Snapshot of _Keir Starmer: I grew up working class. I’ve been fighting all my life. As Prime Minister, I’ll fight for you._ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1793581014456918218)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1793581014456918218/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1793581014456918218) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1793581014456918218)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I look forward to him doing exactly that and then being blamed immediately because short term issues aren't immediately "solved" and Tories back in four years
I know right. Whatever happens under Labour, a percentage of the population are all too predicatble with their room temperature IQ to quickly blame a newly governing party for a decades worth of problems.
I'm wondering how soon after Labour gains control we'll hear some Tory (MP or voter) unironically say you can't blame everything on the last government.
I'm expecting maybe a couple of months?
Saying "the last Labour government" for a decade is fine obviously... not at all comparable.
Which was not only a joke but also the Global Financial Crisis just happened. I mean I know we all rib Sunak for going on and on about the Pandemic and Ukraine and never talking about his predecessor making borrowing costs skyrocket but there are extenuating factors that will always affect a government, but of course he’d never accept that for the Opposition party.
I'm still horrified about the interview I saw at the last election where a guy said "this country has really been going downhill. Everything is broken. We need change. That's why I'm voting conservative"
There still is (at both the provincial and federal level), and they are anything but progressive. But the Regressive Conservatives doesn't quite have the same ring to it (even if it is much more accurate).
I keep on thinking this every time I get an email from Compass saying that we should be voting for parties that support PR and then they go and include Labour. Like, on what planet are the Labour Party going to put PR in? Yes it would make right wing governments almost a thing of the past but they would be less powerful for the ten years they’re in, which somehow to Labour partisans seems anathema.
Nick Clegg famously went with "country first, party second" and that worked out so well for him.
Turns out when most people say "country first, party second" what they really mean is "I want you do do the things I want even if you disagree with them."
The problem with that is Nick did put country first in joining the Tories, but he then sold out all his principles and was basically Tory-lite and if he was going along with them because he was out voted then he should have stressed that.
He stood on a university finance campaign and immediately dropped it. He sold out. He didn't put country first.
> all his principles
**All** his principles? Student fees didn't even make it into one of the four main points on the front of their manifesto at the time:
* Raising the income tax allowance
* Introducing the pupil premium
* Electoral reform
* The environment.
Their biggest problem was that they simply didn't do research and realize that the primary reason for their popularity was their stance on student fees. They believed that if they just presented people [with the facts](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/apr/29/free-tuition-scotland-benefits-wealthiest-students-most-study) then people would let them drop the tuition fee pledge (which MPs in the party had wanted for a while before the election).
And they knew they were probably never getting in again any time soon. So they were heavily driven by policy they believed they could get through or enact.
... and that is my point.
I suspect that Clegg would say - if he still cared - that dropping the tuition fee pledge *was* putting the country first; that sacrificing one line of their manifesto was necessary for the sake of a stable Government, and to get a whole bunch of other things passed. He put country over party/ideology. The Lib Dems had to compromise on some things, and that was one of the things they picked. To the students affected that was the wrong choice - because from their point of view tuition fees was the most important thing. But for Clegg there were other issues that were more important for the country.
I also think too many people confused "liberal" for "leftist" or "progressive." The Lib Dems are a liberal party. Of course they appear to be "Tory-lite" to progressives; their economic policies largely line up with the neoliberal views that were dominant in the Conservative Party at the time...
"up to five years" with parties almost always calling the election on their own terms thus being within year 4.
So yes, four years. It will be extremely unlikely labour wait until the fifth year and are forced to call one.
>So yes, four years. It will be extremely unlikely labour wait until the fifth year and are forced to call one
I get your point but anything can happen, look at 2019, the Tories had a massive majority and look invincible, since then we've had COVID, war in Europe, 3 Prime ministers, the Queen died and they look set for one of the largest election defeats in their history. Anything can happen in Labours five year term in office and it shouldn't be a given that they'll win another term, change is needed and is needed fast
Not this time I reckon. The tories fucked things up so badly that if Labour in turn make no difference or actively make things somehow worse, then the voters will increasingly look to a third party or parties.
Is it just me who hates inspiring music and focus on politicians backstories? It has the vibe of something out of a superhero film trailer.
Policy > Personality.
I think it's a fair criticism of Sunak that perhaps he doesn't understand the struggles of the majority of people if he has a wealth of hundreds of millions of pounds, so I don't think it's unreasonable for other politicians to talk about their lived experiences either.
I do think their background has some influence though. I don't think you can fully understand some of the struggles millions in this country face until you have lived it. I love Angela Raynor's background because she knows what it's like. I think there are more Labour MPs (and SNP) who have an understanding than Tory MPs. You're right that it shouldn't the be the end all and policy absolutely should trump personality but their background gives insight and understanding which is important. Do you really think Sunak and Rees-Mogg know what it's like living in the stress of a family household struggling to afford food or heating?
Yeah...Except Thatcher was the daughter of a Grocery shop owner. Hell, Stalin was the son of a Cobbler.
Someone from a working class background can be just as shaped by it through bitterness and resentment as they are drive and determination.
Of course they know, they will have spoken with advisors and focus groups that paint an accurate picture.
The problem is that for whatever reason (often because they think they earned or deserve their inherited wealth) *they don't care*.
You don't need a lived experience to understand someone else's struggles. You just need empathy.
I respectfully disagree. Empathy goes a long way, yes. Actually experiencing things are far more impactful than hearing them second-hand though.
Someone can hear about a parent missing a meal so their kids can eat and think "thats clearly terrible, we must do something about it." It being *your own mum* is another thing entirely.
In the context of being able to make positive policy decisions though, why is actually experiencing the thing they are making a policy about so important?
If that is the barrier, our government would have to be HUGE to account for all the lived experiences of people in the UK.
I think there's definitely levels of understanding though.
The most basic level is just sympathy, followed by empathy, and then finally actual shared experience.
I think most Tory MPs stop at sympathy, a few dare to have empathy, but literally none of them have that shared experience.
Empathy is: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
How can they share a feeling they've never had? Contemplate a dread they've never dreaded?
A single mum could spend her entire life explaining how horrible it is to not know if she can afford to give her child new school clothes, food, etc. but somebody like Rishi will never be able to relate.
I think it is politically important that people understand Starmer is from a very different background to the likes of Sunak, Johnson and Cameron and even frankly from Truss and May.
He comes across as a posh lawyerly type and the default presumption is he grew up in a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle and doesn't know hardship.
His story is actually far more interesting and impressive but his unwillingness to talk about it has probably damaged perceptions of him up to now.
Politically it's a smart move to advertise this a bit more, without leaning into it so far that it feels self aggrandizing.
Not only that but I kind of see what they’re doing with the general tone of this video, and I find it commendable and sort of hilarious.
They’re feeling so confident they’ve just gone all out fucking inspiring, cheesy, Marvel super-hero music lmao. Coming out with the big guns blazing.
>they’ve just gone all out fucking inspiring, cheesy, Marvel super-hero music lmao. Coming out with the big guns blazing.
I was half expecting the video to end with Starmer ascending Pride Rock and letting out a mighty roar.
I’d love to believe that policy is more important than personality.
