Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To like Keir Starmer?

556 replies

Emmanuelll · 09/07/2024 09:02

Unlike Tony Blair, he comes from a working class background - his siblings would still call themselves working class.

As a very bright lawyer, he could have sought a path which made him rich quickly but instead chose human rights which isn’t an easy route to take and he’s defended ‘the little guy’ against corporations. He’s also anti-death penalty.

Ok, he’s a Sir, and I’ve heard people (perhaps not unreasonably) question why the leader of the Labour Party would have a title like that. But he earned it through work for the criminal justice system.

On the face of it, it seems as though he deserves a chance.

I would much rather have him as PM than a former Bullingdon club member who used to burn money in front of homeless people for the fun of it.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
cremebrulait · 09/07/2024 15:01

Some of the comments on this thread make me wonder how some people in this country can be so poorly educated or brainwashed.

For example, Keir Starmer has changed his opinion or stance when given good reason to - like an ADULT. But people are accusing him of 'flip flopping' or not being able to stick to a definition or not know how to define. 👀really??? You prefer a politician who just rattles off what they think you want to hear to get your vote?

I'm sorry but if you're that obtuse then heaven help you. The ability to consider different views and information and adapt is a strength not a weakness.

There are almost 67 million people in this country with varying opinions of how to get out of debt, how to generate wealth, how to solve the VAST number of problems we face...if you want a leader who is going to meet the needs of people and try to understand what is working or not YOU NEED A PERSON THAT CAN BE OPEN AND CHANGE THEIR OPINION.

What we all just witnessed in the campaigning was the media and career politicians using all their might to force people to answer questions on policies on the spot, often on life broadcast. I'm sorry, but do you really want people running the country to make up policies for 67 million people on the spot because a bleeping journalist asked them to? A answer which could impact the financial markets? Or lead to them being fearful of losing their power by admitting what they said was wrong? OR would you rather have a leader that's not going to be bullied for a sound bite?

I'm a woman. I've lived in four countries. I know that for as long as the world has turned - no matter what you call them - there have been people who are one sex and prefer to live as the other. Those people have been using the toilets that suit them for a long long long time. This is not new. When I was 23 working abroad in Los Angels working at Fortune 500 there was a transwoman who worked there. She used the women's 'restroom' and I just thought ok she's not bothering anyone. Not an issue. In Canada a gay colleague pointe

But the MEDIA made it an issue. And so many people got baited into it. Ladies, I hate to tell you but woman have been disguising themselves as woman for hundreds if not thousands of years. And men have been doing the same. If a criminal wants to disguise themselves as a different sex to get into your public toilet, change room, fitting room, safe place - they're going to try to do it. It's not a criminal offence for a man to be in a woman's toilet. There are different sexes cleaning - for goodness sakes a man trying to find a reason to be in a women's loo is more likely to pretend to be a cleaner then pretend to be trans.

In a recent census in the UK approximately 262,000 people out of a country of 67 million indicated they do not identify with the gender they had at birth. And yet there are people on mumsnet admitting that they voted for the Prime Minister of all of us based on this topic. That's madness. Of all the issues that we face, you chose your PM based on that? Wow. Talk about making irrational decisions.

cardibach · 09/07/2024 14:57

AllProperTeaIsTheft · 09/07/2024 14:42

Because that’s the legal position, whether you or I or Starmer agree. He’s a lawyer. It is what it is.

In which case why has he now said that a woman is an adult female?

Because that is also the legal position.
I’m not arguing about this. You very well know the legal position as does @Viewfrommyhouse
I should also point out that if you look at any comments under Starmer’s social media posts you’ll see lots of people criticising him for rolling back trans rights. It’s a topic where you can’t win.

WarrenSpeck · 09/07/2024 14:56

cardibach · 09/07/2024 13:48

So he took the pension that was standard for his job? I don’t see any hypocrisy there, genuinely. Armed Forces pensions are tax free too. Most of the others have always been taxable - it’s just that the state pension alone wouldn’t have taken you over the tax threshold until Tories refused to raise the threshold and then did what they did to inflation…

The state pension may not reach the tax threshold, but politics and inflation can make a difference.

CurlewKate · 09/07/2024 14:52

I don't need to like him. I need him to be efficient and capable. Which he has so far shown himself to be. As I said on another thread, he's got to deal with a fucked economy, not fight Agincourt.

SimoneSaysThis · 09/07/2024 14:49

FinalCeleryScheme · 09/07/2024 10:47

He’s not Oxbridge. And I wouldn’t get too carried away with the QC and DPP qualifications.

But let’s see.

Bachelor of Law postgraduate degree from Oxford.

Emmanuelll · 09/07/2024 14:45

The problem with this Trans / women’s spaces issue is that nobody now wants to say anything and indeed is afraid to say anything in case they upset someone, or get called a misogynist or a bigot. It is a thorny issue.

I heard Blair on the radio today saying that it seems ridiculous that people are now having to argue what the legal definition of a woman is. I doubt he'd have felt able to say that if he were still the PM though.

OP posts:
AllProperTeaIsTheft · 09/07/2024 14:42

Because that’s the legal position, whether you or I or Starmer agree. He’s a lawyer. It is what it is.

In which case why has he now said that a woman is an adult female?

ilovesooty · 09/07/2024 14:40

Oh here we go again.

Viewfrommyhouse · 09/07/2024 14:39

cardibach · 09/07/2024 14:32

Because that’s the legal position, whether you or I or Starmer agree. He’s a lawyer. It is what it is.

What legal position? Which law?

Emmanuelll · 09/07/2024 14:39

There were and are, vast numbers of people in the public eye and in positions of power who knew exactly what Savile was and covered for him. And there are others who could and should have done more - I don't think anyone disputes that. That's not excusable whoever was involved.

But it does sound as though KS's opponents have had to dig quite deep to find any real obvious stain on his character which is a good thing. As far as running the country goes, he seems to take the job seriously. When Boris Johnson was PM there was this constant sense that he despised and hated the electorate.

OP posts:
cardibach · 09/07/2024 14:32

AllProperTeaIsTheft · 09/07/2024 14:31

Starmer is dedicated and hard working he doesn't have time for PR stunts or getting caught up in ideology

What is saying 'It's wrong to say only women have a cervix' if not getting caught up in ideology?

Because that’s the legal position, whether you or I or Starmer agree. He’s a lawyer. It is what it is.

cardibach · 09/07/2024 14:31

Viewfrommyhouse · 09/07/2024 14:18

He was the head of the CPS. And yet, he was never consulted on such a huge decision with a very very high profile case. I'm not refuting the fact he wasn't made aware. But he was in charge. When an organisation fails, the heads tend to take responsibility - this happened under his watch. But all he did instead was commission a report to clear himself of any responsibility. What a hero!

No, he commissioned a report and then accepted its findings and apologised for failings, before making changes so it wouldn’t happen again.
Worth saying it’s only in hindsight it’s a huge case because we know Savile was guilty. A couple of complaints for someone so beloved of the royal family and government of the day would have been seen as likely malicious, so I can see it not being brought to the top boss. We know better, and Starmer’s changes made it much less likely that this sort of thing be ignored.

AllProperTeaIsTheft · 09/07/2024 14:31

Starmer is dedicated and hard working he doesn't have time for PR stunts or getting caught up in ideology

What is saying 'It's wrong to say only women have a cervix' if not getting caught up in ideology?

ilovesooty · 09/07/2024 14:23

Viewfrommyhouse · 09/07/2024 13:57

Yeah, but I'm not sure you know the link between the two, and it's your assumptions that are wild, not anyone else's.

KS was the head of the CPS when they decided to not prosecute JS. But apparently, its OK for the head of an organisation to get away with that monumental tragedy under the guise of ignorance when the head is Saint Keir.

Edited

Oh has he been canonised now? That was quick.

Viewfrommyhouse · 09/07/2024 14:18

cardibach · 09/07/2024 14:04

Yes, I know the link. It appears you don’t.
Read this. Also be aware that Starmer overhauled the CPS systems on while sexual abuse afterwards, making it significantly more likely prosecutions could be made and could succeed.
To continue to suggest he is responsible when an investigation shows he isn’t is not ignorance, it’s wilful misrepresentation at best.

https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

He was the head of the CPS. And yet, he was never consulted on such a huge decision with a very very high profile case. I'm not refuting the fact he wasn't made aware. But he was in charge. When an organisation fails, the heads tend to take responsibility - this happened under his watch. But all he did instead was commission a report to clear himself of any responsibility. What a hero!

Champagnesocialismo · 09/07/2024 14:13

I love this new world where politicians making money after office is a vice. Will someone tell the Lettuce and Big Dog?

