Forum menu
Hot off the press – Starmer has had a go at Prince William for not sufficiently condemning slavery.
Not to mention his less than clear view on whether women can have penises. Why can't he just answer a bloody question? This is going to be the next election campaign isn't it? Starmer continually being asked his view on women with penises whilst the whole country shrugs and wonders what he's going to do about their falling incomes.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1508363760834129921?s=20&t=FXxPAnlRdwiql3AcpOPzog
Starmer continually being asked his view on women with penises whilst the whole country shrugs and wonders what he’s going to do about their falling incomes.
So, blame Nick Ferrari for asking a stupid question?
So, blame Nick Ferrari for asking a stupid question?
The problem isn't the question, it's Starmer's inability/unwillingness to answer it. Especially when it's a question that 99% of the population would answer in a second without even thinking about it. I don't really have much of an opinion on the transgender issue but I know that labour need to shut it down one way or the other because it's going to be used to batter them in the run up to the next election. You can write the tory propaganda now and it'll cut through just like the antisemitism stuff did previously.
but I know that labour need to shut it down one way or the other
Labour, or more pertinently for this thread Starmer doesn't have the ability to shut it down.
Labour, or more pertinently for this thread Starmer doesn’t have the ability to shut it down.
He could make clear his view and make the case for it rather than pretending he doesn't have an opinion. That would at least defuse it, especially when most of the popular criticisms of Starmer hinge around him being indecisive and people not understanding what he stands for. Last time I heard Angela Rayner on this subject she didn't have much of a problem expressing her view.
rather than pretending he doesn’t have an opinion.
i don’t think he does that on your clip, he just says that judging this whole issue in one sporting achievement and answering an obvious trap question by giving a sound bite isn’t really the best way of discussing a pretty difficult subject.
Ferrari is utterly obsessed with this stuff (though I'm sure it's driven by the LBC appetite of being outraged on behalf of its listeners).
However, I do occasionally listen to him for Partridge value - and the Starmer interviews he hosts are so devoid of anything at all memorable that this recent one has stuck in my head for all the wrong reasons.
Ferrari is utterly obsessed with this stuff
Indeed. So Starmer absolutely should have had a solid sounding (non) answer to that question. It was always coming. If he and his team haven't prepared and practiced responses to this kind of question, he's not ready for interviews with Ferrari (or many others).
99% of the population would answer in a second without even thinking about it
If they're not even going to have to think about it, then I don't want them, or anyone like them, as PM. Something far more nuanced is required of a possible future PM. Because this line leads to... "well, transgender kids (who because of their age won't have transitioned) are not the gender they say they are, and it's fine for society not to accept them for who they are".
If they’re not even going to have to think about it, then I don’t want them, or anyone like them, as PM.
I didn't say they shouldn't think about it, just that they need to do whatever they can to show the voting public that transgender issues are not the primary focus of the labour party, because if that's the conclusion voters come to, they're completely screwed.
They can either say no, we don't think women can have penises (or less crude words to that effect), or they can say they support transgender rights and will be bringing in policies to address the discrimination transgender people experience. It's not really an issue where they can sit on the fence, because they'll continually be asked the stupid penis question, and then everyone will think that's all they care about.
Angela Rayner this morning, answering in a clear and direct way which Starmer was completely unable to do. Maybe she should give him some lessons?
"I mean, I don’t get asked – I present as a woman, people don’t ask me, “Have you got a penis?” And I think that’s wholly right.
There’s protections in place to protect women-only spaces and vulnerabilities around that. And there’s protections in place to support people who are transitioning, who have identity concerns.
We have laws at the moment that protect people. And I think we should be making sure that people are aware of that, not debasing it down to what genitalia someone may or may not have. I’d be offended if someone asked me what my genitalia is. And I don’t think it’s appropriate to do that to any person."
I didn’t say they shouldn’t think about it, just that they need to do whatever they can to show the voting public that transgender issues are not the primary focus of the labour party, because if that’s the conclusion voters come to, they’re completely screwed.
