The truth about the most hated prime minister of all time.
NICK DIXON
There’s nothing the British media love 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 with 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.
Subscribe to Nick’s Substack here and follow him on X here.
This article (An Indecent Man) was created and published by Nick Dixon and is republished here under “Fair Use”
See Related Article Below
Starmer’s Legacy: The Great Pretender
FRANK HAVILAND
With Sir Keir Starmer finally dispatched from Downing Street, you can almost hear the machinery of legacy management grinding into action. Allies and former colleagues speak of a profoundly decent man, overwhelmed by events – at least, until Andy Burnham shows up for a selfie. David Lammy, ever the clown, has called Starmer’s legacy “immense”. It isn’t.
Such sycophancy can just about be forgiven from the David Lammys and Hillary Benns of this world – they are only doing their job. It is far less forgivable from the legacy media; those who fawned over Starmer’s coronation, insisting “the grown-ups were back in charge”, and who now appear equally bemused by his ousting while desperately highlighting the humanity of his resignation speech.
It is only human to recognise the strain such a job would place on any individual, particularly an unpopular one. But this is a temptation we should resist. Blubbing Prime Ministers come and go, yet Keir Starmer does not deserve the Theresa May treatment. His tears on the steps of Downing Street were tears he reserved for himself, not his victims.
For Starmer is no Theresa May. May was, for my money, a decent woman – albeit, entirely unsuited to the role of Prime Minister, and afflicted by a quite fantastic inability to understand what “leaving the European Union” actually meant. Neither is he Boris Johnson, a man whose vulnerable underbelly was exposed by his indulgence of Mr Kipling and his wife’s insatiable appetite for gold-plated curtains. He’s not even a Jeremy Corbyn. If you voted for Magic Grandpa back in 2019, you knew what you were getting – or you were a fool. Corbyn’s affection for Britain’s enemies was an open secret. The same mitigation cannot be extended to Starmer, who did his best to conceal his motives from the public. And with good reason.
If I had to sum it up in a sentence, I’d say Starmerism was an all-out assault on Britain: her history, her culture, her traditions, and above all her people, dressed up in legalese. In Keir Starmer’s flabby hands, this war was waged like a ruthless dictator: willing to prosecute, imprison, and throw anyone under the bus who threatened his own survival. It is, I believe, under this lens that every major policy decision, every misstep, every U-turn, and every outright lie, finally makes sense.
What’s curious about Starmer is that his ruthlessness was belied by his Postman Pat exterior, equally uncomfortable at the Despatch Box, before the cameras, or out in public. He effortlessly gave the impression of a man who neither got the “toolmaker” joke nor understood why he was so universally hated. So let’s help him out, shall we? And above all, let’s educate those who still insist on playing the “nice bloke, not up to the job” card. Starmer is not entitled to that defence.
The Endless Lies
Presenting himself as the antidote to Tory sleaze, the decent man who would “restore honesty and integrity to our public life”, Starmer’s penchant for deception became clear early on. Southport was “not terror-related”, despite the ricin, the Al-Qaeda training manual, the genocide fixation and the mass murder. Chicks with dicks were definitely chicks, until the Supreme Court decided they weren’t. There were no tax rises for working people – unless you counted tax rises for working people. Lady Victoria’s wardrobe couldn’t possibly be furnished on a meagre £170,000 a year, and what imbecile would suppose it could be? If he’d known then what he knows now, he’d definitely still appoint Peter Mandelson. And Morgan McSweeney’s mobile phone is away with the fairies, no matter how conveniently they showed up to steal it.
Two-Tier
Keir Starmer has repeatedly insisted he “does not recognise” two-tier treatment in Britain. But then, why would he? It’s barely perceptible, unless you pedantically go out looking for unequal responses to crime, murder, justice, policing, sentencing, employment, education, political protest, security, welfare or religion.
Free Speech
Starmer was quite right to lecture Donald Trump when he stated Britain has “a long and proud history of free speech”. He just failed to add that he had singlehandedly put an end to it. Back home, Starmer was busy fast-tracking ordinary Brits for mean tweets, selectively weaponising ‘hate speech’ laws against native concerns, banning social media for under 16s, and pushing digital ID via the backdoor.
