Telegraph readers weigh in on whether Keir Starmer is doing a good job as Prime Minister following his first 100 days in Government mark

This weekend marks 100 days of Keir Starmer and the Labour Party in Government.

The Prime Minister, who promised Britain a ‘sunlight of hope’ on the steps of No 10 on July 5, has faced a sleaze scandal, race riots, and international turmoil that have blown his plans off course.

The Telegraph has put Sir Keir’s record in office so far under the microscope and Telegraph readers have weighed in.

Freebies row

For weeks, the Prime Minister and the Labour Party have been dogged by media scrutiny about donations, the appropriateness of accepting gifts and what donors may be seeking in return. Telegraph readers shared their dismay in the comments.

“Putting aside Starmer’s politics,” Roger Watson says, “he always said he would expect the highest standards from his Government. He has no shortage of money so why is he accepting freebies so blatantly? It does not bode well.  What example is he setting to his Government?”

Reader Tony Richter went further, and called the Prime Minister “a freeloader with a sense of entitlement”, and argued that “the chances of Starmer dealing with the soft corruption of UK public life is zero.

“His promises are meaningless,” Tony adds.

An anonymous reader questioned: “Is there absolutely anything to commend Keir Starmer? His communication skills are woeful, his blank facial expressions betray his inability to think on his feet, he has zero personality and he’s divisive.

“And now, for good measure, we discover he takes backhanders despite his multi-millionaire status. I doubt very much whether this country can survive the next five years under this pretender and his unimpressive cabinet. We’re in deep tish folks.”

And reader Marcus Aurelius concluded: “How is Keir Starmer waffling on about service whilst taking £70,000 worth of gifts? On what basis is it acceptable to accept £16,000 worth of clothes? What message does this send? He should be ashamed of himself.”

Handling of No 10

After Sue Gray’s salary was leaked to the BBC last month, revealing that she was being paid more than the Prime Minister – Sir Keir has had to shift his attention to a No 10 turf war.

At first, the Prime Minister argued that Sue Gray’s salary was “not for the public to debate”, and Telegraph readers disagreed.

“Of course Sue Gray’s taxpayer-funded salary is up for public scrutiny,” said reader Karen Woodward as she questioned, “what is wrong with this man?”

Reader Nigel Brown echoed this view: “Sue Gray was a public servant, so it is only right that the public – who pay 100 per cent of her salary – should voice their opinion.

“Frankly, I think the whole situation was quite appalling.”

Eventually, Keir Starmer removed Ms Gray from the role after just 93 days in the job and was shifted to a part-time role as the Prime Minister’s envoy for the “regions and nations”.

And Telegraph readers weighed in again.

Elizabeth Kirby argued: “This woman should never have been appointed in the first place, and should have been sacked. Allowing her to resign is ridiculous, and to give her another position connected to the government is stupidity at the highest level.”

And reader E.S. warned: “I’m sure the Sue Gray problem has not gone away. Starmer has got a tiger by the tail with this situation.”

General popularity

The Telegraph reported that at the 100-day mark, Keir Starmer’s favourability is languishing on -36 per cent, placing lower than Nigel Farage. Readers took to the comments section to share their thoughts.

Grace Green started: “I must admit Mr Starmer has surpassed my expectations. I was expecting him and his government to do badly but well done to Starmer for exceeding the bar set way, way beyond utterly disastrous.”

Reader Alan Cox blamed Starmer’s “arrogant attitude, atrocious behaviour and selection of ministers” for his plummeting popularity – as he argued that “he is without doubt the worst Prime Minister I have ever seen.”

Echoing this sentiment, reader M. Lane blamed Sir Keir’s “serial dishonesty on every Labour manifesto promise” since he has been in government.

“I have never wanted to leave this country as much as I do now. Thank you, Keir” finished reader Suzanne Rock.

Management of the economy

20 days into the new government, Rachel Reeves presented the public with the £22bn blackhole and announced her plans to tax private schools and axe winter fuel allowance for millions of pensioners in order to combat it.

Telegraph readers were left dumbfounded. Reacting to the news, Charlotte Bennett said “To bring VAT in for private schools practically immediately after a July election is absolutely disgraceful. There should be a year’s notice, so parents and children can find alternative education places and not have to find several thousand pounds out of thin air. Disgusting behaviour.”

Stephen Crump called Labour’s plan “appalling” and “an attack on a small section of parents who have the temerity to pay for an alternative education.” While another anonymous reader commented that Labour’s private school VAT plans “is a vile tax on many ordinary parents.”

On the heels of the private school VAT raid, came Labour’s axing of the winter fuel allowance, a move that both the Prime Minister and Chancellor claim is necessary to fill the so-called £22bn fiscal “black hole” left by the Conservatives.

Reader Andrew Logan “can’t think of anything more un-Labour than Labour’s withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance. It’s frankly disgusting and completely dishonest that it wasn’t mentioned in their pre-election manifesto.”