To be fair, not being able to give a concise, definitive answer makes it fairly clear that transgender issues are not Labour's primary focus. Much mileage from right-wing comnentators on social media about it, yet oddly none of them state their own position or appear to be asking Tories the same question.
Maybe she should give him some lessons?
That's a good (non) answer from her. He can't give the same response as that though, for obvious reasons. It's also the "sitting on the fence" that you just said Labour shouldn't do.
He can’t give the same response as that though
Of course he can. What's wrong with 'That question is insulting and offensive to women and transgender people. We support equally the rights of transgender people and women and don't accept that one detracts from the other.' Simple, direct, unambiguous. It's not hard is it?
To be fair, not being able to give a concise, definitive answer makes it fairly clear that transgender issues are not Labour’s primary focus.
No it just shows that he's incapable of holding or communicating a clear opinion on an issue that he's obviously going to be questioned about. Two skills I think we'd all agree are fairly important for a prospective PM to posess.
Angela Rayner this morning, answering in a clear and direct way which Starmer was completely unable to do. Maybe she should give him some lessons?
“I mean, I don’t get asked – I present as a woman, people don’t ask me, “Have you got a penis?” And I think that’s wholly right.
There’s protections in place to protect women-only spaces and vulnerabilities around that. And there’s protections in place to support people who are transitioning, who have identity concerns.
We have laws at the moment that protect people. And I think we should be making sure that people are aware of that, not debasing it down to what genitalia someone may or may not have. I’d be offended if someone asked me what my genitalia is. And I don’t think it’s appropriate to do that to any person.”
Starmer said the exact same thing, he went into detail on the legislation and the exemptions that were in place, such as women-only spaces (including stating this was a footnote in the legislation). He also raised good practice via Sport Englands policies and was only really struggling to respond due to the coarseness of the question.
Honestly, Angela Rayner has just come out and backed the labour leader with the same information, but as a woman she can do it without the underhanded snide remarks that the likes of Ferrari used.
Starmer said the exact same thing
I just listened to him again and you must have been watching a different clip. Maybe it wasn't the content that was the problem but the way he delivered it. Or didn't, which is my point. They have to be incredibly clear and concise on this otherwise it'll consume more and more time in interviews.
I just listened to him again and you must have been watching a different clip. Maybe it wasn’t the content that was the problem but the way he delivered it. Or didn’t, which is my point. They have to be incredibly clear and concise on this otherwise it’ll consume more and more time in interviews.
It's all in the actual discussion, just prior to the clip shown above.
He answered the stupid question very well. A question designed to cause offence & controversy, he caused none.
Of course he can.
You think he can answer with << people don’t ask me, “Have you got a penis?” >> ?!?
They have to be incredibly clear and concise
No, they have to be broad and inclusive (and vague without sounding it), to not get drawn into making a statement that can be used to paint them as only being interested in the lives of some people to the exclusion others. He didn't sound ready to do that though, and seemed evasive in a way his deputy did not. He needs to be more prepared for that line of (stupid) questioning... there will be far more to come.
PrinceJohn
Free Member
He answered the stupid question very well. A question designed to cause offence & controversy, he caused none.
Yeah, that's what i heard, even going back to his experience as a lawyer on similar subjects, the fact he was able to provide information off the top of his head on specifics on the legislation was good, he just wasn't going to respond to that crap question at the end.
Have to say LBC is getting a bit more sensationalist these days, even James O'Brien is getting a little too OTT on some subjects, they're basically like the mirror image of GBNews these days
He answered the stupid question very well. A question designed to cause offence & controversy, he caused none.
This. ^^^
was only really struggling to respond due to the coarseness of the question.
He appears on Ferrari regularly. Clearly as a positive choice. .
Ferrari is obtuse and selects the grey area questions for black and white answers.
It's quite a friendly session for Starmer and designed this way. I think Starmer gets out of his comfort zone all to quickly and he's given an easy ride in my opinion. I think he will get trampled in the TV debates.
I think he will get trampled in the TV debates.