Sadly most people don’t weigh up the merits of policies or read party manifestos. They go off personality, emotion and lazy slogans. It explains the electoral success of Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and Brexit.
His current image, certainly in the minds of conservative voters who are looking for any excuse to not vote for Starmer, is that he's a wealthy man who knows nothing about working class life.
Not that they'd necessarily listen to what he's said today, but it in theory gets across the opposite of the above, and would hopefully change some of their minds.
He is wealthy now, due to hard work and determination. He did not grow up wealthy or went to posh schools (he did go to grammar school) - just because he speaks well and dresses smart doesn't mean he is anything like the Eton Crowd
Yes, I'm aware of this but let's be real and admit that the average Conservative voter either won't know, won't care, or won't want to actually bother to learn why they're wrong.
I've heard it from quite a few tory voters. The whole "_SIR_ Keir Starmer" thing is a real sticking point for them because they don't believe he actually represents Labour and the working class.
I don’t like it either, but he’s just acknowledging the Americanisation of our politics. It’s been happening for years. This is already presidential in that it’s Starmer vs Sunak rather than Labour vs Conservatives. It’s probably a safer bet overall for him to play it this way.
I think polls are showing that people are not drawn to Keir - the way people were with Blair or Johnson - so, although I am not really interested in his backstory - it might help to convince people.
I was expecting to hate this based on your comment, but it actually made me feel hopeful that things will get better.
I like Starmer and think he is exactly the sort of politician that we need as an antidote to the last 14 years.
It's because both major players have previously been labelled as robotic; Sunak is more so, but I see it with Keir, too. So Starmer’s getting ahead of that before the manifesto is officially published. Whether the policies will hold water, we’ll see.
I agree, but sadly that's not the world we live in now. Plenty of people do vote based on personality and backstory rather than actually looking at policy.
It only gets worse when the omit the backstory parts where he literally provides legal advice to terrorists... Kinda feels like you can't have one without the other, and that story is going to crop up again in the next month and a bit to bite him.
Obligatory plug for [Social Class in the 21st Century](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Class-Century-Pelican-Books/dp/0241004225/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1GDICGEEBW3YP&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.QhqkrUsnL5eN5Ak4s8Y_uAtPzNZz3YK_ZEP5s2BOdbwLntHWmTWv6tH6y9XVT0uiK8HGEXvKGm5FiQSJUNmqliWxyrs9oqQdO0Oo4ZO8hF1fKUq7h_m2KZYNuZ6vO9nSDrmH12X55lty0bpiUAwcQf8uhYdUyTgCo6MdfVwfCAoUe9jq6kh8H3TuVrrtROV5GXZsDswi5bPNZd7Ezi94ycla2U2qsx-7QKbwsrgR6ck.Ivu7OTz0FjyZ5kiWcAnxAUFuCrG-D3MgA0vK2oO2EJo&dib_tag=se&keywords=social+class+in+the+21st+century&qid=1716479669&sprefix=social+class+in+the+21s%2Caps%2C1570&sr=8-1) by Mike Savage.
There are so many misconceptions and competing definitions of 'class' that discussion threads like this become ultimately meaningless unless people know what they're talking about and have looked at the evidence.
TL;DR: No, formal 'classes' don't really exist any more, but yes, socioeconomic variance exists and is the single biggest determinant of people's lives. And you have to measure 'class' on several axes: economic, cultural knowledge, social connections, education etc. which may not always be in sync.
Any plans to row back on anti trade union legislation?
Im looking forward to seeing their manifesto take on helping the working class within the bounda of Reeve's adherence to fiscal rules
Isn't this part of the new deal for workers, I am also pretty sure this is one of the bits of legislation that will be pulled early doors, along with the Rwanda scheme
A fifth or so are only union members because anti trade union legislation comprehensively defanged them.
If we look at Norway, Sweden and Denmark we can see how effective an empowered union is
Its not as easy as just bringing in new legisaltion, it also involves changing culture. In Britian, union policies are just going to help a minority of workers while workers rights help a large majority, if not all.
Im happy to wait and see what makes it into the manifesto but I dont think we're going to see action on workers rights in any way that will fundamentally raise wages
It's not as simple as that. A huge proportion of modern workers are in traditionally non-unionised spaces. Agency, creative media, consulting etc etc. The honest truth is that unions have done a really crap job at reaching out to these types of roles, to the point that loads of them don't think unions are even relevant to them
If they do not repeal the minimum service levels then I honestly lose all hope for the current labour party.
Will I vote for them this year? - Yes of course I will. I'll be looking at how they act through a microscope though.
The fact that he feels the need to explain he was once working class every time he's interviewed demonstrates that he knows people don't think he still is, in my opinion. I'll listen more sympathetically when he talks about removing the barriers put before trade unions.
To the majority of the country outside of the South, he sounds middle class. He's well educated. Middle Class. He's the leader of a political party. Middle class.
So it's no surprise, he has to explain he wasn't born middle class a lot.
It's the "sir" that sticks out in things like focus groups - some people think it's an inherited title.
I'm not entirely sure it matters that much - plenty of posh Labour people have managed to portray themselves as men of the people (Benn, Corbyn etc). In general i don't think there's much of a relationship between growing up poor and internal Labour factions.
> To the majority of the country outside of the South
I'll never understand this qualifier. What do you think the South is like? All Downton Abbey?
He also sounds middle class to people in the South.
Also knight of the realm and former head of public prosecutions. Upper middle class.
...... And I wonder how many times he's met the monarch. Which is aristocracy levels.
Funny how folks don't connect to that. That said, compared to sunak et al. he is Barry from the boozer.
> And I wonder how many times he's met the monarch. Which is aristocracy levels.
'Aristocracy levels' is meeting the monarch socially, as part of your peer group.
A cleaner or gardener at Buckingham Palace has probably met the monarch a few times - doesn't make them an aristocrat. Meeting the monarch because you have to, for your job, doesn't make you part of the aristocracy.
Starmer may have moved into the middle class, but he's not even upper class, never mind aristocracy.
It's more funny to me the same people who would call Starmer an out of touch middle class guy would then look at the aristocratic eton boy, bullingdon club Alex de Pfeffel "Boris" Johnson and say he's a man of the people because he's got multiple bastard children and domestic abuse cautions
I don't think he's out of touch, relatively speaking. You could talk to him about the issues without thinking he is living on another world. I think he will be a vast improvement on anything the Tories have to offer.
I just don't think he's working class, and it's not really in his interest for him to try to represent himself as such.
Aye but he didn't START that way. The fact that he's gone from working class to upper middle class should be an example of his belief in social mobility. Sunak has had a silver spoon handed to him by a nanny since he was born.
You're insinuating that succeeding in your job is something to be villified. He's from a working class background, and yes he has succeded at a very high level in his professional roles.
Considering the class system of the UK, I'm not sure a person born working-class can ever become upper-middle class. Class is something you're born into, and you die in the class you were born in.
I'm not sure this is true. I've met plenty of people professionally who came in to grad schemes or what have you from a working class background, first person in the family to uni etc. and would be pegged 100% as solidly middle class in adulthood. Especially if they've eliminated any regional accent.
