We Should Sing The Lovesong Of K. Rodney Starmer

In 1917, just before the end of the First World War, T.S. Eliot published his lyrical account of the eponymous J. Alfred Prufrock, the tortured proto-Modern man, torn apart by indecision, and slowly withering away due to his own inactivity. ‘The Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock’ took the world of verse by storm; its protagonist was neither the tragic nor the epic hero, but rather, a nobody. A procrastinating, stagnating, frustrating everyday man, haunted by his own regrets. His life was a life unlived, spent afraid and thus unspent. Petrified to break the surface tension, to rupture the precise balance of the meniscus, to shatter the established order, he perpetually asks himself ‘Shall I part my hair behind?’, ‘Do I dare to eat a peach?’, ‘Do I dare/disturb the universe?’.

And he never does. Prufrock never dares disturb the universe.

And so, the universe never changes.

The current prime minister of the United Kingdom, Sir Keir Starmer, has much in common with Eliot’s unspectacular anti-hero. Since the 5th July 2024, which saw a landslide victory for Labour, the softly-spoken, musician-cum-human rights barrister-cum-politician has been congealing in his own inaction. In the most recent local elections in the UK, Labour’s loss of over 1,460 seats and Reform’s gain of 1,450 council seats reveals a fundamental dissatisfaction with the Labour government. The stagnation of the Conservative party’s popularity under Kemi Badenoch perhaps also reveals the slow-but-sure demise of the traditional two-party system in the UK. But the fate of Labour seems particularly perilous. Even in the Welsh Parliament elections, Labour lost its hold for the first time since 1999, losing out to Plaid Cymru and Reform. Does it seem that after only a meek and meagre few years in politics, Keir Starmer is already at the end of his tether? 

It is difficult to precisely pinpoint exactly what it is that the British electorate seems to take umbrage when it comes to Starmer. Ostensibly, he hasn’t done anything glaringly controversial. He hasn’t, à la Tony Blair, invaded another sovereign state. He hasn’t, à la Liz Truss, introduced a historically bad budget proposal. He hasn’t, à la Boris Johnson, hosted a Covid party in full flagrance of his own rules. And yet, his (un)popularity ratings are staggering. YouGov estimates that his approval ratings are sitting at a whopping -46% net, far worse than that of Johnson, Blair and Thatcher. Only Truss is deemed worse. People speak with such vitriol of their hatred for this mild-mannered man, equating him, as the figurehead of the UK, with the crisis that British politics finds itself in.

This article will attempt to unpack some of the reasons behind Starmer’s extreme unpopularity, delving into his poor appointment of key members of his cabinet and foreign representation (Mandelson as the obvious example); his alienation of Northern England through the Andy Burnham fiasco; his obviously strained relationship with the civil service and his ‘Midas touch’ which means that any policy issue he addresses immediately is met with outcry (think the Digital ID scandal). These reasons explain somewhat why Starmer isn’t beloved, but more than anything, it is his inaction, his indecision, his inability or unwillingness to convince the British population that he is there to improve their lives. Inaction, it seems, sometimes costs more than action because it implies impotence. At least Boris had balls. It seems counterintuitive that electorates seem to more readily forbid reckless action than they do hesitation or inaction. A politician’s job is to act, and react. Mistakes are excusable, because they represent momentum, a willingness to try, the courage to upset the status quo. Alas, it is indecision that is so aggressively repulsive to a frustrated people.

Prufrock was convinced he had time–so is Starmer. But Prufrock was wrong. And in the end, his entire life could be ‘measured out in coffee spoons’ rather than achievements. The cup of coffee, the cup of tea. Nothing is worth remembering. And the irony is, Starmer risks the same fate.

‘And time yet for a hundred indecisions,

And for a hundred visions and revisions,

Before the taking of a toast and tea.’

Starmer is faced with the prospect of a potentially imminent leadership contest. The charges levied against him include inter alia: failure to act, chopping and changing, pandering, pussyfooting, mollycoddling and tiptoeing around, afraid of breaking eggshells. According to Wes Streeting, the recently resigned health minister, Starmer’s weakness is enabling the rise of nationalism and of Reform.

