Lady Starmer deserves better than putting up with ‘banter' from Donald Trump
Shocked? You really shouldn't be – though you might not have seen it. We never let on, you see. We titter and giggle and do all the things you have to do simply to get through the ordeal so they'll leave you alone – an exaggerated wink, a rib-nudge, an elbow pat, a waggling eyebrow Barbara Windsor would be proud of; Carry On, Mr President, perhaps.
But us women see you, Lady Starmer. We feel your pain.
We see you making a rare public appearance, being trotted out like a secret weapon off the back of a US-EU deal on trade, ahead of a talk on Gaza; we see you being brought up by the US president in an impromptu press conference in the same breath as he lols about whiskey; as he is almost drowned out on his Scottish golf course steps by some rogue bagpipes: 'Whisky? Well, we'll talk about that. I didn't know whisky was a problem. I'm not a big whisky drinker, but maybe I should be one of them. Maybe I'll have some whisky today…'
We see you, doing your level best not to look openly confused by the 'last person at the bar, let me tell you my life story'-style rhetoric while smiling at the cameras alongside your husband, Keir Starmer. Stoically and majestically ignoring Trump's word salad segue from whiskey to 'making the prime minister happy' – by way of you, poor love.
For this is where 'first lady as plot device' really came into fruition (though the other first lady, Melania Trump, was notable in her absence): 'We want to make the prime minister happy,' Trump said, grasping Lady Starmer's arm (and they always do. At some point, they always do).
'We want to make, by the way, your first lady, I would say first lady. She's, she's a respected person all over the United States!
'I don't know what he's doing, but she's very respected – as respected as him! I don't want to say more. I'll get myself in trouble. But she's married. She's a great woman and very highly respected.'
Oh, Donald… pray, keep your word and don't say more. Do anything but say more! Because we've heard it all before, really, we have.
We've all been in encounters with men like this – the ones who joke about getting themselves into trouble; the ones who sometimes veer from calling you a 'great woman' to a 'naughty girl'. It is usually, at this point, that we try to edge away – physically – from the old lech with a twinkle in his eye.
And The Donald is no stranger to accusations of lechery (and worse) – for not only is the president under pressure to release all files relating to the Epstein case, which he has so far refused to do despite a 2024 election promise; but in May 2023, a jury in New York found him liable for the sexual abuse of writer E Jean Carroll. The court ruled Trump more likely than not sexually abused Ms Carroll and awarded her $2 million (£1.6 million), while he was also accused of sexual assault by two other women.
If that wasn't enough, there were the infamous 'grab em by the p***y' comments in the Access Hollywood tape from the set of Days of Our Lives in 2005, when he was recorded talking about groping women and how 'you can do anything' when you're a 'star' (then, in a statement issued on his behalf, blamed it on "locker room banter").
Or, any one of his many other controversies which belie his attitude to women, such as calling a former Miss Universe "fat" and claiming he would date his daughter Ivanka if she were not related to him; and the comments he made right before the US election in 2024 to refute historic sexual assault allegations by the businesswoman Jessica Leeds, in which he said it 'couldn't have happened' because she 'would not have been the chosen one'.
Women usually have a signal we give each other when we are in the orbit of men like this; we mouth things like 'handsy' to each other or make a 'vomit' shape with our fingers and warn our friends to be careful not to stand too close.
'Girl code' serves us well when dealing with older men with bad reputations, particularly when they are powerful and entitled. It's usually enough, thankfully, to make any woman give them a wide berth at a party – or press conference.
Of course, even when in the company of someone like Trump, Lady Starmer was a consummate professional. We shouldn't be remotely surprised – after all, she was a lawyer who now works in the NHS as an occupational health worker. She must have experienced her fair share of tiresome old men.
And when Trump went on to say Starmer has a "perfect wife", espousing: "I respect him much more today than I did before, because I just met his wife and family. He's got a perfect wife and that's never easy to achieve, right?" (to which, the prime minister replied: "I take no credit for that') she simply smiled and laughed and acted every inch the good sport, like women have done – and will continue to do – for time immemorial; because it's easier, because it's polite, because we are tired.
