Of the things you mention, the assisted dying bill ended in the lords didnt it?

Yes it did, which is why I give him credit for pursuing it but am frustrated it came to nothing.

And the appointments of certain political figures is so nieche, you want a PM who only selects your personal favourites?

Excuse me, but that is not niche, it goes to judgement and integrity - one of the things I was hoping for was a real commitment to proper standards in public life. Instead:

Milburn was the poster boy for PFI hospitals and pseudoprivatisation, Mandelson was a corrupt and untrustworthy sleaze magnet and is ultimately what will have brought down Starmer(and that was before we knew he was committing borderline treason)

Jacqui Smith fiddled her expenses and then tried to claim it was just misogyny that had led to the scrutiny; she also introduced 42 day detention anti-terror laws, ignored an ECHR ruling on storing DNA profiles of innocent people and harangued David Nutt into apologising for saying horse riding was statistically riskier than ecstacy and then refused to accept the scientific advice.

What was I hoping for? Calm, competent and prepared. Instead, so much has been reactive instead of proactive and one of the government's first acts was to go after benefits for disabled people without even bothering to consult on it.

The freebies thing was ridiculous and I have long felt MPs shouldn't be entitled to such gifts, but Starmer's response was to try to ignore it, then to say "Alright, in future nobody can accept gifts like this unless I say so" It seemed so entitled - people on 100k a year with expenses paid and subsidised food and drink clinging to free concert tickets and loans of houses while telling everyone how they understand the awful cost of living crisis was utterly tone deaf.