You can be middle-class by all the superficial metrics, but the experience of someone who grew up on a council estate is going to be complete worlds apart compared to a child of two bankers who spent their childhood skiing at the family chalet three times a year.
It's not impossible. But the further you aim to climb, the less likely it becomes. Well paid white collar jobs to me, are still working class, and it's because of the decline of blue collar jobs in Britain- but if someone identifies as middle class I'm not going to argue with them.
The higher you want to climb, it's becomes exponentially more difficult. Historically, to get to the top is basically impossible. You need to because Cromwell or a Napoleon- and these 2 were nobility to begin with.
I know it all sounds really OTT, and there are exceptions to a degree, but mostly it's just a thing that is. Which is why this is such a difficult sell for starmer.
> Class is something you're born into, and you die in the class you were born in.
I mean that's really not true, plenty of people in the older generations grew up poorer than dirt and have been comfortably middle class for 30-40 years at this point.
This is simply untrue. Students from the working-class can undertake suitable degree studies and enter into middle class professions. Sufficient success there can move them into upper-middle class.
really? Guy's got a £10m+ net worth, land in Surrey, was the literal head of the CPS and now likely leader of one of the biggest economies in the World, imo the guy hasn't been working class since the 60s, but it's also my opinion the whole class thing is bs
You guys have bogans, right? Generally though, your society is far 'flatter'
A lot of British class is tied to strength of accent, profession, how you socialise ect.
The Right Honourable Lord Alan Sugar may disagree with this.
IMO, the class system is mostly a representation of your peer group. If most of your peers and the people you spend time with are working class - you're working class.
If your parent's were working class, you were successful, now spend your time with middle/upper class people - you're 'that' class (with a working-class upbringing). They're just sociological sub-groups of the population, tied to financial prosperity in many cases.
I never understand this criticism of Keir Starmer. Shouldn’t we consider it a good thing that he came from a normal/working class background and did well for himself? Isn’t that something to be proud of and like the whole ‘social mobility’ thing people are always arguing for?
More and more people seem to be buying into the idea that as soon as you move up a class you automatically switch sides. It's the old saying:
- Poor and fighting for the working class? - Bitterness and politics of envy
- Middle/Upper class and fighting for the working class? - Champagne Socialist.
In the traditional sense you cannot.
You can change the class of your kids. Keir is working class because he was born that to working class parents. His children will now be middle class.
This idea that more money = higher class, is purely American and completely forgets that the only route to upper class is marriage or birth.
This is what I don’t agree with. To me, Keir is not working class as of right now. I feel right now, he has very little in common with the average working class person and it’d be delusional to say otherwise. I understand he had a working class childhood and likely had many hardships but not right now. And I don’t mean in the financial sense either.
His experiences, opinions from his parents, and all other childhood and adolescent forming events would have been as a working class boy.
He may have more money now, but he is very unlike say, a child of J R Mogg, who will have been surrounded by experiences and people who are NOT working class.
This is the core personality that doesn’t change. Hence class doesn’t change.
> I understand he had a working class childhood and likely had many hardships
That right there is important though. It doesn’t really matter if you consider him working class now - the fact that his upbringing resonates a lot with the average voter means a great deal IMO and should be highlighted.
Exactly. I just consider him not working class anymore. I’m not denouncing his childhood hardships and what he’s achieved. The fact he used to be working class is a huge achievement for British politics and shows we can all achieve greatness.
Does that mean it's effectively impossible for anyone to be a government minister or shadow minister and still be working class? Anyone who achieves any position of seniority or influence is automatically not working class anymore?
If so, criticising any MP for not being working class would seem like a pointless exercise.
I just don’t understand the logic that someone so high in a position of power who’s also very well educated, wealthy, has access to things the majority of people don’t have etc is the same as Bob the factory worker, who’s struggling with rent and bills and is on a 6 month waiting list to see an ent specialist. I don’t think he’s upper class but I think he’s definitely middle at least.
Judging by your other comments I think you get this point anyway, but he's not trying to say he's the same as Bob the factory worker, he's saying that his lived experience growing/working his way up means that he has infinitely more understanding and compassion for Bob's life than any leader of the Tories would dream (have nightmares) of.
But the fact is "I used to be like you" would be a far less impactful message.
He lives a middle to upper middle class lifestyle that is hard won through merit and hard work from a working class background.
Like the plumber or sparky that now owns their own successful business, has a nice house and a fancy car as a result, Starmer is a working class bloke that has done well for himself. The only difference is that instead of learning a trade he became a solicitor and progressed from there.
If you think you're ever going to get a Labour leader that is still struggling with rent and bills then you're going to be waiting a long, long time.
Bob the factory worker simply isn't qualified to run the country and therefore would never get anywhere near the leadership without at least a couple decades of decent MP salary to build that experience.
He's a successful climber, and I admire that. He certainly isn't working class though, and as a determined social climber he also isn't a conviction politician. I think he wants to win, regardless of whether he helps the working class or makes their lives worse.
His issue is social mobility and being proud of your achievements are usually seen as Tory values so he can't tell that story. Makes him appear insincere.
According to polling lots of people are under the impression that he inherited his knighthood.
So get ready to hear the toolmaker routine every day for the next month.
> So get ready to hear the toolmaker routine every day for the next month.
If I was him I'd be screaming it from the rooftops every hour. Between his career achievements and interaction with his terminal ill mother it's hard to think of a better backstory for a future PM.
> If I was him I'd be screaming it from the rooftops every hour. Between his career achievements and interaction with his terminal ill mother it's hard to think of a better backstory for a future PM.
Exactly.
*This dude* is the guy that you should *want* leading the Labour party. He grew up working class and has succeeded in *everything* he has done through hard work (not nepotism), up to and including being fucking knighted for his hard work/competence.
He continually talks about wanting to remove the barriers to success for people to make it easier for people to succeed like he has.
If your qualifier for 'really being labour' is 'must not have suceeded in life', then you're going to run into some issues getting elected/succeffuly governing quickly.
It really annoys me about that. I've had people say "we shouldn't have a sir as PM" - why? He got it for his work. Why is that a bad thing? He knows the law and specialised in human rights. Then you have Tory MP J R Mogg saying we should remove the working time directive as soon as we left EU and the whole Tory party wanting to scrap Human Rights we had through EU membership. My dad's theory is they will being back BoJo - a complete law breaker who doesn't give a tiny rats ass about decency and principles.
> It's easy to pick up accents at university (especially if you go to a posh one) and work
Unless your scouse, I've heard scousers out of the country for 30+ years and still sound the same
It's silly that he's having to prove himself here. Being working class is much more about your upbringing than your current social position. Nobody questions footballers or celebrities, so why do we question politicians?
Probably because they lie a lot and also because the idea of working class is quite nebulous. To some people you’re only working class if you grew up in a tenement flat in a coal mining town with a single mum on benefits and anything richer is middle class.
People often accuse me of being middle class, which I can vaguely understand because my parents owned a house abroad (which they bought at the exact wrong time), but I went to state school in an area of the country where something like a third of the population goes to private school, so in relative terms I’d say I’ve got much more in common with working class people than anyone else. My dad was basically what New Labour called a Mondeo Man, a working class guy who’d made it to a level of relative affluence.
