What makes this article interesting is not what it says about Starmer, but where it appears.
This is The Observer, the Sunday sister paper of The Guardian, hardly a publication that has been known for offering uncritical support to Starmer or his leadership. Yet even it appears to be pushing back against the increasingly absurd claim that the Prime Minister is somehow not trying hard enough.
One can disagree with his policies. One can argue over priorities. One can even question individual decisions. But the suggestion that he lacks dedication or commitment to the job simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
The reality is that Starmer inherited an economy damaged by years of instability, public services under immense strain and an Armed Forces budget facing competing demands at a time when the global security situation is deteriorating rapidly. There are no easy answers and there is certainly no magic money tree.
What some seem to want is unlimited spending, no welfare reform, higher defence budgets, better public services and lower taxes, all at the same time. That is not serious politics. Governing is about choices.
Perhaps the more important question is this: if even The Observer is now challenging the narrative being pushed by some of Starmer's critics, should they pause for a moment and ask themselves whether they have become more interested in removing the leader than winning the next election?