Muslims First
Starmer declared he was Prime Minister for everyone, and so he was. It’s just that everyone didn’t get an equal share. Sir Keir could barely manage 19 seconds to lay a wreath for the three murdered Southport girls, but he somehow found hours to stand in solidarity with Muslim communities after far lesser incidents. In the wake of the Southport massacre, he famously declared war on “far-right thuggery” (normal Brits not wanting their daughters stabbed to death), while proclaiming to Muslims: “We stand with you”. Never one to comment on Muslim crimes for fear of “prejudicing” a trial, Starmer leapt to the defence of the Muslim community when five men were attacked in Edinburgh:
Absolutely appalling.
No one should face violence on our streets. The suspect appears to be motivated by anti-Muslim hatred. I will not tolerate this – he will face the full force of the law.
My thoughts are with those who are injured and I thank the police and the emergency…
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 20, 2026
Protecting the Vulnerable
While more than happy to posture as the champion of women and girls, in reality Starmer’s record in this department is woeful. As Director of Public Prosecutions he openly admitted “we failed victims”. It is also claimed he let over 13,000 grooming gang suspects off with nothing more than a pathetic Child Abduction Warning Notice. As if that were not enough, he shamefully blocked calls for a full national grooming gangs inquiry. It’s hard to read this as anything other than institutional cowardice, bordering on complicity.
Smash the Gangs
Starmer repeatedly promised to “smash the gangs”, get a grip on illegal immigration, and stop the small boats for good. In reality, 2025 saw 41,472 migrants cross the English Channel – the second-highest total on record. More than 50,000 have arrived since he took office. No serious deterrent policy has emerged, no alternative to Rwanda, and no suggestion of leaving the ECHR. On the contrary, Starmer’s energy appears to have gone into managing public perception rather than actually securing Britain’s borders. Classic Starmer: all mouth and no trousers.
Anti-White, Anti-British
At its rotten core, Starmerism represented a sustained cultural and demographic assault on the British people – above all, the white working class who built the country. Under his watch, uncomfortable realities about crime, immigration, and social breakdown have been whitewashed or inverted. Native Brits were relentlessly cast as the villains in their own story: leering rapists, bigoted thugs, and toxic misogynists, while the failures of multiculturalism were blamed on “far-right” concerns rather than the policies themselves.
Starmer himself enthusiastically pushed this narrative. He praised the Netflix drama Adolescence: a ridiculous fiction portraying the radicalisation of young white boys by online “misogyny”, while the exact opposite played out daily on the streets of Britain. Airbrushing the real patterns of violence and exploitation from the public discourse, Starmer was more than happy for schools to indoctrinate the next generation with the approved story: it’s native British boys who are the problem.
If you were to believe Starmer’s colleagues, you’d think he’d been the equal to Blair. If you were to believe his own resignation speech, you’d think he was the greatest Prime Minister since Churchill – possibly better. But his casual dishonesty and contempt for truth (not to mention the English language) is not an accurate reflection of the facts.
Starmer’s legacy is Peter Lynch, the 61-year-old diabetic and angina suffering grandfather, jailed for two years eight months for the ‘crime’ of holding a placard and shouting at police during the Southport riots. He was found hanged in his prison cell.
Starmer’s legacy is Henry Nowak, the much-loved first-year student whose life bled away under the noses of the authorities, because the police had been trained to see him as a threat, no matter how many times he’d been stabbed.
Starmer’s legacy is the Southport cover-up: the predictable, preventable, and pernicious murder of innocent little white girls, because the authorities refused to “stereotype” a young black man with a knife.
That is Starmer’s legacy. Don’t let the tears fool you.
Frank Haviland is the Editor of The New Conservative, and the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West.
If you enjoy my work, please consider buying me a coffee – it would really help to keep me going. Thank you!
This article (Starmer’s Legacy: The Great Pretender) was created and published by Frank Haviland and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply