AMA with Tom Baldwin: author of "Keir Starmer: The Biography" - the Sunday Times bestselling biography of the Labour Leader

[RhiannonEMumsnet]

Hi there,

We're pleased to announce that with just a few days to go until the General Election, Tom Baldwin, former Labour advisor and author of "Keir Starmer: The Biography" - the Sunday Times bestselling biography of the Labour Leader will be joining us for an AMA on Sunday evening.

Tom's biography of the man who looks set to be the next Prime Minister has been described as "the first serious and consistently readable biography of Starmer" (Patrick Maguire, the Times) and "absolutely riveting and very timely" (Amol Rajan). You can join him live on this thread from 7.30pm on Sunday, or post your questions in advance below.

Thanks,
MNHQ

Thanks @Hyperions

Agreed. The idea that populism - listening to the electorate - is inherently wrong is quite worryingly anti-democratic I think.

When you google 'populism' this pops up:

populism
/ˈpɒpjʊlɪz(ə)m/

noun

a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
"the question is whether he will tone down his fiery populism now that he has joined the political establishment"
support for populist politicians or policies.
"the government came to power on a wave of populism"
the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people.
"art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism"

Does Labour think appealing to the majority of ordinary people is wrong? That their policies should only be for the elite?

It's a word that so many left leaning journalists and politicians link to the right wing as if that's a bad thing but surely it's a problem if the left is never populist? What about left wing populism?

An example of left wing populism - I note the SDP has renationalising the railways in their manifesto. Virtually everyone I speak to across the political spectrum is in favour of this (share holders aside) because privatisation has been an unmitigated balls up for trains being affordable or on time (I've given up completely on comfortable or easy to navigate with a child or if you're disabled).

Increasingly it seems to me (a lifelong Labour voter until about 10 years ago) that Labour are actually authoritarian, think they know better than the electorate and would quite like to get rid of democracy altogether. So much for being for the working classes.

Was my question stupid?

I think it was very telling when the SNP had their Isla Bryson gate moment that Starmer characterised the British public as not ready or going along with, needing to be brought along with progress I can't remember the actual words rather than condemning a male rapist in a female prison. The implication was that the public needed to be placated until labour were in power and could do what is best for them. The disregard for honesty in democracy is honestly the most chilling thing and I'm not exaggerating when I say I believe him and his ilk are more dangerous to women than the more obvious right wing misogynistic men, in the USA for example, who do it in plain sight.

Yes, on current evidence IMO right wing men are better for women's rights. It is, however, a low bar.

Some more right wing men think we can't do maths and should be confined to raising children, but at least they're honest about it and don't want to subvert democracy entirely. And at least they don't gaslight us by trying to pretend men with obvious fetishes and predatory behaviour are truly women and 'the most oppressed'.

I'd take old fashion views about sex role stereotypes over abuse via coercive control and sterilisation of children any day.

I thought the other examples of him being a woman's rights advocate that he didn't like his niece being assaulted or he loves his mum very telling.

Women in his family count and will be protected because they are his property. Garden variety women need not count for protection or respect.

Reminds me very strongly of the sort of dynamic you see in countries with deeply misogynistic practices like revenge and honour killings.

Honestly, I've read biographies of serial killers who describe similar relationships to women.

Good point. Not wanting your family members to be sexually assaulted but not caring about the 26 nurses case or all other women (51% of the electorate) is not a vote winner.

To be honest there's a low bar for women to be placated. That's literally why bad men have been able to hide in plain sight because men can say the most horrible misogynistic things about the women they don't like, but if they cultivate the protect the 'angel of the hearth' and the right sort of economical investment sort of women in a superficial way a lot of men, and more naive women buy it.

You can see this willingness to look over this in politics right through history up to current day.

I like to hope that this election most women will decide that crumbs aren't enough and don't vote labour in. And honestly, I have voted for them in every other election and was rather overinvested in them it's actually a huge thing that they've lost my trust and respect. Once you see that kind of disregard and disrespect for women though it's hard to swallow.