If he does a good job in office, then okay. Even those who are totally incompetent can do this too.

Houseplanter · 09/07/2024 14:13

Araminta1003 · 09/07/2024 14:10

The big bucks for politicians comes after office. Dinner party talks, books, advice, sitting on boards etc etc. Everybody knows this. Just go and research what Blair did.

Quite

Araminta1003 · 09/07/2024 14:10

The big bucks for politicians comes after office. Dinner party talks, books, advice, sitting on boards etc etc. Everybody knows this. Just go and research what Blair did.

Eastie77Returns · 09/07/2024 14:07

So now he is in it for the ‘big bucks’.

His salary as PM is almost half what I make and I don’t do a stressful job that requires 24/7 attention (hence the time I have to chat on MN!). He then gets an additional salary as an MP. Taken together, it’s a lot of money but he could make a lot more working privately and not have to deal with the shitstorm that is the state of the U.K. at the moment plus the huge upheaval to his family.

I really don’t think he’s in it for the money.

IClaudine · 09/07/2024 14:06

Johnson tried this smear several times whilst he was PM. Didn't wash then, won't now.

cardibach · 09/07/2024 14:06

Houseplanter · 09/07/2024 13:51

So strange how we perceive people differently.

To me he comes across as weak and slimy and makes my skin crawl a bit.

I'm also not taken in my his constant referrals to wanting to 'serve'. Does he bollocks. He wants status and power and the big bucks like all of them.

Will he be a good prime minister? I hope so, for all our sakes.

It’s possible to want status in order to serve.
The Tories have really done a number on you if you think politicians are ‘slimy’ for saying that. It’s called public service for a reason…even Thatcher believed in it.

cardibach · 09/07/2024 14:04

Viewfrommyhouse · 09/07/2024 13:57

Yeah, but I'm not sure you know the link between the two, and it's your assumptions that are wild, not anyone else's.

KS was the head of the CPS when they decided to not prosecute JS. But apparently, its OK for the head of an organisation to get away with that monumental tragedy under the guise of ignorance when the head is Saint Keir.

Edited

Yes, I know the link. It appears you don’t.
Read this. Also be aware that Starmer overhauled the CPS systems on while sexual abuse afterwards, making it significantly more likely prosecutions could be made and could succeed.
To continue to suggest he is responsible when an investigation shows he isn’t is not ignorance, it’s wilful misrepresentation at best.

https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

Keir Starmer led the CPS when it did not charge Jimmy Savile, but he wasn’t the reviewing lawyer - Full Fact

Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions when it was decided there was insufficient evidence to charge Savile, but he was not the reviewing lawyer on…

https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile

IClaudine · 09/07/2024 14:04

Viewfrommyhouse · 09/07/2024 13:57

Yeah, but I'm not sure you know the link between the two, and it's your assumptions that are wild, not anyone else's.

KS was the head of the CPS when they decided to not prosecute JS. But apparently, its OK for the head of an organisation to get away with that monumental tragedy under the guise of ignorance when the head is Saint Keir.

Edited

Get your facts right. Starmer may have been DPP but it was not his decision (or perhaps you imagined that DPP personally makes decisions on whether to prosecute in all cases?). He accepted blame, though.

When the investigation report was published in January 2013, Mr Starmer said in a statement that he accepted the conclusions and hoped it would be a “watershed moment” for the CPS.
<a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130703160030/www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/dpp_statement_about_savile_cases/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">He said: “I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the part played by the CPS in these cases.
“These were errors of judgement by experienced and committed police officers and a prosecuting lawyer acting in good faith and attempting to apply the correct principles. That makes the findings of Ms Levitt’s report more profound and calls for a more robust response.”

https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

FinalCeleryScheme · 09/07/2024 14:01

And AI takes over from the MN Labour bots! Top cheerleading!

Viewfrommyhouse · 09/07/2024 13:57

cardibach · 09/07/2024 13:45

Oh stop being obtuse. I genuinely can’t be bothered.
Have it your own way. It was a random mention of a dead paedophile with no intention to imply anything. Happy?

Yeah, but I'm not sure you know the link between the two, and it's your assumptions that are wild, not anyone else's.

KS was the head of the CPS when they decided to not prosecute JS. But apparently, its OK for the head of an organisation to get away with that monumental tragedy under the guise of ignorance when the head is Saint Keir.