More so than Boris or whoever he's up against, in a 1 v 1 with the same question set?
More so than Boris or whoever he’s up against, in a 1 v 1 with the same question set?
Johnson will hide in a fridge again.
Did we establish his opinion on the next series of Drag Race, or not?
Reeves talking up a whole load of nothing during one of the most economically desperate times of recent years.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1508879552369598464?t=s36o3aYoGd63oAp0-lvEBg&s=19
FFS you're meant to be the LABOUR party you vacuous media shrill. (And I'm not a fan of Marr at all.)
She could've considered addressing inflation by talking about ruptured supply chains and how Labour might improve that by not encouraging a model based on off-shoring everything. How the BoE increasing interest rates and making money more expensive is not good strategy for rampant inflation caused by supply constraints. How we can always afford to pay public workers good wages in the face of all that they've done for us
But she doesn't because she won't point out the market has failed us. Small state free market economy is a myth. There is no economy at all without the state underpinning it. The market cannot support itself.
If capitalism fails to work the government can change it to make it work for the majority of people.
Natural Labour territory.
his opinion on the next series of Drag Race
Don't be silly binners. The leader of the Labour Party reserves his opinions for much more important issues.
Issues that are at the forefront of voters minds. Such as whether the next James Bond should be woman (with or without a penis presumably) :
And whether Geronimo the alpaca should die:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-alpaca-geronimo-death-b1901049.html?amp
On other less important issues, such as the Tory welfare cap, Starmer prefers to sit on the fence:
What did Reeves say that the labour movement could get behind? She's on the other side. She picks up a 2k rise and everyone else gets a clap out of respect. Not fit to be the shit on my shoes.
FFS you’re meant to be the LABOUR party you vacuous media shrill. (And I’m not a fan of Marr at all.)
She could’ve considered addressing inflation by talking about ruptured supply chains and how Labour might improve that by not encouraging a model based on off-shoring everything. How the BoE increasing interest rates and making money more expensive is not good strategy for rampant inflation caused by supply constraints. How we can always afford to pay public workers good wages in the face of all that they’ve done for us
But she doesn’t because she won’t point out the market has failed us. Small state free market economy is a myth. There is no economy at all without the state underpinning it. The market cannot support itself.
If capitalism fails to work the government can change it to make it work for the majority of people.
Natural Labour territory.
Are you really expecting the shadow chancellor to start talking about all that on the Andrew Marr show, from what you've stated above you're expecting her to push out a blueprint for how the UK should ditch capitalism and become more of a socialist state, and all this at a time when the UK have to deal with making trade deals and ties due to Brexit?
you’re expecting her to push out a blueprint for how the UK should ditch capitalism and become more of a socialist state
You don’t think we have enough capitalism? Maybe we need a few more homeless and kids going hungry before the Labour Party will motivate themselves to change something?
We have capitalism, it's not a unit, it's a system, and i can see poverty, homelessness and hungry children in socialist countries, the same as capitalist countries.
How would you go about changing 'capitalism' to better benefit all, without of course causing the exact opposite?
Socialist countries? Where dat den? Even cuddly capitalist countries like Holland and Finland do so much better. Despite a dreadful leader, Hungary has a pretty good Gini coefficient. The LP is kin worse than hopeless.
FFS the next general election won't be socialism v capitalism.
It should be.....social democracy v neo-liberalism.
But Starmer will do his darn hardest to make certain that it won't be even that.
I am sure that he will succeed.
How would you go about changing ‘capitalism’ to better benefit all
Is that a serious question? I wouldn't change capitalism, I'd change democracy. Make it more transparent and accountable to working people rather than the interests of big business and the super rich. I'd reduce the centralised representative nature of government and devolve power to the lowest practical level to give people a stake in their communities and allow them to feel empowered and listened to. Do that and capitalism would change itself, because the rich would no longer have power over everyone else, and the rampant and indefensible inequality in both wealth and power that exists today would be vastly reduced as a result.