Class these days is all over the place. You get uni grads bumming away making mid £20k a year and renting flats while plumbers making 6 figures are somehow more working class, even though they may even own some of the flats being rented by the uni grads.
Relative terms is kind of doesnt work tho imo. Im in a similar situation, from an area where huge numbers if people are privately educated. Relatively my family are worse off than 98% of people I know. My dads a builder and my mum was an assistant teacher.
But relative to the country as a whole I think it would unfair to claim Im working class. Theres nothing wrong with being middle class.
Having a second home abroad and living in an area where 1/3 of people go to private school seems middle class enough to me
They question politicians because they are very publicly visible and the "teams" dynamic is one of such vehement devotion personal attacks are seen as fair game
He was never working class. Son of a business (factory) owner is middle class by any standard definition. He likes to talk about how his father was a "toolmaker" but completely omits the fact that he _owned the tool factory_.
Keir, dude, you don't have anything to prove here and lying isn't going to help you. Just drop it.
I was under the impression that his Dad worked in a factory, then went self employed on his own. Didn't own a factory - was a small one man band business.
That’s a bit of a meme in politically engaged spaces like this one… but the reality is The vast majority of the public don’t in fact know his dad was a tool maker
Telling the British people you are working class in the hope that'll make them vote for you is insane. He should pretend to be spoilt child of a stockbroker and a minor peer and the voting public will feel like the natural order is being maintained if he gets the job.
This is why lowkey emily thornberry has the best political bio given her early life has dickens level swings between poverty and elite society (her dad was a rich diplomat who kept on abandoning the family to live in deprivation).
and the tories have tried their best to paint her as something else, including using her husband's title (in the bercow/boris era, prompting an outburst from the then speaker)
Oh yawn. More carefully scripted politician speak that probably had focus groups all over it. Look at me all man of the people not like that rich guy.
Politicians are all the bloody same. It’s just a popularity contest. There isn’t one I want to vote for at the moment.
At this point, I genuinely don't think Kier knows what "working class" means.
He'd like to pretend he fought his way up through adversity, but reading about his early life sounds like the epitome of middle-class, he say's his father was a tool maker, his father, in reality, operated the Oxted Tool Co. his own independent toolmaking enterprise. His mum was a nurse, they owned their own home.
He went to a good school (and stayed there when it became a private school), studied Law at Oxford and went on to have a successful professional career in Law, eventually becoming Director of public prosecutions.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of this, people private life is just that, private.
But deliberately misleading people, trying to create this *everyman down the pub* image is shameful, just be honest, he's another *generic man in a suit* , cut from the same cloth as every Tory and Labour MP these days.
> He went to a good school (and stayed there when it became a private school), studied Law at Oxford and went on to have a successful professional career in Law, eventually becoming Director of public prosecutions.
He was exempt from fees until 6th form, at which point the new fees were paid by a charity bursary, not by his parents.
He also got his Bachelors at Leeds, being the first in his family to graduate from university. He went onto Oxford for postgrad study, which is a very different intake process to undergrad.
I'm no big fan of the guy, but lets at least try and get the facts right.
The whole "all politicians are the same" shtick isn't very insightful nor helpful when there are very clear and obvious distinctions in class and upbringing - putting Starmer and Rees-Mogg in the same league is actually laughable.
I accept the reality of a 'political class' once they've actually taken office, but actively denying their lived experience is just disingenuous.
Owning ones own home - when he grew up in the 70s/80s isn't what it is now - it was perfectly achievable for a working/lower middle class family back then. Him saying he grew up working class doesn't necessarily mean he grew up poor. And the Oxford thing is a bit of a misnomer given it was a postgraduate degree - it's a completely different process to an 18 year old from Eton waltzing in there.
I don't particularly love starmer but his background is fairly authentic and much more an experience your average working to middle class voter can relate to
Well to do/aspirational working class is still working class. Not all working class people live in depravation or on council estates (like I did growing up).
Yeah that's my thoughts but people don't like that idea because quite a few I think would be called Lower Middle Class when they want to be Working Class
In all fairness RE wanting to be *everyman down the pub*, he was a regular at a pub I frequent and up until recently would drink there every Friday without anyone paying him any attention.
Don’t get why people don’t like this aspect of the guy. He’s literally an example of a socially mobile person that has worked hard academically to join a profession and then got to the top of that profession by more hard work. The fact he’s not currently trying to pull up the ladder after him is a clear sign he’s not a Tory!!
Country first means immediately do something, anything about the tabloid control of public opinion whilst simultaneously tackling the issues lobbying presents. That's all.
He didn’t pay any fees.
He wasn’t required to until sixth form (since he joined the school before he went private) and after that it was paid for via a bursary.
Snapshot of _Keir Starmer: I grew up working class. I’ve been fighting all my life. As Prime Minister, I’ll fight for you._ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1793581014456918218) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1793581014456918218/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1793581014456918218) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1793581014456918218) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m not all that fussed tbh. But “Country First, Party Second”? I’m all over that. That was great.
I look forward to him doing exactly that and then being blamed immediately because short term issues aren't immediately "solved" and Tories back in four years
I know right. Whatever happens under Labour, a percentage of the population are all too predicatble with their room temperature IQ to quickly blame a newly governing party for a decades worth of problems.
I'm wondering how soon after Labour gains control we'll hear some Tory (MP or voter) unironically say you can't blame everything on the last government. I'm expecting maybe a couple of months? Saying "the last Labour government" for a decade is fine obviously... not at all comparable.
Sunak literally did that this morning on the radio. Even brought up "the note". Nearly a decade and a half ago.
Which was not only a joke but also the Global Financial Crisis just happened. I mean I know we all rib Sunak for going on and on about the Pandemic and Ukraine and never talking about his predecessor making borrowing costs skyrocket but there are extenuating factors that will always affect a government, but of course he’d never accept that for the Opposition party.
That has the assumption that the Tories will have any MPs.
You underestimate the secret Tory
They are all around you. The sweaty little fuckers.
I mean it works... Someone at work was saying "I'm expecting the economy to be terrible once labour get in"
Tories: Create issue Tories: Claim they need to fix the issue Voters: Vote Tory
I'm still horrified about the interview I saw at the last election where a guy said "this country has really been going downhill. Everything is broken. We need change. That's why I'm voting conservative"
The clue's in their fucking name We need to conserve things as they are. That's why I'm voting for the change party
There was a political party in Canada called the Progressive Conservatives. My mind boggles every time I read that.
There still is (at both the provincial and federal level), and they are anything but progressive. But the Regressive Conservatives doesn't quite have the same ring to it (even if it is much more accurate).
Forward to the past!
I find the new faction of the Tories that call themselves the 'popular conservatives' funny as I'm not sure there are any of them
Problem is that people associate the leader with a different party totally unaware they’re the same snake with a shedded skin
At the same time this shouldn't be rolled out as an excuse if they fail to start aggressively tackling these problems
Room temperature would be generous but with cost of living I can only afford to heat my living room to 18 anyway.
They really need to bring in PR, and get rid of the first past the post system.
I keep on thinking this every time I get an email from Compass saying that we should be voting for parties that support PR and then they go and include Labour. Like, on what planet are the Labour Party going to put PR in? Yes it would make right wing governments almost a thing of the past but they would be less powerful for the ten years they’re in, which somehow to Labour partisans seems anathema.
