Zoe Williams on Wes Streeting

[southbiscay]

Zoe is suggesting that Wes Streeting apologising for not supporting the GC position is an election wheeze to win votes. Whilst Wes has form for bending with the wind, it's nevertheless fascinating that she thinks the GC position is the vote-winning position.

Perhaps someone could tell Keir.

x.com/zoesqwilliams/status/1794842950272463176

I'm not sure I believe the trans child theory about Starmer. It sounds like the sort of thing that could be an innocent fumble.

Incidentally, I find it very difficult to believe that people don't know and can't find out the names of his children. It's very easy to find that sort of information out. So if they haven't been publicly named, isn't that just because it's not very interesting information?

@MissScarletInTheBallroom I would like to think a fumble over words was true. But who gets the sex of their children wrong? How can you possibly say I have 2 boys by mistake?
I have seen the name of his son, I think it was mentioned before Starmer was leader. But I've not seen the name of his daughter and I think it is fair not to name them.

There's a site I use (for a legitimate purpose) and I've just found what I'm pretty sure are both his children's full names on it after about 20 seconds of searching, so it's just not believable that journalists couldn't do the same.

But I still understand why he doesn't name them in public himself.

As I understand it he didn't say "I have two sons", but "I have a boy who's 15 and a boy who's 13". That sounds like an innocent slip of the tongue to me.

Yes, that is what he said. It's an odd mistake to make. I hope it was a mistake. It's the one area of Labour policy I'm unhappy with. It then I don't trust any party on women's rights.

@Floisme absolutely we do not want, are not calling for, any intrusion into these children’s lives.

It is not a stretch to reflect, however, that a personal experience might offer some possible insight into Starmer’s views on an issue that is likely to impact 50% of the electorate. And he did not have to mention their gender/sex in a tv interview that would give rise to speculation. I would’ve thought that he’s a lawyer who chooses his words carefully but happy to consider the possibility of a slip of the tongue as well.

in any event, discussing this possibility is not so different from commentary on the influence of the families of Ed Balls or David Tennant or Penny Mordaunt on this divisive issue, all of which has been discussed on FWR before.

I'm not getting into an argument about it @DrBlackbird if only because I can't bear reading the twisting and ducking and diving involved in trying to justify it. You and some other posters think it's acceptable, I emphatically do not and I'm going to carry on saying so when I see it.

I would’ve thought that he’s a lawyer who chooses his words carefully

I think we all thought this. More recently though, it seems more likely that he's one of these lawyers who will not give you an answer and who caveats every goddamn thing. Well, this one thing is where he's slippery really. Compare and contrast to VAT on school fees I suppose.

Don't trust him on this issue. And he chose to say what he did, all the while using slippery language about safe spaces Of course people will wonder. The press will not go there. They're not allowed for good reason. But ordinary people will see what he says and they'll wonder. No way to make that not happen.

but lacks the courage to be clear.

Willing to push the nuclear button but lacks the courage to be clear about what a woman is.

I absolutely agree that intrusion into family life is not acceptable

What I do find acceptable is sharing the information that a politician’s close family member (unspecified) is trans and the understanding that this might affect their actual position on the subject.

This is even more relevant where the politician in question has said some things which are likely to make me believe they support one point of view (some women have a penis); but they are now saying ‘soothing’ things like women should have safe spaces. If KS won’t speak clearly, then we have to use the information available to put his comments into context and decipher what he actually means.

Yes I think transparency is key here and Starmer is not transparent. He uses obfuscating language such as “safe spaces” which have no meaning in law. He’s not clear on what a woman is or whether or not it’s “right” that women are clear about the language we use about ourselves. People are desperate to be able to vote Labour and are looking for clues about where he actually stands on all of this.

What I dofind acceptable is sharing the information that a politician’s close family member (unspecified) is trans and the understanding that this might affect their actual position on the subject.

Absolutely - this makes a big difference to how I feel about him as a potential leader because it could tie his hands considerably (it shouldn't but it could). I can understand that a parent would want to put their child first and do what's best for them, but in this case we have parents being gaslighted into thinking what's best for their child is gender-affirming transition and medicalisation, and going along with gender ideology wholesale. IMO that's misguided and unfounded, and there's mounting evidence almost every day that it's harmful, but if a parent does believe it's what's best, then that's not compatible with doing what's best for women, gay people and everyone else's gender-confused kids.

Not saying he does have a transitioning child, we don't know - but I do agree it's key information unfortunately. Unfortunately because it's not fair on the child and we don't have a right to their medical information, which I also respect - so in the absence of KS making clear that he understands GI is unevidenced and will follow the actual evidence to protect women's, children's and gay rights, I maight have to not vote labour. Which sucks.

I hope he will do an MN chat during the campaign. I hope he's reading MN.