How would you go about changing ‘capitalism’ to better benefit all, without of course causing the exact opposite?
Limit the rise on energy prices to 4% in the same way France has?
Workers on the boards of companies in the same way Germany has?
A cap on executive pay linked to average pay in the company?
Get ****ing homeless people off the street and into homes?
I could go on for hours as could you and most of our suggestions would be popular with 95% of the country... but for some reason it never happens.
Yeah, Socialism isn't up for discussion for me, we'd have to actually have some assets within the country to make it even viable, or funds, neither of which the UK has at present.
As for Social Democracy v Neoliberalism, that's been the case since Corbyn was in power, he was too much on one side, now Starmer is seen as too much the other, if Labour don't fix that then the next election will just be about what side of labour gets the most safe seats to start the whole battle for the next election after another failure.
Judging by my "mates" whatsapp group which never gets near politics the energy price rise is going to do for the Tories.
Also I saw on twitter that the fixed term parliament act has been binned so maybe soon.
Starmer is shit (I think he answered the above question well enough) but he can still win the next election. I think he will.
Genuinely not sure I can vote for him and if I do it will be a vote against my local Tory **** MP Alun Cairns rather than a vote for Starmer or Labour.
we’d have to actually have some assets within the country to make it even viable, or funds, neither of which the UK has at present.
The UK govt could pass a law tomorrow to bring strategic infrastructure and business into public ownership. They did it with the banks in less than a week. They could also create as much money as is needed to solve intractable problems such as poverty and homelessness. They did that temporarily when the pandemic started. No one was asking where the money came from, least of all the labour party.
Also I saw on twitter that the fixed term parliament act has been binned so maybe soon.
It never meant anything anyway. It was just a pointless gesture to keep the libdem muppets happy.
The 2/3s to overrule the fixed term had the fatal flaw that a simple majority vote could always replace it.
The UK govt could pass a law tomorrow to bring strategic infrastructure and business into public ownership
Instead they sell the National Grid! Why dont Labour attack the Tories on their lack of patriotism? It is an open goal imo. Stop trying to out flag shag them FFS! Just point out all the infrastructure they have sold to foreign companies. Do it every chance you get!
I could go on for hours as could you and most of our suggestions would be popular with 95% of the country… but for some reason it never happens.
Because most of the voters in the country are happy to substitute that list with things that benefit them and their families, add to that the core tory voters and you're not going to do much in terms of rerouting funding.
Most folk in the UK want a fairer system, they want to eradicate homeless, poverty and healthcare, but then when the options are put in front of them, they tend to vote for comfort.
Because most of the voters in the country
Which voters would they be? If you’re talking about the 28% of eligible voters who voted tory in 2019 then I wouldn’t call that ‘most’.
How would you go about changing ‘capitalism’ to better benefit all, without of course causing the exact opposite?
“Limit the rise on energy prices to 4% in the same way France has?”
>80% of all electricity in France is generated from Nuclear. Around 50% of the UK’s electricity comes from burning gas. The cost of nuclear is relatively static - has gone up 8 fold.
As an aside, the reason the UK’s own share of electricity from Nuclear fell through the floor is because Labour policy from 1997 to 2010 Was to refuse permission for any replacement nuclear power stations.
So the example of France is kind of irrelevant for the reasons set out above - the “supply” cost there hasn’t changed whereas it has here.
With a number of nuclear plants in the Uk scheduled to closed by 2020 and a lead time of 10-15 years on major civils / power projects the reason we are in the current mess is down to poor decisions in the early 2000s.
The UK govt could pass a law tomorrow to bring strategic infrastructure and business into public ownership. They did it with the banks in less than a week. They could also create as much money as is needed to solve intractable problems such as poverty and homelessness. They did that temporarily when the pandemic started. No one was asking where the money came from, least of all the labour party.
We're not the US, our currency isn't that strong, and Brexit, the bank crisis, etc has weakened it to the point of where we are now, any messing about with QE will make inflation go higher, any public ownership discussions will end up with a lot of upset foreign owners, and their countries of origin.