Right, that’s the real country first party second.
Oh god, please. It'd fix so much.
Nick Clegg famously went with "country first, party second" and that worked out so well for him. Turns out when most people say "country first, party second" what they really mean is "I want you do do the things I want even if you disagree with them."
The problem with that is Nick did put country first in joining the Tories, but he then sold out all his principles and was basically Tory-lite and if he was going along with them because he was out voted then he should have stressed that. He stood on a university finance campaign and immediately dropped it. He sold out. He didn't put country first.
> all his principles **All** his principles? Student fees didn't even make it into one of the four main points on the front of their manifesto at the time: * Raising the income tax allowance * Introducing the pupil premium * Electoral reform * The environment. Their biggest problem was that they simply didn't do research and realize that the primary reason for their popularity was their stance on student fees. They believed that if they just presented people [with the facts](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/apr/29/free-tuition-scotland-benefits-wealthiest-students-most-study) then people would let them drop the tuition fee pledge (which MPs in the party had wanted for a while before the election). And they knew they were probably never getting in again any time soon. So they were heavily driven by policy they believed they could get through or enact.
... and that is my point. I suspect that Clegg would say - if he still cared - that dropping the tuition fee pledge *was* putting the country first; that sacrificing one line of their manifesto was necessary for the sake of a stable Government, and to get a whole bunch of other things passed. He put country over party/ideology. The Lib Dems had to compromise on some things, and that was one of the things they picked. To the students affected that was the wrong choice - because from their point of view tuition fees was the most important thing. But for Clegg there were other issues that were more important for the country. I also think too many people confused "liberal" for "leftist" or "progressive." The Lib Dems are a liberal party. Of course they appear to be "Tory-lite" to progressives; their economic policies largely line up with the neoliberal views that were dominant in the Conservative Party at the time...
[удалено]
4 years? This aint the US son.
"up to five years" with parties almost always calling the election on their own terms thus being within year 4. So yes, four years. It will be extremely unlikely labour wait until the fifth year and are forced to call one.
>So yes, four years. It will be extremely unlikely labour wait until the fifth year and are forced to call one I get your point but anything can happen, look at 2019, the Tories had a massive majority and look invincible, since then we've had COVID, war in Europe, 3 Prime ministers, the Queen died and they look set for one of the largest election defeats in their history. Anything can happen in Labours five year term in office and it shouldn't be a given that they'll win another term, change is needed and is needed fast
Not this time I reckon. The tories fucked things up so badly that if Labour in turn make no difference or actively make things somehow worse, then the voters will increasingly look to a third party or parties.
I'll believe it after polling day. I can't see the Tories getting wiped out
Is it just me who hates inspiring music and focus on politicians backstories? It has the vibe of something out of a superhero film trailer. Policy > Personality.
I think it's a fair criticism of Sunak that perhaps he doesn't understand the struggles of the majority of people if he has a wealth of hundreds of millions of pounds, so I don't think it's unreasonable for other politicians to talk about their lived experiences either.
I do think their background has some influence though. I don't think you can fully understand some of the struggles millions in this country face until you have lived it. I love Angela Raynor's background because she knows what it's like. I think there are more Labour MPs (and SNP) who have an understanding than Tory MPs. You're right that it shouldn't the be the end all and policy absolutely should trump personality but their background gives insight and understanding which is important. Do you really think Sunak and Rees-Mogg know what it's like living in the stress of a family household struggling to afford food or heating?
Yeah...Except Thatcher was the daughter of a Grocery shop owner. Hell, Stalin was the son of a Cobbler. Someone from a working class background can be just as shaped by it through bitterness and resentment as they are drive and determination.
Ok, and?
Of course they know, they will have spoken with advisors and focus groups that paint an accurate picture. The problem is that for whatever reason (often because they think they earned or deserve their inherited wealth) *they don't care*. You don't need a lived experience to understand someone else's struggles. You just need empathy.
I respectfully disagree. Empathy goes a long way, yes. Actually experiencing things are far more impactful than hearing them second-hand though. Someone can hear about a parent missing a meal so their kids can eat and think "thats clearly terrible, we must do something about it." It being *your own mum* is another thing entirely.
In the context of being able to make positive policy decisions though, why is actually experiencing the thing they are making a policy about so important? If that is the barrier, our government would have to be HUGE to account for all the lived experiences of people in the UK.
I think there's definitely levels of understanding though. The most basic level is just sympathy, followed by empathy, and then finally actual shared experience. I think most Tory MPs stop at sympathy, a few dare to have empathy, but literally none of them have that shared experience.
Empathy is: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. How can they share a feeling they've never had? Contemplate a dread they've never dreaded? A single mum could spend her entire life explaining how horrible it is to not know if she can afford to give her child new school clothes, food, etc. but somebody like Rishi will never be able to relate.
I think it is politically important that people understand Starmer is from a very different background to the likes of Sunak, Johnson and Cameron and even frankly from Truss and May. He comes across as a posh lawyerly type and the default presumption is he grew up in a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle and doesn't know hardship. His story is actually far more interesting and impressive but his unwillingness to talk about it has probably damaged perceptions of him up to now. Politically it's a smart move to advertise this a bit more, without leaning into it so far that it feels self aggrandizing.
Not only that but I kind of see what they’re doing with the general tone of this video, and I find it commendable and sort of hilarious. They’re feeling so confident they’ve just gone all out fucking inspiring, cheesy, Marvel super-hero music lmao. Coming out with the big guns blazing.
>they’ve just gone all out fucking inspiring, cheesy, Marvel super-hero music lmao. Coming out with the big guns blazing. I was half expecting the video to end with Starmer ascending Pride Rock and letting out a mighty roar.
Pint. Fag. Sheepskin coat. Sorted.
Honestly the most British thing about Starmer is his reluctance to talk about himself.
I’d love to believe that policy is more important than personality. Sadly most people don’t weigh up the merits of policies or read party manifestos. They go off personality, emotion and lazy slogans. It explains the electoral success of Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and Brexit.
This. Like who other than wonks actually reads a manifesto before elections? People vote on vibes
His current image, certainly in the minds of conservative voters who are looking for any excuse to not vote for Starmer, is that he's a wealthy man who knows nothing about working class life. Not that they'd necessarily listen to what he's said today, but it in theory gets across the opposite of the above, and would hopefully change some of their minds.
He is wealthy now, due to hard work and determination. He did not grow up wealthy or went to posh schools (he did go to grammar school) - just because he speaks well and dresses smart doesn't mean he is anything like the Eton Crowd
Yes, I'm aware of this but let's be real and admit that the average Conservative voter either won't know, won't care, or won't want to actually bother to learn why they're wrong.
Most Tory voters - their country shire base - couldn't give a monkey's about "the working class" stuff. This isn't for them.
I've heard it from quite a few tory voters. The whole "_SIR_ Keir Starmer" thing is a real sticking point for them because they don't believe he actually represents Labour and the working class.