Catherine Fitchet said, “I absolutely disagree with the blanket removal of this benefit, which is one of the very few benefits that those who have worked all their lives have been entitled to.”

Echoing this, Anna L Jones said, “Shame on Labour and shame on every MP who voted to abolish the winter fuel allowance.”

Immigration and justice

On his first day as PM, Sir Keir Starmer killed off the Rwanda deportation plan. “The Rwanda scheme was dead and buried before it started,” the Prime Minister said, and argued it had “never been a deterrent.”

Telegraph readers disagreed. J.B. Fortune claimed “the Rwanda scheme absolutely was a deterrent”.

They added: “Does Starmer not recall all the immigrants fleeing to Ireland when it finally got signed off, or the thousands being open in Calais about waiting until Labour were in before setting sail?”

Stan Blog echoed the same view and warned that “if the Prime Minister doesn’t make inroads into immigration and stop the boats then he will be in big trouble” as “immigration is the defining issue of our time”.

And a month into Keir Starmer’s premiership, a wave of disorder broke out across the UK following a knife attack on children attending a Taylor Swift-themed dance class. At the time, almost half of the general public believed the PM was handling the riots badly.

M. Gibbons argued that while the behaviour exhibited by the rioters was “intolerable and the sentence is justified,” the policing approach the PM put forward was “definitely ‘two-tier’”.

“The language and behaviour that some have shown against our Jewish fellow citizens hasn’t been subject to the same legal standards. This is a big mistake by Sir Keir Starmer.”

Sharing a similar sentiment, Barry G. claimed that “most understand the need for a deterrent sentencing to quell riots which can get out of hand but cannot understand how only white working-class people are being dealt with so harshly in comparison to the far-Left protesters, who have wreaked havoc for two years.”

A.C. argued: “The British people have an innate belief in fairness. Keir Starmer’s two-tier justice was an abhorrent abuse of state power and will simply cause discontent to fester.”

Prisoners early release scheme

Around 1,750 prisoners were freed in early September under the Labour government’s early-release scheme after jails in England and Wales came close to running out of space.

Under the scheme, prisoners were released 40 per cent of the way through their sentences rather than halfway.

Readers took to the comments section to share their dismay, with many arguing this was “the worst decision by the Labour party.”

Ann Chalk stated: “Truly Two-Tier Kier. Freeing criminals and failing to arrest and prosecute pro-Hamas/Hezbollah and anti-Semitic Lefties. At the same time, branding all anti-immigration protesters as ‘Right-wing’ and throwing them into jail.”

Reader William Robbins argued: “This is the worst decision by the Labour party,” claiming “they are now actively putting law-abiding British people at risk of harm, breaking the first and most important role of a government. Unbelievable and unforgivable.”

Echoing the same view, reader M Hope labelled the scheme as “irresponsible,” and believed that “if the worst happens, I expect Kir Starmer may be prosecuted for failing to protect the public, the first duty of a PM.”

Finally, Sarah Boxall despaired: “Every day something awful is happening due to this thoroughly dangerous government. What state are we going to be in in a year or so time? Never mind five years. It’s absolutely horrifying.”

Policy offering

Keir Starmer’s first King’s Speech contained 40 new Bills, the highest number to be announced since 2005.

Despite this, Telegraph readers argued that “nothing of real value” for Britain has been done.

Reader Mr J Greenaway said: “Across the board, Keir Starmer and his third-rate government are an unmitigated disaster. They are clueless on both policy and procedure having wasted their time in opposition to develop a number of coherent alternatives to the Tories.”

And Stuart Cliff questioned: “Are we surprised by their performance? I’m not. Not a single mention of growth, all they’ve done is give the public sector pay raises and plan hefty tax rises on anyone remotely considered wealthy.

“The Prime Minister and his government have no idea how to pull this country from the doldrums.”

James Baker listed the changes he believed the PM should start focusing on: “The country wants the borders shut, the economy turning, equivalence in pensions, functional services, personal responsibility, a smaller more productive state, pride in Britishness and trustworthy politicians that strive for British people and values not themselves or their wardrobe.

“Keir Starmer provides none of the above.”

International affairs

Telegraph readers have been left unimpressed with the Prime Minister’s, and his Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s,  “ambivalent” stance towards Israel and the ongoing Middle East conflict.

“This Labour government is an international disgrace,” starts reader John Shepherd, “they are student union-level intellects who are trying to look good to their buddies in the unions and Left-wing NGOs.”

Reader William Parsons argued that Mr Starmer “has the backbone of a jellyfish and continues to vacillate. He has no principles and changes his position from minute to minute.”

And Trevor Williams also shared a similar view: “So much for supporting allies. Keir Starmer hasn’t got the guts to stand up for Israel against his party’s love with the other side.

“Where is the condemnation for Iran using its proxies against Israel? Does he really think a cease-fire will change Iran’s crusade to destroy Israel?

“I am ashamed to have our country led by this group of incompetents. Heaven help us if we were under attack, I have absolutely no confidence in them being able to protect us.”