As if Kier Starmer doesn’t make your skin crawl already, he just keeps upping the creepiness factor until, quite frankly, no-one else could ever get a look in. From being a horrible, anti-Semite-enabling do-nothing, sitting on Jeremy Corbyn’s shoulder for the ‘years of terror’, he’s now become the most negative, whingy-moany opposition leader ever, elevated to the top slot by virtue of not having anything positive to ever propose, seemingly content with demanding government sackings whenever a top Tory goes to take a piss during parliamentary session. Ok, part of that’s his job, but there must be MORE, you need substance, you Arsenal-supporting, charisma-free champagne-socialist reptile!

Yet on he bangs. This time an old and familiar drum. Which has no place in any drum-kit because its so irrelevant. “Rishi Sunak can never understand a ‘cost of living crisis’ because he’s so rich”. “Rishi Sunak can’t understand mortgage rate increases because he owns 150 million quids worth of properties outright”. And, best of all, just to really hi-light how totally free from understanding he really is: “I have a mortgage and the repayments have just gone UP!!!” Just like yours!!!, is the implication, whereas the reality is the mortgage on Starmer’s 2 million pound north London pad is probably about 27k and between his ‘paltry’ £150k a year plus his wife’s salary, they’ll barely notice the difference.

Starmer suffers from a chronic case of socialist guilt. The symptoms are an inability to accept that you are pretty well off, financially, because it might make you appear ‘less worthy’ a socialist than a homeless man. As if ‘socialism’ were a lifestyle choice rather than a political ideology. And by constantly banging on about Rishi’s never-denied wealth, he implies that he is ‘hard up; just like you’ whereas nothing could be farther from the truth. And furthermore, Rishi’s never been raped. Does that make him less empathetic to victims than a PM who had been? You don’t need to be poor to sympathise with the poor. A point sadly never grasped by the Leader of the Opposition.

I think therefore, that we need to add, to the growing list of failings and shortcomings of ‘the man who might become PM (God for-fucking-bid!!!)’, that he just isn’t very bright. Clever, in a bland and non-creative academic way, but dim.

A killer irony is that as I was googling Starmer a link came up about his actual name. And apparently ‘Starmer’ is an olde English derivative from ‘starre’ or ‘sterre’ which mean ‘bright’ and “…would generally be given to someone with a bright or lively personality.” He is, therefore, a disgrace to his family name.

Happy Sunday

A xxxx