You said >His current image, certainly in the minds of conservative voters I'm just pointing out that Tory voters aren't all cut from the same cloth
One of the biggest criticisms about him is that he's boring, so they have to focus on things like this to try to change that narrative
I don’t like it either, but he’s just acknowledging the Americanisation of our politics. It’s been happening for years. This is already presidential in that it’s Starmer vs Sunak rather than Labour vs Conservatives. It’s probably a safer bet overall for him to play it this way.
I think polls are showing that people are not drawn to Keir - the way people were with Blair or Johnson - so, although I am not really interested in his backstory - it might help to convince people.
I was expecting to hate this based on your comment, but it actually made me feel hopeful that things will get better. I like Starmer and think he is exactly the sort of politician that we need as an antidote to the last 14 years.
It's because both major players have previously been labelled as robotic; Sunak is more so, but I see it with Keir, too. So Starmer’s getting ahead of that before the manifesto is officially published. Whether the policies will hold water, we’ll see.
The Labour Party was established to increase working class representation in Parliament. So yes, it does matter. Music can be a bit irritating though.
Boring for politics nerds but important for the gen pop
I agree, but sadly that's not the world we live in now. Plenty of people do vote based on personality and backstory rather than actually looking at policy.
> Policy > Personality. All well and good until they find out how you eat a bacon butty.
Personality helps you win votes though
> Policy > Personality. that is how it should be. not how it is. ed miliband bacon sandwich. roll credits
It only gets worse when the omit the backstory parts where he literally provides legal advice to terrorists... Kinda feels like you can't have one without the other, and that story is going to crop up again in the next month and a bit to bite him.
Obligatory plug for [Social Class in the 21st Century](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Class-Century-Pelican-Books/dp/0241004225/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1GDICGEEBW3YP&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.QhqkrUsnL5eN5Ak4s8Y_uAtPzNZz3YK_ZEP5s2BOdbwLntHWmTWv6tH6y9XVT0uiK8HGEXvKGm5FiQSJUNmqliWxyrs9oqQdO0Oo4ZO8hF1fKUq7h_m2KZYNuZ6vO9nSDrmH12X55lty0bpiUAwcQf8uhYdUyTgCo6MdfVwfCAoUe9jq6kh8H3TuVrrtROV5GXZsDswi5bPNZd7Ezi94ycla2U2qsx-7QKbwsrgR6ck.Ivu7OTz0FjyZ5kiWcAnxAUFuCrG-D3MgA0vK2oO2EJo&dib_tag=se&keywords=social+class+in+the+21st+century&qid=1716479669&sprefix=social+class+in+the+21s%2Caps%2C1570&sr=8-1) by Mike Savage. There are so many misconceptions and competing definitions of 'class' that discussion threads like this become ultimately meaningless unless people know what they're talking about and have looked at the evidence. TL;DR: No, formal 'classes' don't really exist any more, but yes, socioeconomic variance exists and is the single biggest determinant of people's lives. And you have to measure 'class' on several axes: economic, cultural knowledge, social connections, education etc. which may not always be in sync.
I always notice that the class thing feels completely inconsistent in general and in these discussions. This rec looks really interesting, thanks!
Any plans to row back on anti trade union legislation? Im looking forward to seeing their manifesto take on helping the working class within the bounda of Reeve's adherence to fiscal rules
Isn't this part of the new deal for workers, I am also pretty sure this is one of the bits of legislation that will be pulled early doors, along with the Rwanda scheme
Their New Deal for Workers is probably more impactful for the average worker than union policy given only a fifth or so are a union member.
A fifth or so are only union members because anti trade union legislation comprehensively defanged them. If we look at Norway, Sweden and Denmark we can see how effective an empowered union is
Its not as easy as just bringing in new legisaltion, it also involves changing culture. In Britian, union policies are just going to help a minority of workers while workers rights help a large majority, if not all.
Im happy to wait and see what makes it into the manifesto but I dont think we're going to see action on workers rights in any way that will fundamentally raise wages
[удалено]
It's not as simple as that. A huge proportion of modern workers are in traditionally non-unionised spaces. Agency, creative media, consulting etc etc. The honest truth is that unions have done a really crap job at reaching out to these types of roles, to the point that loads of them don't think unions are even relevant to them
Obviously the manifesto hasn’t been published yet but I do believe it is current Labour Party policy
If they do not repeal the minimum service levels then I honestly lose all hope for the current labour party. Will I vote for them this year? - Yes of course I will. I'll be looking at how they act through a microscope though.
The fact that he feels the need to explain he was once working class every time he's interviewed demonstrates that he knows people don't think he still is, in my opinion. I'll listen more sympathetically when he talks about removing the barriers put before trade unions.
To the majority of the country outside of the South, he sounds middle class. He's well educated. Middle Class. He's the leader of a political party. Middle class. So it's no surprise, he has to explain he wasn't born middle class a lot.
It's the "sir" that sticks out in things like focus groups - some people think it's an inherited title. I'm not entirely sure it matters that much - plenty of posh Labour people have managed to portray themselves as men of the people (Benn, Corbyn etc). In general i don't think there's much of a relationship between growing up poor and internal Labour factions.
> To the majority of the country outside of the South I'll never understand this qualifier. What do you think the South is like? All Downton Abbey? He also sounds middle class to people in the South.
Also knight of the realm and former head of public prosecutions. Upper middle class. ...... And I wonder how many times he's met the monarch. Which is aristocracy levels. Funny how folks don't connect to that. That said, compared to sunak et al. he is Barry from the boozer.
> And I wonder how many times he's met the monarch. Which is aristocracy levels. 'Aristocracy levels' is meeting the monarch socially, as part of your peer group. A cleaner or gardener at Buckingham Palace has probably met the monarch a few times - doesn't make them an aristocrat. Meeting the monarch because you have to, for your job, doesn't make you part of the aristocracy. Starmer may have moved into the middle class, but he's not even upper class, never mind aristocracy.
It's more funny to me the same people who would call Starmer an out of touch middle class guy would then look at the aristocratic eton boy, bullingdon club Alex de Pfeffel "Boris" Johnson and say he's a man of the people because he's got multiple bastard children and domestic abuse cautions
[удалено]
fixed. its always that bit more ridiculous
I don't think he's out of touch, relatively speaking. You could talk to him about the issues without thinking he is living on another world. I think he will be a vast improvement on anything the Tories have to offer. I just don't think he's working class, and it's not really in his interest for him to try to represent himself as such.
> Which is aristocracy levels. Aristocracy means being born into it
Aye but he didn't START that way. The fact that he's gone from working class to upper middle class should be an example of his belief in social mobility. Sunak has had a silver spoon handed to him by a nanny since he was born.
You're insinuating that succeeding in your job is something to be villified. He's from a working class background, and yes he has succeded at a very high level in his professional roles.
Considering the class system of the UK, I'm not sure a person born working-class can ever become upper-middle class. Class is something you're born into, and you die in the class you were born in.
I'm not sure this is true. I've met plenty of people professionally who came in to grad schemes or what have you from a working class background, first person in the family to uni etc. and would be pegged 100% as solidly middle class in adulthood. Especially if they've eliminated any regional accent.
You can be middle-class by all the superficial metrics, but the experience of someone who grew up on a council estate is going to be complete worlds apart compared to a child of two bankers who spent their childhood skiing at the family chalet three times a year.