But what has this seemingly innocuous and rather inoffensive man done to garner such animosity, such distaste? Has he really betrayed Labour? And most importantly, is the solution to get rid of him?

Must We Be Rid Of ‘the Fool’?

The British people are frustrated. The average household bears the brunt of Trumpian tariffs and the Hormuz blockade with their quality of life diminishing day-by-day. A cappuccino costs on average £5. A pint of Guinness costs up to £8. Like the rest of the world, the Brits are suffering the costs of inflation and frankly, they seek a leader who reassures, who tells them firmly, kindly and resolutely that he sees the issues and will tackle them head-on. The nitty-gritty and the details don’t matter when it comes to garnering the support of an embittered and disillusioned people. Conviction and concrete, tangible action matters. The devil is not in the details; it’s in the overall direction. How does the aphorism go? Actions speak louder than words…actions with deliberate direction are the only weapon a politician has to keep his hold on order. Policy, priorities, promises, proof. Strong policy, clear priorities, kept promises and proving to the British people that change is coming, has been made and is moving the country in a positive direction. Yet, this is the one thing Starmer seems unable to realise.

Instead, he is like Prufrock, ‘the attendant lord’ not the leader:

Am an attendant lord, one that will do

To swell a progress, start a scene or two,

Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,

Deferential, glad to be of use,

Politic, cautious, and meticulous;

Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;

At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—

Almost, at times, the Fool.

Like Prufrock, Starmer is ‘deferential…politic, cautious, and meticulous’. The adjectives bear an uncanny familiarity. ‘Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse’. Starmer is plagued by the same crippling caution, has this same stage fright, an unwillingness to pioneer, to take any action that might be too bold. He ruminates, chewing the cud, until there is no other option but to reluctantly act. On the international stage, he has been accused of being ‘no Churchill’ by Trump, his resistance to the US’s military interventions in the Middle East was irresolute, he ummmed and ahhhed on the Iranian issue, a little sail boat battered about on the vast high and stormy seas.

But on the international stage, Starmer hasn’t done a particularly poor job. Admittedly, his presence and prestige has been overshadowed by none other than King Charles in his majestic speech before the U.S. Congress: ‘Let me say with unshakeable resolve: such acts of violence will never succeed. Whatever our differences, whatever disagreements we may have, we stand united in our commitment to uphold democracy, to protect all our people from harm, and to salute the courage of those who daily risk their lives in the service of our countries.’ Starmer lacks this ‘unshakeable resolve’ that Charles speaks of and with, just as Prufrock did. He has become the ‘attendant lord’.

Labour’s Love Lost 

Where Starmer has become a bumbling ‘fool’ is on the domestic front. His ample errors are hard to classify––they all meld into one in the public eye––exposing Starmer as foolish and incompetent. It began with the embarrassment surrounding the scandal of the Deputy PM and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner failing to pay the stamp duty on her second home. Starmer’s initial backing of her despite the blatant tax fraud, followed by his endorsement of her resignation was a prime example of either poor and impulsive decision making before the facts are known or a tendency to cave under pressure and go back on decisions- some might even call it spinelessness.

Starmer has also successfully alienated the typically faithful body of northern Labour voters who are rallying behind Andy Burnham––a Warrington-born fan favourite––who incidentally could be in the running should a leadership contest arise. When Starmer blocked Burnham running in the by-election in January 2026, he severed a limb of his party, fuelling discontent on Burnham’s home turf. Burnham, the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, is an interesting candidate in his own right. Though a Cambridge-educated English literature graduate, he leans into his Northern audience’s disgruntlement at London and the South’s monopoly on parliamentary preference. He gained particular momentum for calling out the Tories under Boris Johnson for prioritising the South during the COVID vaccination distribution. Blocking Burnham was a poor move on Starmer’s part; it is politically unstrategic to alienate the North, and it is in conjunction with an absence of Northern-centric policy measures that his popularity has tanked. 

