That Starmer fella...

Starmer didn't come across too well I don't think

Starmer said: “Nobody should be saying anything about defunding the police.

“I was director of public prosecutions for five years. I’ve worked with police forces across England and Wales bringing thousands of people to court, so my support for the police is very strong.

“It’s a shame it’s getting tangled up with these organisational issues, with the organisation Black Lives Matter, but I wouldn’t have any truck with what the organisation is saying about defunding the police – that’s just nonsense.”

“There’s a broader issue here. The Black Lives Matter movement – or moment, if you like – internationally is about reflecting something completely different. It’s reflecting on what happened dreadfully in America just a few weeks ago and showing or acknowledging that as a moment across the world.”

It will probably actually resonate with a lot of lost labour voters but it seems to be heavily missing the point.

Ugh. Yeah. Not great. That's a fuck up by his standards.

I suppose part of it is that "defund the police" doesn't have the same meaning here as it does in the USA. Not a set of words I can see any UK politician getting behind, regardless of intent.

Dismissing BLM as a moment is also not a good look.

It is a bit different over here, police are already pretty low on funds compared to the huge amounts they get in the US, there are also already some of the other services in place that BLM want to divert police funds towards instead, although austerity has defunded them as much as the police recently, more money back to them would be good.
It's not a great comment by him overall though.

I would say that his words are quite a way away from a condemnation though.

Farage being a shit stirrer, what a surprise.

But seriously, does anyone seriously think that Starmer is going to back a policy as vaguely defined as 'defund the police'? In the US I get it completely as they get military hardware sold on to them, have, comparatively, large budgets and clearly need root and branch reform.

In the UK I think it's different policing has already faced ten years of austerity and isn't buying used military equipment to aggressively police cities. That doesn't meant there isn't a need for massive reform, especially with regards to institutionalised racism, but that's not what Starmer was asked.

Yes, I think the defund the police part he could have given a more nuanced answer along the lines of "It's critical that we also invest in other areas such as mental health and community initiatives to lessen the pressure on the police and their funding" which would at least have shown he understands the point.

This bit though “There’s a broader issue here. The Black Lives Matter movement – or moment, if you like – internationally is about reflecting something completely different. It’s reflecting on what happened dreadfully in America just a few weeks ago and showing or acknowledging that as a moment across the world.” just seems to be completely missing the point and pretty patronising. I can't really see what the excuse is

Starmer is shithouse, huh. I wonder if the Lib Dems are worth a look these days. At least they’re ardent LGBT+ supporters.

How have you reached that conclusion? Have you actually watched what he said?

.

Would watch

“People are saying ‘which side are you on?’” But he says it’s “better to reflect in a mature, cross-party way” that can both “protect the trans community” and “protect women who are concerned about safe spaces”. On gender recognition, Starmer concludes: “I’m convinced there’s a way forward here if everyone is prepared to stop chucking bricks at each other”

These are the words he said on radio 4. This is not an acceptable viewpoint to me.

Are all women who express concern on trans issues to be completely ignored? JK Rowling? Joanna Cherry? These are people with long associations with progressive politics.

rowling in terfy, childish shocker.

mumsnet >>>

Sadly the casual misogyny on LFGSS has driven away the majority of female posters, so I agree Mumsnet would be a good place to find out what women think about these issues.

trans women are women.

off you pop.

I recognise I'm firmly in the centrist dad camp on most things but can you explain for my benefit what is wrong with calling for people to work together rather than being pushed into opposing camps on things? (which my conspiracy spidysenses think is probably part of a divide and rule tactic).

Is it repeating a trope about safe spaces?

Cheers

I think maybe because he's drawn a distinction between women and the trans community. I dunno though.

Surely that's because he's using trans community to mean trans men and trans women as as a minority group? Right?

Like I said I'm trying to understand here.

This bit though “There’s a broader issue here. The Black Lives Matter movement – or moment, if you like – internationally is about reflecting something completely different. It’s reflecting on what happened dreadfully in America just a few weeks ago and showing or acknowledging that as a moment across the world.” just seems to be completely missing the point and pretty patronising. I can't really see what the excuse is

It also seems to completely ignore or, more worryingly deny, that the UK is as institutionally racist as the USA which is not really a strong position to take, even if its slightly less overt here

Surely that's because he's using trans community to mean trans men and trans women as as a minority group? Right?

I think it could as easilly be read as a dog-whistle statement othering trans women as distinct from "normal/natural" women. Again, even if it wasn't his intent, its awfully lacking in nuance, which is ironic given the events of a couple of days ago

Cheers. This is probably something I'm not going to get.

I assume the same inference isn't as relevant with a statement in relation to black women, as them not being a woman isn't a common accusation.

is there a recording of his comments on radio 4?

that would give us a clue as to whether the relative pronouns ("who") are used exclusively or inclusively. when i read them written down, i understood them to mean that the two "sides" he's trying to illustrate are trans people and those women who are concerned about safe spaces. i didn't understand the latter to be all cis-women, all of whom are concerned about safe spaces

but maybe i've misunderstood something here

I wonder, somewhat cynically, if they've realised that it isn't going to negatively impact on the voting if they are not fully behind BLM. It's probably not going to lose any seats but it may pick some more up.

BBC Sounds if recent.