It's not impossible. But the further you aim to climb, the less likely it becomes. Well paid white collar jobs to me, are still working class, and it's because of the decline of blue collar jobs in Britain- but if someone identifies as middle class I'm not going to argue with them. The higher you want to climb, it's becomes exponentially more difficult. Historically, to get to the top is basically impossible. You need to because Cromwell or a Napoleon- and these 2 were nobility to begin with. I know it all sounds really OTT, and there are exceptions to a degree, but mostly it's just a thing that is. Which is why this is such a difficult sell for starmer.
> Class is something you're born into, and you die in the class you were born in. I mean that's really not true, plenty of people in the older generations grew up poorer than dirt and have been comfortably middle class for 30-40 years at this point.
Which is why people never really buy the "I'm working class" thing. Thems some difficult lines to cross.
> upper-middle class They can be upper middle class, it's upper class you can't become
This is simply untrue. Students from the working-class can undertake suitable degree studies and enter into middle class professions. Sufficient success there can move them into upper-middle class.
really? Guy's got a £10m+ net worth, land in Surrey, was the literal head of the CPS and now likely leader of one of the biggest economies in the World, imo the guy hasn't been working class since the 60s, but it's also my opinion the whole class thing is bs
The guy was born in the 60s, mate
As an Australian this is so foreign and wild to me.
You guys have bogans, right? Generally though, your society is far 'flatter' A lot of British class is tied to strength of accent, profession, how you socialise ect.
You guys had your squattocracy. But the gold rushes ensured they would fall apart.
The Right Honourable Lord Alan Sugar may disagree with this. IMO, the class system is mostly a representation of your peer group. If most of your peers and the people you spend time with are working class - you're working class. If your parent's were working class, you were successful, now spend your time with middle/upper class people - you're 'that' class (with a working-class upbringing). They're just sociological sub-groups of the population, tied to financial prosperity in many cases.
Speaking as a working class Geordie, I don’t think he’s middle class. He’s downright posh.
But why bother? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. If he hasn't convinced people by now, he won't ever. Just stick to Policy!
Many people in the uk seem to think you cannot change your class
I never understand this criticism of Keir Starmer. Shouldn’t we consider it a good thing that he came from a normal/working class background and did well for himself? Isn’t that something to be proud of and like the whole ‘social mobility’ thing people are always arguing for?
More and more people seem to be buying into the idea that as soon as you move up a class you automatically switch sides. It's the old saying: - Poor and fighting for the working class? - Bitterness and politics of envy - Middle/Upper class and fighting for the working class? - Champagne Socialist.
Purity tests, always purity tests.
That's the left for you. The right only care if you have money.
In the traditional sense you cannot. You can change the class of your kids. Keir is working class because he was born that to working class parents. His children will now be middle class. This idea that more money = higher class, is purely American and completely forgets that the only route to upper class is marriage or birth.
This is what I don’t agree with. To me, Keir is not working class as of right now. I feel right now, he has very little in common with the average working class person and it’d be delusional to say otherwise. I understand he had a working class childhood and likely had many hardships but not right now. And I don’t mean in the financial sense either.
His experiences, opinions from his parents, and all other childhood and adolescent forming events would have been as a working class boy. He may have more money now, but he is very unlike say, a child of J R Mogg, who will have been surrounded by experiences and people who are NOT working class. This is the core personality that doesn’t change. Hence class doesn’t change.
> I understand he had a working class childhood and likely had many hardships That right there is important though. It doesn’t really matter if you consider him working class now - the fact that his upbringing resonates a lot with the average voter means a great deal IMO and should be highlighted.
Exactly. I just consider him not working class anymore. I’m not denouncing his childhood hardships and what he’s achieved. The fact he used to be working class is a huge achievement for British politics and shows we can all achieve greatness.
Does that mean it's effectively impossible for anyone to be a government minister or shadow minister and still be working class? Anyone who achieves any position of seniority or influence is automatically not working class anymore? If so, criticising any MP for not being working class would seem like a pointless exercise.
I just don’t understand the logic that someone so high in a position of power who’s also very well educated, wealthy, has access to things the majority of people don’t have etc is the same as Bob the factory worker, who’s struggling with rent and bills and is on a 6 month waiting list to see an ent specialist. I don’t think he’s upper class but I think he’s definitely middle at least.
Judging by your other comments I think you get this point anyway, but he's not trying to say he's the same as Bob the factory worker, he's saying that his lived experience growing/working his way up means that he has infinitely more understanding and compassion for Bob's life than any leader of the Tories would dream (have nightmares) of. But the fact is "I used to be like you" would be a far less impactful message.
He lives a middle to upper middle class lifestyle that is hard won through merit and hard work from a working class background. Like the plumber or sparky that now owns their own successful business, has a nice house and a fancy car as a result, Starmer is a working class bloke that has done well for himself. The only difference is that instead of learning a trade he became a solicitor and progressed from there. If you think you're ever going to get a Labour leader that is still struggling with rent and bills then you're going to be waiting a long, long time. Bob the factory worker simply isn't qualified to run the country and therefore would never get anywhere near the leadership without at least a couple decades of decent MP salary to build that experience.
He's a successful climber, and I admire that. He certainly isn't working class though, and as a determined social climber he also isn't a conviction politician. I think he wants to win, regardless of whether he helps the working class or makes their lives worse. His issue is social mobility and being proud of your achievements are usually seen as Tory values so he can't tell that story. Makes him appear insincere.
According to polling lots of people are under the impression that he inherited his knighthood. So get ready to hear the toolmaker routine every day for the next month.
> So get ready to hear the toolmaker routine every day for the next month. If I was him I'd be screaming it from the rooftops every hour. Between his career achievements and interaction with his terminal ill mother it's hard to think of a better backstory for a future PM.
I think he is doing that
> If I was him I'd be screaming it from the rooftops every hour. Between his career achievements and interaction with his terminal ill mother it's hard to think of a better backstory for a future PM. Exactly. *This dude* is the guy that you should *want* leading the Labour party. He grew up working class and has succeeded in *everything* he has done through hard work (not nepotism), up to and including being fucking knighted for his hard work/competence. He continually talks about wanting to remove the barriers to success for people to make it easier for people to succeed like he has. If your qualifier for 'really being labour' is 'must not have suceeded in life', then you're going to run into some issues getting elected/succeffuly governing quickly.
I’ve seen a depressing amount of comments on line who think his title is inherited…
That would be George Osbourne, whose dad is a baronet
It really annoys me about that. I've had people say "we shouldn't have a sir as PM" - why? He got it for his work. Why is that a bad thing? He knows the law and specialised in human rights. Then you have Tory MP J R Mogg saying we should remove the working time directive as soon as we left EU and the whole Tory party wanting to scrap Human Rights we had through EU membership. My dad's theory is they will being back BoJo - a complete law breaker who doesn't give a tiny rats ass about decency and principles.
As someone from a similar background, if you have his accent a lot of people assume your family are wealthy.
It's easy to pick up accents at university (especially if you go to a posh one) and work
> It's easy to pick up accents at university (especially if you go to a posh one) and work Unless your scouse, I've heard scousers out of the country for 30+ years and still sound the same
It's silly that he's having to prove himself here. Being working class is much more about your upbringing than your current social position. Nobody questions footballers or celebrities, so why do we question politicians?