I'm going to be generous and say that the takeaway comment was an attempt to appear breezy in a mad moment of panic and wanting to get out of the conversation asap rather than have to answer questions and dig the hole deeper.

If what was at cost wasn't so bloody important I would feel more sorry for these his words- middle aged men's who can't recognise their own misogyny because they've been given the narrative that they are one of the good guys. They seem to think alls requires is they are not wearing black hats and stroking a snake or cat.

Yes it was predictably patronising, but why would we expect anything less? It's a rare man who's able to listen to women and critically examine his bias'. And those men would be staying clear of the dishonest misogynistic shit show that is the Labour Party razzle dazzle pr machine.

This thread is illuminating but I suspect not in the way either Tom or Keir would hope.

Patronising, dismissive and a little snarky about Rosie Duffield.

All in all not great, at all.

He doesn't like the "boring" tag. Who does? He thinks his life has probably been more interesting than a lot of people who write him off as dull

I know, us ordinary humans just don't appreciate his wonderfulness that lurks under the surface and seen by only the people lucky enough to get close to him.

Compare this to the Sunak Q&A and you have to ask what is going on at MN HQ.

Totally agree @BIossomtoes

Probably needs its own thread but the Times is running a 3-part(?) piece on him.

How the young Keir Starmer made his name as a ‘radical’ barrister.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/3cf0e2ab-99b0-458b-a2a9-e42212e2c6b5?shareToken=95f697ccc443b4eb6e3bd2bf2d7825322_

Gavin Millar KC says in this article:

"“He developed a strong academic interest in criminology and penology: why do people offend, how do we deal with them, how do we prosecute them and punish them, how to rehabilitate them — which is a very difficult and interesting area of the law and it’s really a sharp area of the law as far as human rights are concerned. That was his first love. He was very interested in the rights of criminal suspects and prisoners.”"

Then forgive me for not knowing how on earth he doesn't want to understand AGPs and bepenised "women" accessing SINGLE SEX SPACES.

"Starmer had been called to the Bar in 1987 and until 1990 Liberty employed him as legal officer. He spoke out against infringements of civil liberties such as laws targeting acid house parties."

Liberty. That organisation which is so good to us wims. That one.

Perhaps most telling of all:

"Although Starmer earned a reputation as a diligent young barrister, he was more comfortable making dry technical arguments in appeal cases heard by judges rather than having the showman-style skills needed for trials by jury.

He was “incredibly hard-working” and “would never take a shortcut, would always take the long route in order to get things right … he was quite bookish and academically inclined”, Millar said.

“Helena Kennedy was in our chambers and was a great friend of ours and there was a probably apocryphal story about Helena’s cases at the Old Bailey in the Eighties and Nineties where the ushers would say when Helena walked into court to defend somebody that they needed to leave tissues in the jury box for tearful jurors.

“Keir would not be that type of advocate. He’s much more clinical and careful and methodical and less emotional and emotive. What you would choose to employ him for would be to argue points of law and appeal, which he did a lot. He wasn’t in the trial. He came in later on to argue as a matter of law.”"

Bookish. Unemotional. Argues points of law. Yet cannot and will not engage with entirely valid and evidenced safeguarding issues.

As the article journeys through time to the Blair era, it concludes:

"At last, a Labour government was in power. Human rights were encased into British justice like the letters in a stick of rock. What could possibly go wrong?"

He spent three decades as a lawyer and that's a very different kind of voice. He's got better over the years but will never the best. Not sure whether that's relevant to how he would do the job as PM - except that he generally tries to improve as learn on the job.

@TomBaldwin66 it's pretty vital for persuading a lot of people to vote for you though.

I don't think he's got any problem on the biological definition of a woman or on protecting safe spaces. His language on this, which I know has sometimes caused pain and anger, is more about trying to ensure people who are trans are treated with dignity rather than be kicked around as political footballs. That's not a bad motive.

TomBaldwin66 sadly his language hasn't always been helpful in reassuring 51% of the population that he cares about their safety and rights.