still comes up to this day, unprompted.’

At the time, various MSM goons claimed Starmer had handled it well. But that’s because they exist in the same bubble as Starmer, and, like him, barely acknowledge the existence of the British people, particularly the white working class, unless it is with a passing disgust, like something you have to wipe off your shoe.

But, although the current slow-moving coup happening in our government shows we barely live in a democracy, you still can’t quite get away with that level of open contempt for the people who put you in power.

Shipman calls this the ‘second foundational error’. The first was winter fuel. In a poll I annoyingly can’t find now, this was shown to be the policy voters were both most aware of and hated the most (Southport, pace the Starmer sycophants, also scored highly on both metrics).

Then of course we have the Mandelson fiasco, which was entirely predictable to absolutely everyone in the country except Starmer and his football mates.

Syed doesn’t mention any of this, because the ‘ungovernable’ memo has gone out, just as the ‘handled it well’ memo went out over Southport, and the ‘decent man’ memo has been deployed which increasingly desperate frequency. Such clichés make clever people sound very stupid, and it is left to the gammony thugs not allowed in the mainstream media (at your service) to set the record straight.

Starmer was not and is not decent. As his perfectly apt nickname implies, he was flagrantly two-tier. Just three days ago he was commenting on a violent incident in a way he would have urged everyone not to if it had been done by one of his precious ‘communities’, rather than a white man. ‘The suspect appears to be motivated by anti-Muslim hatred’, he posted. Ah, so we’re doing speculation now? What happened to the ‘process’?

The post has 47 thousand replies, and I’m sure you can guess the tone of them. Starmer has driven everyone to the edge of their collective tether, and pushed the country further towards civil unrest. This could have been avoided or at least tempered by a sensitive approach. Instead, he doubled down on blatant unfairness, either through stupidity, or sheer hatred of the native British.

Of course it’s true that the state of our state makes governing extremely difficult. Not so much for the reasons Syed et al cite regarding the unrealistic expectations of voters (though there is that) but due to the bureaucratic quagmire of Whitehall that Dominic Cummings spoke out about (again) the other day.

Cummings claims:

That is why you see two things happening on the Left now: one, the plan to change the electoral system to PR (proportional representation), and then, secondly, discussions about how you encode protections for the civil service to make it extremely difficult to actually do what I’m talking about. What they’re thinking is — and it’s actually logical from their point of view — that if you pass certain kinds of legislation defending the current Whitehall system, and then you do PR, you make it extremely hard for anybody coming in to actually change anything. You completely embed the current catastrophic situation, which is what they want to do.

Thus the trouble with using the byzantine nightmare of the system as a defence of Starmer is that, while he may have struggled to get certain policies through (probably more with his own backbench than the Civil Service) Starmer is very much on the side of the Blob.

He was the latest attempt by the Regime to prevent real change, or do anything that voters actually want. In a way he felt like the last attempt, but the spawning of Burnham proves that they will never stop pumping out these people and their drab policies, in a kind of endless, infuriating meme-based bartering. ‘What’s that, you want lower immigration? Best I can do is breakfast clubs. Okay, okay, I hear you—how about jogging to the Stone Roses and an improved bus system in the North? Wow, you’re a hard man to please...’

Burnham will soon end up hated, and his already irritating selfie with the strategically-placed Labour Fembots (whom they still don’t quite trust to lead) will age about as well as the dancing nurses of the Covid era.

But he still probably won’t be quite as hated as Starmer, who managed to combine a soulless, jobsworth vibe with a lack of effectiveness, thus leaving the entire country wondering what the point of him was. In the end, even his own party concluded that there wasn’t one.

At least Starmer will now have time to write his autobiography. Though it’s hard to imagine what will actually be in it. This is a man, remember, who resolutely claimed he didn’t dream at night, and appeared to have very little inner life during the day either.

I have suggested a selection of titles for the prospective book, the most popular of which seems to be I, Keir. For a man as forgiving and charismatic as a plank of wood, and as deep as a set of flatpack furniture instructions, it is not a bad shout.