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

In my opinion that is exactly what you were doing with your Ooh no, not me, I'm not like those women, you can just ignore them Tom schtick.

Sorry really don't get that?

And I note my own deletion was about them ignoring the🚨 CHILD SAFEGUARDING 🚨 question.

But who cares about that these days. No one.

He’s not in the political world, he’s a biographer.

Not really - I was late due to the football! I suspect quite a lot of Mners were...

He's a former Labour Party senior advisor. He was one of the leaders of the People's Vote campaign - the one that campaigned for a second referendum on Brexit. He's very much in the political world.

Come on. They wheel out a third party. Who ignores many questions like mine about the only charity with statutory safeguarding powers, and tries to convince us "shrill" is a term used for men (it isn't).

At least Sunak came to his Q&A.

And yes. I do think we and our children worth more than a slot around the football. It's demeaning.

Er, the intro says "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 ..."

They didn't "wheel him out" though. We asked him on and it had nothing to do with Labour HQ

He was more than a few minutes late, Justine.

He wasn't just popping in for a cuppa though was he? Yes, I'd be annoyed if someone pitched up half an hour late for something I'd organised and then left at the time agreed. I'd find it rude and dismissive.

I'm long enough in the tooth to know what this was. But we can agree to disagree.

My Labour MP left a hustings to watch the football. There's a pattern :(

There is no "they" and as I've explained there is no obligation to answer every question - Tom Baldwin is Keir's biographer - not a spokesperson - he probably knows nothing about the particular case you raised. Can you please stop being rude on this thread now?

Well truth is by your standards we wouldn't have many people willing to come on and do AMAs - Tom messaged to say would it be alright if he joined after the football and we said fine as most of the country were watching the football. If we want people to do this kind of thing we really need to be civil to them.

Can someone explain what was meant by 'he might be able to rise above the polarised, shrill and shallow debate of recent years and'?

is this generally about populist debate? or about any particular issue?

unfortunately, as the Brexit referendum hash shown it never pays off to patronise and offend voters, no matter how dumb you think they are. listen to them. take care to understand their views, no need to agree with them but engage rather than throwing around insults from a privileged ivory tower.

i'm interested to learn how 'polarised, shrill and shallow debate' would be tackled considering that much of this style of communication and debate is due to the participatory digital platforms we are all using to voice our views.

the medium is the message, as Marshall McLuhan observed.

"Indeed, it is only too typical that the 'content' of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium". For McLuhan, it was the medium itself that shaped and controlled "the scale and form of human association and action"

now, how do you make it serious and worthwhile when the polarised, shrill and shallow debate debate is happening online, shaped by anyone and everyone plus an abundance of tailored bot factories? just wondering.

edited as brexit seems to autocorrects to beret.

I can see some responses such as mine came across as rude if the premise was that he was just here as a favour. And that while he would give answers suggesting praise and sympathy of the subject of his biography, he was not actually here as Kier’s political spokesperson for all he appeared to be here to support him.

If he was just an innocent biographical writer, though, kindly sacrificing a little free time on a Sunday night, willing to let us know some charming characteristics of the man he has written about, but

not here either to answer political questions in depth, or here to bolster Kier Starmer’s PR five days before the election,

this means it was a slightly awkward set up, given the strength of feeling from some here on certain of Kier’s policies.

It would have helped to have had more warning of the intended limits of the Q & A last night. It seems that this was that it was more for fans, and like a book signing.

I don’t mind him being late because of the footy. And I liked he answered the question about Rosie Duffield because it’s the closest we are going to get to an answer from Starmer. What I took from this was that Tom thinks Starmer hates the way Rosie has made this so public. And now he really doesn’t want to meet her as she’s doubling down. The problem is how does she get his attention if he (or his advisers) won’t allow her to tell him the realities of what’s going on. She is very popular and he should be meeting with her as he must realise she is an asset for votes. Starmer will be getting a lot of votes because women still have hope in the Labour Party.

If he continues to be surrounded by a wall of people who won’t let the Rosies in, sooner or later reality will bite. Safeguarding is about prevention. And that’s why it gets so heated.

Starmer is like a friend driving dangerously and we’re all shouting ‘put your seatbelt on’! We can all see what’s going to happen but the drivers passenger has turned the music up so he can’t hear.

Can you explain why you did that q&a with Sunak which didn't fact check or give any challenge to what he said, and then rather than doing the same with Starmer you got someone who wrote a book about him on, who obviously can't answer questions for him?

Why are you treating the two leaders / parties so differently and can you see why so many people thought both were disappointing?

I was rude in my first comment, and I apologise. Point taken. I took exception to the ‘shrill’ comment and felt quite irritated by his answers there. I could have addressed the points without being rude though, so I am sorry for that.

just adding that calling the baseline polarised, shrill and shallow debate is not the very best or smartest start to bringing a country together. it is merely reinforcing a polarised, shrill and shallow debate 🤔. if you want to bring people of different attitudes, views, values and experiences together and foster a culture that is egalitarian, you have got to begin with respect and humility. Casually labelling the status quo a country's leader might (might!) inherit as polarised, shrill and shallow does not introduce a serious and worthwhile tone, it simply reinforces populism. <sigh>

I’ve never needed this group more and I’m proud of us all. I’d even march to downing st over it and I would never ever dream of anything like that at all before ! A. I don’t like crowds and B. I’ve got a weak bladder lol ( gotta laugh havnt we .. ? Takes the edge off )

I'm sorry I was rude about his takeaway, I hope they got his order correct and that it was lovely. I'm sure he paid for it out of his own money and there was no quid pro quo re. a knighthood.

MN thanks for getting someone Keir adjacent to do an AMA. He couldn't have predicted the football would overrun (...although England!? It's hardly surprising) and it was good of him to come here. I'm sure he did his best.

Seems like this went well!

More evidence that Labour are only concerned about the dignity of some people and it's not ever women.

one thing and then I must stop procrastinating. i would have thought political parties would strictly manage and control any coms, especially on busy online forums, so close to the elections? or is there a sense that a super majority is given and one doesn't care any longer about every single vote? i don't really know much about these things, just wondering from a common sense point of view one wouldn't want to be too laid back or careless at such a sensitive point in the election timeline?