Frankly, Starmer’s policies are half-hearted and hardly popular across the board. His cancellation of winter fuel payments (2025), his promise to keep income tax low but instead side-passing it by bumping up National Insurance contributions, his attempt to introduce biometric digital IDs so as to tackle illegal immigration which was deemed to be governmental overreach. Every step Starmer takes, no matter the direction, sees him run straight into a concrete wall of resistance. He is the ‘anti-Midas’, turning nothing to gold, and everything to ashes. In many ways also, a decade after the Brexit referendum, Starmer seems to be bearing the brunt of the UK’s messy divorce from the EU. The damage to the UK economy caused by Brexit is only now properly rearing its head: Britain is poorer, the GDP per capita is on average 6-8% poorer than pre-Brexit. Investment is, on average, 12% lower. Trade is lesser. People are unhappier. Britain’s international status and wealth has not increased now that she is untethered from the EU – and indeed, even the ‘special relationship’ under Trump became a weird parody of standing up to a bully-ish president as in Love Actually. British people are disappointed with what their country is offering them. They need someone to blame, to point fingers at a decade down the line. And Starmer is a pretty obvious candidate.

The most glaring mistake Number 10 has made, however, is Mandelson-Epstein debacle where Starmer, in a moment of blind folly, chose to appoint the political heavyweight Peter Mandelson, a highly controversial figure, rather than an experienced career diplomat to the position of UK ambassador to the United States on the basis that Mandelson was on good terms with Trump and would negotiate a good trade deal for the UK. This ended disastrously for Starmer, when Mandelson was undeniably and inexcusably implicated in the Epstein files. The shame and scandal again of Starmer initially backing Mandelson and then withdrawing his support, reinforced the image of a PM who seemingly has no control of his staff nor of the vetting process. Furthermore, each of these failures, rather than accepted as a teething error or honest mistake by Starmer, is reactionarily swept under the carpet, typically culminating in the dismissal of a high up figure in the civil service, serving as an easy scapegoat. No one likes a sore loser; no one likes someone who can’t admit their own mistakes. Naturally, this has fostered and bred an atmosphere of distrust between Number 10 and the civil service without whose backing and trust, the governmental cogs simply grind to a rusted halt.

This series of scandals has rocked the Labour Party and though each one is individually not enough to dislodge Starmer, though the Mandelson debacle was quite spectacularly stupid, the fallout has been poorly handled and thus poorly reflects on the party and its leader.

But though perhaps Starmer has been misguided at times, naive, non committal, indecisive, a fool – has he really done anything unforgivably bad? He is accused by Labour Party voters of destroying what Labour meant to them. But is Blair’s legacy not worse? And yet, Starmer is hated more. Blair even feels he is entitled to cast his opinion on the status of the Labour party which, verbatim, ‘is playing with fire; or, more accurately, with its future, and that of the country.’ Blair’s essay is not uninsightful. He is particularly astute when he writes ‘Governments which succeed don’t start with a personality contest. Or a political question – as in, how do we ‘save the country’ from Reform. They start with an idea, a project, a governing purpose, an analysis of what is wrong and a plan to put it right’. Good governance and clever policy must be the priority – Blair is right there. But is he the right candidate to pass criticism?

Finally, the conspiracy against Starmer and the vitriol directed towards him is a convoluted and complex media ploy. His inaction makes him an easy target for the vultures of Reform UK (the right wing populist party on the rise in the UK at the moment). His indecisions and visions and revisions. But more alarmingly, he (and his party) have fallen victim to Reform’s media-propaganda machine better known as GB News. It is the UK Media right now that is causing the slow death of the leader, and it is Reform UK that is behind this media machine, spreading their aggressive message of Nationalism, scapegoating and diminishing the credibility of traditional politics.

The ‘Yellow Fog’ Of Nationalism

In the Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock, Eliot describes:

The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window-panes,

The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the window-panes,

Licked its tongue into the corners of the evening,

Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains,

This pervasive ‘yellow fog’ seamlessly elides with the pervasive spores of blood-and-soil nationalism that plague our current British society, perpetuated and propelled by none other than Nigel Farage’s far-right party Reform UK.

