Keir Starmer's own allies claim 'he's an HR manager, not a leader'

[IwantToRetire]

Extracts of 'Get In', by political journalists Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Pogrund, have revealed how the PM's own chief of staff once questioned Sir Keir's ability.

Morgan McSweeney was said to have told a friend early into Sir Keir's time as Labour leader that his boss 'acts like an HR manager, not a leader'.

One of McSweeney's allies was also said to have claimed that 'Keir's not driving the train' in a comment about his leadership of Labour.
In a reference to the diverless Docklands Light Railway in London, they added: 'He thinks he's driving the train, but we've sat him at the front of the DLR.'

Among other revelations in the book, Angela Rayner, Labour's deputy leader, was claimed to have once texted a confidant that she did not know who ran the party.

'It could not be Starmer, she said, because he was incapable of running a bath — never mind the Opposition,' the authors wrote.

DM article published by MSN https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/uknews/keir-starmer-s-own-allies-claim-he-s-an-hr-manager-not-a-leader/ar-AA1yhg3f

Most papers have published bits of the book, or the report of the book, which was published in the Times. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmers-not-driving-the-train-confessions-of-his-inner-circle-mq2kbg39x - also available in full at https://archive.is/w2sdo

The left was accusing Starmer of shifting towards New Labour, but at the same time even Blair couldn’t make up his mind on exactly what kind of politician Starmer actually was. “I’m in two minds about Keir,” he told a friend in 2021. “The plus side is he’s intelligent, decent. He’s not Ed Miliband, or Neil Kinnock. He’s not a nutcase like GB [Gordon Brown]. But he’s not John Smith, either — I mean, he’s like John Smith, but without his class … He’s basically a London human rights lawyer who’s not in touch with the people. He’s perceived as an over-smoothed lawyer-like person. Too soft, not tough enough, inexperienced.”

Even today, Blair acknowledges: “It’s possible that his journey isn’t like Neil Kinnock’s, where you start on the left and then you move right. I don’t think he really started anywhere except vaguely progressive.”

So whoever named him Mr FlipFlop seems to have been right.

This is directly and disproportionately (so you posted it here instead of in Politics) relevant to feminism how?

Also, regardless of where you post this, you have to clearly identify "Blair" the first time you use it. I have no idea if you mean Blair the US clothing company, Tony Blair, Blair Waldorf, Blair Warner, Blair Underwood, Blair Academy, or anything else.

Also this: He’s not Ed Miliband, or Neil Kinnock. He’s not a nutcase like GB [Gordon Brown]. But he’s not John Smith, either — I mean, he’s like John Smith, but without his class … is incomprehensible to a Scot.

If you have complaints about the writing please do let the various newspapers they are quoted from no.

As to why I posted it, it is because FWR is a political forum.

This man is the PM of the UK.

And there was a previous thread about Labour being in power, and a constant theme was about Starmer flip flopping.

You do realise that for the next 5 years, this is the man who could decide whether sex is defined as biological in law, whether VAWG projects get enough funding, and well - just about everything.

Yeah when I read Blair I immediately thought of the US clothing company.
And John Smith, that must mean the ale brewing company, right??
🙄

I feel a bit sorry for Starmer - the press are out to get him and he's only been PM for 6 months. There is absolutely no one more competent in the Labour party as they are all pretty useless (as are the Conservatives). I imagine one of the cabinet will stab him in the back and become PM and then things will get even worse.

Oh come on. This is a story about the Labour Party, the references to Blair and John Smith are pretty obvious

What does this have to do with sex and/or gender and feminism?

This is the earlier thread I was thinking about, and quite a lot was posted (well it is FWR) about Labour's attitude towards women https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5167957-labour-is-betraying-women

But from the extracts from the book it would seem women aren't even relevant which can only mean it isn't that the driverless train hates women, but it is just that because it is driverless the entrenched hostile attitudes of the passengers towards women just happen and take hold because there are no policies.

As said upthread:

You do realise that for the next 5 years, this is the man who could decide whether sex is defined as biological in law, whether VAWG projects get enough funding, and well - just about everything.

Also extraordinary that anyone would wonder why a feminist might want to know what other feminists think.

If it is okay to have a thread on FWR asking for film recommendations, I think a thread about the leader of the ruling Party is more than relevant.

Or maybe some think feminism isn't part of politics.

Just some hobby we have a slight interest in.

The Politics board is here OP: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/politics

I'm an HR Manager (Director actually but meh...) and have no idea what this means.

Eh? Really?
Weird, cos both Smith and Blair are Scots....
Great username though, very apt.

I saw, I'm just confused what Starmer apparently being a wet lettuce has to do with his politics and in turn feminism. Are you suggesting he will be unable to get his policies on VAWG/sex vs gender through? Or that another Labour bigwig may replace him and have their own agenda which may affect women? I believe Wes Streetling has been showing some signs of knowing what biological sex is.

Oh, rillly?
See, I was thinking more Linda Blair, The Exorcist and John Smith, Pocahontas. Huh, guess they were right then, totally incomprehensible...

I’ve had enough of “leaders”, aka narcissistic bullies. Maybe a bit of boring diplomacy would be good for us.

I saw, I'm just confused what Starmer apparently being a wet lettuce has to do with his politics and in turn feminism. Are you suggesting he will be unable to get his policies on VAWG/sex vs gender through? Or that another Labour bigwig may replace him and have their own agenda which may affect women? I believe Wes Streetling has been showing some signs of knowing what biological sex is.

Dear oh, dear. As I keep saying. Labour is the ruling party in the UK.

What they do or do not do could impact on women ie lets say FWR win their JR will Labour just say okay that's fine with us we will rewrite the EA.

Or will they make a legal challenge.

I genuinely dont believe that anyone who is on FWR doesn't think that what Labour does or doesn't do will have an impact on women.

They have packed the WEC with TWAW. They could change the GRA to include self identity.

And if, as the book / newspaper article suggest Starmer has no opinions, who is steering the Labour Party and its position on women's sex based rights.

Really weird that some are more interesed in attacking the concept of the thread than putting forward their personal opinions, analysis of what a rudderless Labour Party might mean for women.

You could start by suggesting who you think is steering the Labour Party in Starmer's apparent inability or unwillingness to hold opinions. Or what you think they are likely to do and what makes you think so, rather than what they could do.

Nobody has said the government of the day is irrelevant to feminism.

This x 💯

Blair, yes. I immediately thought of Paddy Blair, the long dead SAS commander, particularly given the context.

Starmer has zero political instinct.

The irony is that many in his own party have been out to get hm for as lot longer than that. I give him another year and a half.

Personally think Wes Streeting is perhaps the most credible, and the one with most instinct for the mood of the day.

I came here to comment something along these lines.

Totally agree.

His policies are more the issue but it's true about lack of political nous

But the article / book implies he has not policies. He goes out of his way not to take a side.

That is the point.

If he doesn't have policies, and only supports the ones that cause less friction for him as the PM with in Labour, who is or how are the policies of the Labour Party decided.

Given the context I think it's obvious that Blair refers to Selma. Her ongoing charity work, in particular her more recent disability activism, and of course her services to feminism through her small part in Legally Blonde, mean she must be the only Blair discussed on these boards.

Many people have watched a dog chase after a motorbike and wondered what would happen if the dog actually caught up with it. We are now finding out in real time.