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

I'd love to know how Starmer "visited women's refuges".

Because they're single sex services.

For traumatised women.

Who don't want men near them.

So how was that possible, let alone appropriate?

I’m sorry but there’s a lot more to this proposal .. it’s the predators we are concerned about. There needs to be far more clarity. It will affect young girls and children also

I don't think he's got any problem on the biological definition of a woman or on protecting safe spaces

You don't? how bloody big of him. Read this board and there's a lot of women would disagree with that statement.

He doesn't as he gives away women's rights in order to pander to 'vulnerable' men.

He cannot protect SINGLE SEX spaces as well as letting members of the OPPOSITE SEX in if they feel like it.

He didn't perhaps have to be quite so honest about his activities either side, but I don't think doing a 2 hour Q&A on a Sunday night and signing off at 10pm is unreasonable.

I still want keir rather than rishi but how depressing to see this pale, male and stale attitude. i know that 'stale' is an ageist reference but Tom himself is actively presenting himself and keir this way. pale, male stale and we know best. 😂bless.

I don't think doing a 2 hour Q&A on a Sunday night and signing off at 10pm is unreasonable.

There are other times and days of the week available.

For me this just confirmed what the Labour Party thinks of women:

Not important enough to let us talk to the man in charge
Just about enough of a demographic to roll out someone else
Frit. Anything vaguely tricky was simply ignored as though it didn't exist (like us!)

Yes, fair enough. I just found his breeziness a bit off putting. I’m a Labour voter but I find them so frustrating, particularly on women’s rights, and I thought this q&a really didn’t help their cause.

Hi all - we've deleted a number of posts on this thread because they were personal attacks.

We invited Tom on to Mumsnet as someone who might have some good insights into the man likely to be our next PM, not as a substitute or spokesperson for Keir Starmer or the Labour Party. I appreciate it can be frustrating if your question doesn't get answered, or not answered in the way you'd hope but Tom kindly gave up a couple of his hours over dinner time on a Sunday evening to answer our questions and the least we'd ask is for civility (and for him not to panned for leaving to get a takeaway!)

Thanks,
Justine

I found the thread illuminating. I got the feeling he was having to check his replies to us via Starmer HQ, there were sometimes too many long pauses while he curated the right response. I also felt patronised again - do they think we're stupid and we can't read through what they're saying? I'm getting so sick of this crap, particularly from Labour who I wanted to support but now no longer can. But also, his responses gave more light to what KS is as a person and I was not reassured by that. I get a feeling that KS is not as democratic as he makes himself out to be and that he is quite happy to run roughshod over anyone who doesn't agree with him. And isn't that the case regarding women's rights; he's made his mind up, it seems, and he won't be budged - that's the impression I'm getting.

I'm 100% sure Tom wasn't checking anything with Starmer HQ

OK, I'm happy to stand corrected on that. I'm just feeling cynical after two long weeks of following the political debates.

Why was Bowlfullofmush' s post and consequently my reply to them deleted? <confused>. Was it because he was criticised for prioritising the footie and takeaway?

Of course, I do sympathise with a yummy takeaways coming first 😋. Hope it was a good one.

I have always loved MN for its feminist robustness.

i mean God help us, truly, if we get another tory government. 😬 😬😬
but Labour's attitude to women is profoundly depressing. more so considering the values labour want to stand for. how can this be transformed?

Yes it was. As said - Tom gave up a couple of hours on a Sunday evening to answer Mner's questions at our invitation - it's bizarre and quite rude imho to criticise him for leaving the chat (we'd asked him to do a couple of hours) and getting a takeaway (he didn't have time to cook anything!)

it's bizarre and quite rude imho to criticise him for leaving the chat (we'd asked him to do a couple of hours) and getting a takeaway (he didn't have time to cook anything!)

Justine, you are not helping the way he came across with that comment, sorry. He was late to the chat due to the football and then closed it due to his takeaway arriving because he didn't have time to cook anything? C'mon.

It was an illuminating chat but I doubt in the way he and Keir Starmer thought it would be.

Tom's answers contained a taste of his own opinions as well as his thoughts on KS's, eg:
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.
I think it's fair enough to give an opinion back on that, on his tone as well as the substance.
I also think he made something of an attack on Rosie Duffield, which was a bit much.

Oh, right. Because that's exactly how most of us feel. Is that our fault, or his?

Fair enough. In the absence of Keir Starmer bothering his arse, perhaps I have misdirected snippiness towards a man who appeared to be his representative, when he's not. For that: sorry.

it's bizarre and quite rude imho to criticise him for leaving the chat (we'd asked him to do a couple of hours) and getting a takeaway (he didn't have time to cook anything!)
I appreciated that he did longer than the usual one hour stint but you'd think someone in the political world could give a better excuse for leaving e.g. my time is up (rather than Deliveroo has arrived).
It was tone-deaf.

Didn't you think it "bizarre and quite rude" that he was late due to football, fgs!

Shrill, Shallow and Polarised.

Nice one Tom.

It was a bit 'I have to go ice a cake' for men who don't say they are women.

It's bizarre MNHQ accepts women being treated in the way Labour HQ saw fit to. But what can you do.

We used to have a message at the top of webchats saying please treat guests the same way as you would if they came to your house for a cuppa. - you wouldn't berate someone who arrived a few minutes late and for leaving on time to get some dinner. Maybe we need to reiterate that principle...