Recently, Banksy bequeathed to the city of London a brilliant and provocative new statue. It depicts a man on the march in a sharply tailored suit, brandishing a massive flag proudly for his nationalist parade. But a gust of wind has swept up the flag, billowing it back into the man’s face, blinding him entirely, resembling a hangman’s hood. Blinkered by his flag, the nationalist continues his inexorable march forwards, oblivious to the vast abyss before him, and that his unquestioning nationalism will be his demise.

In his fibre-glass rendition, Banksy depicts the effects of nationalism on the populace. Indeed, the UK is currently besieged by a plague of nationalism driven by self-interested populists who use it as a way to unite diverse and disgruntled electoral groups. Nationalism bound up with populism – the greatest and most imminent threat faced by the UK’s domestic political economy. And Banksy depicted it. Loud and clear. In central London – a mere stone’s throw from memorials depicting British imperialism, not least the memorial of the Crimean War. 

When the MP Wes Streeting’s resigned from his role of Health Minister in the Cabinet of Starmer on the 14th of May, he justified in his letter to Number 10 his reason for doing so:

I left the government because we are in the fight of our lives against nationalism, and it is a fight that we are currently losing.

Unless we change course, we risk handing the keys of No 10 to Reform.

But, as much as GB News would like you to believe, Starmer is not the sole reason for the rise of Reform. He is a convenient scapegoat. And a scapegoat of the press. 

The press exists and functions as a guardrail of democracy. It is an essential component of a functional democratic society because it holds politicians to account for their actions and makes public their transgressions. But the press must be balanced. It must criticise politicians on the right for their crimes, as strongly as it criticises those on the left. And the fact that Keir Starmer is hung, drawn and quartered almost religiously by the British press, his every move criticised. His every breath protracted and analysed. 

It is a narrative that the press has curated in order to satisfy an unabated audience, hungry for blood. This can be the only answer. Starmer’s main enemy is the British media. The hostile press ecosystem has cultivated a narrative of his weakness, weaponising his caution and indecision to make their point.  And above all, it is GB news that plays the endless loop, the incessant repeat of Starmer slander. And does so in blatant violation of British broadcasting OFCOM regulations. It is propaganda.

Alastair Campbell’s recent twitter post sums it up well. Starmer is criticised no matter what he does. Simply for existing in many cases. Again, Starmer is not great. He is far from a good PM even. But he is not bad. He just doesn’t know how to talk to a camera.

We cannot and should not deny that Starmer should step down from power come the next elections. He is lacking in one crucial tool essential to the politician’s toolkit: charisma.

However, is the answer to boot him out now? As of 18th May 2026, just short of 100 Labour MPs ascertained that Starmer should go. A Labour leadership contest may be on the brink. And yet Starmer clings desperately on. With stiffening fingers he hangs on the edge, above the abyss, on the precipice.

This is the volta moment for K. Rodney Starmer. This is the moment where he must persevere in spite of all adversary, all criticism. The UK does not need another PM. We have had 6 in 4 years. And, frankly, there is no ideal option to replace him. There are other candidates, yes––Wes Streeting, Andy Burnham, Angela Rayner lead the pack––but none of them are a shining beacon of hope. And the same line parroted over and over…we just need a strong leader and then things will sort themselves out. But where is this leader? I can’t see her or him. 

In the constant parade of Prime Ministers, we risk making UK politics purely about people, about the PM, not about policy. The UK needs some continuity instead of constant change. We are fighting an uphill struggle against nationalism and Reform, but it is not a Sisyphean pursuit, nor should we misconstrue it to be. And what really motivates voters, it is proof of tangible change, not a calculated smile or curated charisma. Because, with Blair as proof, even the most likeable of characters can make poor policy moves. 

It is important that the Labour party does not solely define itself by its opposition to Reform UK. However, resistance to Farage’s machinations is the only option. Exposing the intricate web of lies and the GB News Media corruption is the imperative. Because otherwise Reform will win. And the only way to defeat them, isn’t to point fingers back at Reform. It’s to make the changes the populace is demanding. To respond to the challenges with bravery and boldness. It is to take concrete, active steps towards change. 