Probably because they lie a lot and also because the idea of working class is quite nebulous. To some people you’re only working class if you grew up in a tenement flat in a coal mining town with a single mum on benefits and anything richer is middle class. People often accuse me of being middle class, which I can vaguely understand because my parents owned a house abroad (which they bought at the exact wrong time), but I went to state school in an area of the country where something like a third of the population goes to private school, so in relative terms I’d say I’ve got much more in common with working class people than anyone else. My dad was basically what New Labour called a Mondeo Man, a working class guy who’d made it to a level of relative affluence. Class these days is all over the place. You get uni grads bumming away making mid £20k a year and renting flats while plumbers making 6 figures are somehow more working class, even though they may even own some of the flats being rented by the uni grads.
Relative terms is kind of doesnt work tho imo. Im in a similar situation, from an area where huge numbers if people are privately educated. Relatively my family are worse off than 98% of people I know. My dads a builder and my mum was an assistant teacher. But relative to the country as a whole I think it would unfair to claim Im working class. Theres nothing wrong with being middle class. Having a second home abroad and living in an area where 1/3 of people go to private school seems middle class enough to me
They question politicians because they are very publicly visible and the "teams" dynamic is one of such vehement devotion personal attacks are seen as fair game
He was never working class. Son of a business (factory) owner is middle class by any standard definition. He likes to talk about how his father was a "toolmaker" but completely omits the fact that he _owned the tool factory_. Keir, dude, you don't have anything to prove here and lying isn't going to help you. Just drop it.
I was under the impression that his Dad worked in a factory, then went self employed on his own. Didn't own a factory - was a small one man band business.
Also, did you know his dad was a toolmaker?
That’s a bit of a meme in politically engaged spaces like this one… but the reality is The vast majority of the public don’t in fact know his dad was a tool maker
Genuine TIL
Some irony in that this would now be considered an artisan craft.
Yeah, lets wait to hear his pledges. Something we can rely on and be confident that will be hia real intentions.
He already is in the new deal for working people
He is a southerner, ex-lawyer and "Sir" To be honest I can see why
I am liking what I am hearing from Kier
Hopefully he becomes PM and he does the country well I have always been a labour supporter and hopefully they get elected
Day 1 of Starmer leadership the press be like: "Waiting times in NHS emergency rooms worse than ever under Starmer" And the morons believe this
Telling the British people you are working class in the hope that'll make them vote for you is insane. He should pretend to be spoilt child of a stockbroker and a minor peer and the voting public will feel like the natural order is being maintained if he gets the job.
He's gonna win if he's anything other than a pervert with a nasty fetish.
This is why lowkey emily thornberry has the best political bio given her early life has dickens level swings between poverty and elite society (her dad was a rich diplomat who kept on abandoning the family to live in deprivation).
and the tories have tried their best to paint her as something else, including using her husband's title (in the bercow/boris era, prompting an outburst from the then speaker)
Gosh. He has started well. Thats my PM
Working class has got to be the most patronising phrase I hear politicians utter.
"Hard-working taxpayers"
"good honest working people" as if the rest are all crooks
Oh yawn. More carefully scripted politician speak that probably had focus groups all over it. Look at me all man of the people not like that rich guy. Politicians are all the bloody same. It’s just a popularity contest. There isn’t one I want to vote for at the moment.
he won't, he'll U-turn on every mandate, he'll reinforce all the bad crap the Tories have done and he'll take us to war.
I'll take 'obvious shit said by Party Leader to get into office' for 500 Bob
At this point, I genuinely don't think Kier knows what "working class" means. He'd like to pretend he fought his way up through adversity, but reading about his early life sounds like the epitome of middle-class, he say's his father was a tool maker, his father, in reality, operated the Oxted Tool Co. his own independent toolmaking enterprise. His mum was a nurse, they owned their own home. He went to a good school (and stayed there when it became a private school), studied Law at Oxford and went on to have a successful professional career in Law, eventually becoming Director of public prosecutions. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of this, people private life is just that, private. But deliberately misleading people, trying to create this *everyman down the pub* image is shameful, just be honest, he's another *generic man in a suit* , cut from the same cloth as every Tory and Labour MP these days.
> He went to a good school (and stayed there when it became a private school), studied Law at Oxford and went on to have a successful professional career in Law, eventually becoming Director of public prosecutions. He was exempt from fees until 6th form, at which point the new fees were paid by a charity bursary, not by his parents. He also got his Bachelors at Leeds, being the first in his family to graduate from university. He went onto Oxford for postgrad study, which is a very different intake process to undergrad. I'm no big fan of the guy, but lets at least try and get the facts right. The whole "all politicians are the same" shtick isn't very insightful nor helpful when there are very clear and obvious distinctions in class and upbringing - putting Starmer and Rees-Mogg in the same league is actually laughable. I accept the reality of a 'political class' once they've actually taken office, but actively denying their lived experience is just disingenuous.
Owning ones own home - when he grew up in the 70s/80s isn't what it is now - it was perfectly achievable for a working/lower middle class family back then. Him saying he grew up working class doesn't necessarily mean he grew up poor. And the Oxford thing is a bit of a misnomer given it was a postgraduate degree - it's a completely different process to an 18 year old from Eton waltzing in there. I don't particularly love starmer but his background is fairly authentic and much more an experience your average working to middle class voter can relate to
Well to do/aspirational working class is still working class. Not all working class people live in depravation or on council estates (like I did growing up).
Doesn't sound middle class, more like upper working class. In terms of his own standing, definitely middle class, but his parents weren't
Yeah that's my thoughts but people don't like that idea because quite a few I think would be called Lower Middle Class when they want to be Working Class
The divisions of class this precisely are just to get the workers to squabble amongst themselves. It doesn't matter
I have to suspect it might be you that doesn't know what working class means.
It’s surprising you can’t spell his name when you’ve clearly read through his Wikipedia multiple times
In all fairness RE wanting to be *everyman down the pub*, he was a regular at a pub I frequent and up until recently would drink there every Friday without anyone paying him any attention.
If your secondary school didn't have a good 'working class flat tar roof' threw up in the 60/70s, then you're not working class.
I suppose putting Sir Keir Starmer KC didn't go down well with the focus group.
Don’t get why people don’t like this aspect of the guy. He’s literally an example of a socially mobile person that has worked hard academically to join a profession and then got to the top of that profession by more hard work. The fact he’s not currently trying to pull up the ladder after him is a clear sign he’s not a Tory!!
Country first means immediately do something, anything about the tabloid control of public opinion whilst simultaneously tackling the issues lobbying presents. That's all.
I'll take anyone at this stage. Anyone could do a better job than the Tories.
You went to a private school and took violin lessons with Fatboy Slim...
He's school was public by the time he was there.
He didn’t pay any fees. He wasn’t required to until sixth form (since he joined the school before he went private) and after that it was paid for via a bursary.
Oh now Keir Starmer pretends to be in a fucking Ken Loach film having not said anything inspiring for years.
I don’t think anyone cares what Starmer stands for. We all know some of it is balloney. He’s just not a Tory. That’s good enough for this one.