Starmer’s Identity Politics:

‘No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be’

When Prufrock asserts that he is ‘not Prince Hamlet’ and was never ‘meant to be’, we are met with a line of utter ambiguity. What does not being ‘Prince Hamlet’ entail?

Because the one thing that Prince Hamlet, Prufrock and Starmer share is an indecision regarding their identity. ‘To be or not to be, that is the question?’: perhaps the most famous line in the Bard’s canon relates to identity indecision.

And yet Prufrock does not align himself with Prince Hamlet, he specifically dismisses him. Perhaps, it is Hamlet’s ultimate sacrifice, his willingness to lay down his life to remove his step-father, a tyrant, from his illegitimate hold on the throne and in his mother’s bed, after murder’s Hamlet’s father, that Prufrock cannot fathom replicating. Prufrock lacks the gumption, the bravery, the sacrifice. He is much more content to sit back and listen to the ‘women come and go/ Talking of Michelangelo.’

But what about Keir Starmer? Does he have Prince Hamlet potential?

Hamlet was not perfect. His hamartia was his procrastination and indecision, his inability to take swift action, his overthinking, his philosophical contemplations and, most of all, his paralysing pursuit of certainty. Just like Starmer in some ways, just like Prufrock in many.

But Hamlet did muster the courage, come the end of the play. He did ensure the end of tyranny, even if it meant the ultimate sacrifice. Perhaps this is what we require of Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Perhaps he must be our Prince Hamlet.

We do not need Keir Starmer to be a brilliant prime minister. All we need is for him to be an active, responsive, Britain-first advocate, who can stave off the mendacious threats of Reform. Hamlet pretended he was mad in order to save his father’s throne. He destroyed his standing and reputation in order to achieve his end goal. Personal sacrifice for a greater good. Frankly, Starmer’s reputation, at least domestically speaking, is already at rock bottom. Let him play some Hamlet moves.

There is a famous German saying that reads Ist der guter Ruf erst ruiniert lebt man frei und völlig ungeniert. It translates as ‘Once your reputation has been ruined, then you live entirely free and unencumbered’. This is true also for Starmer. Perhaps his unpopularity is not his downfall at all – it is his opportunity.

Starmer must stop pandering to the far-right. Leave that to Farage. He must deliver to the vast majority of voters who first entrusted their country to him, two years ago. To do so, he must plough headfirst into making the changes that he has promised, and not yet delivered. For when he does act, he does so well. Onshore wind, workers rights, nationalisation processes: these are all successful steps that Starmer has taken, none of which he gets any recognition for. He must shout from the rooftops about what he does right. He must actively get more right. And if he frustrates the far-right in the process, so be it.

His best strategy, would be to start putting young people first – something no government has done for decades. Addressing the burden placed on the shoulders of the new generation – the sky-high unemployment among university grads, the exponential student loans, changing the narrative around the ‘snowflake’ generation. Because the snowflakes might actually vote for him. Especially if he does something for them. 

As of this moment, Starmer is bitterly unpopular. This unpopularity gives him freedom of manoeuvre.  

When you hit rock bottom – the only way to go is up.

It is time to make some noise. It is time to make some ripples.

‘In my beginning is my end. In my end is my beginning.’

(An epitaph on T. S. Eliot’s tombstone) 

Sir Keir Starmer is not a prophet who can read the future. Like all of us, he is a flawed human being who is ‘afraid’. But fear and cowardice have no space in political leadership. As Prufrock writes:

I am no prophet — and here’s no great matter;

I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,

And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker,

And in short, I was afraid.

In order to survive this leadership contest, Starmer must ignore the Footman’s ‘snicker’, he must set aside his ‘fear’, he must abandon the ‘visions’ and ‘revisions’ and ‘indecisions’ that he has inherited from Prufrock. He must ‘dare’ to disturb the universe’ or, at least, to take the bold and daring decisions which Britain desperately needs.

Otherwise, he will never have a ‘moment of greatness’, and he will not see it ‘flicker’.

To live a life of mediocrity, of defeat, of inaction – this is a legacy Starmer does not want to leave.

Let us hope he is better than Prufrock.

Let us see what K. Rodney Starmer is really made of.