All I (and perhaps she?) really wanted to do, however, is pretend to throw up.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
9 minutes ago
- Times
How Gordon Brown's ‘baby bonds' failed to raise a nation of investors
Rachel Reeves wants stubborn savers to embrace investing to earn better returns and boost the economy. The chancellor is looking to rip up red tape to let banks to nudge savers towards the stock market, and is also considering cutting back the cash Isa allowance to ensure more of our savings are invested. However, the New Labour chancellor Gordon Brown also had an ambition to create a healthier savings culture, and it did not exactly turn out as he had hoped. Brown wanted to raise a generation of investors by giving every baby at least £250 to kickstart the habit. When detailing the policy in his 2003 budget, he said: 'The child trust fund symbolises the difference between those who believe in modernising the welfare state and those who wish it to wither away. 'At age 18, on the basis of historic rates of return, the child trust fund will accumulate assets that will enable all young people to have more of the choices that were once available only to some.' The tax-free scheme was designed to encourage parents to invest for their children's future, and all babies born between September 1, 2002 and January 2, 2011 were eligible. In all, 6.3 million accounts were opened, and the government paid £2 billion into the accounts, which could be accessed from 18. Yet child trust funds were scrapped by the coalition government in 2011 and many have since been lost or forgotten. Some investors have even been locked out of their funds. The first children with funds turned 18 in September 2020. The latest available data shows the total value of the funds is about £9 billion. While up to 2.8 million accounts have now matured, of these, about a quarter (670,000) have not been claimed. On average it's estimated that each young person could have an account worth about £2,000. A further study revealed that most of the accounts did not have any money paid into them between April 2023 and April 2024, suggesting they've been abandoned as a savings vehicle. Maike Currie, an investment and savings expert who worked for Hargreaves Lansdown until recently, said: 'Child trust funds were a victim of the age of austerity after the 2008 financial crisis. 'On reflection, they were always doomed to fail — starting with the elaborate name. Many people were put off, thinking these were the preserve of trust fund babies, while others simply did not know about them. 'This simply reiterates the importance of awareness and education if you're to reignite a nation of investors. If the government today fails on getting this right, they will have another flop on their hands with disastrous consequences.' Education about these accounts was lacking — and remains the case, as shown by a trip by Money in April to one school where many pupils had no idea they had a child trust fund. The initial sum of £250 was doubled to £500 for low-income families. Children had a second payment when they reached seven. However, in 2010, the initial payment was reduced to £50, or £100 for lower-income families, and the second payment at seven scrapped. The first payment was abolished entirely in 2011. New parents were also invited to choose a home for the free cash. They could invest it in the stock market (either choosing the investments themselves or selecting a stakeholder version where the investments were chosen by the provider) or choose a savings-style account where interest was paid. If an account was not opened by the child's parent, HM Revenue & Customs set up a stakeholder account on the child's behalf. Many parents never engaged with the scheme. HMRC stepped in on behalf of 1.7 million parents (28 per cent) who failed to find a home for the £250 within the required 12-month period. All HMRC-allocated accounts were investment-based. According to the Share Foundation, a charity that helps to trace unclaimed funds, more than £400 million is sitting unclaimed in HMRC-allocated accounts. More than half of the unclaimed accounts worth £274 million belong to young adults on low incomes. About 55,000 trust funds mature every month and the charity forecasts that nearly £1 billion will be unclaimed for low-income young adults by the end of this parliament. Gavin Oldham from the Share Foundation said: 'Since September 2020, when the first account holders started turning 18, child trust fund owners have been able to withdraw funds or transfer savings into an adult Isa. 'Yet there's an enormous amount of money sitting unclaimed by youngsters, who could use it to go towards tuition fees, a first home or simply to kickstart their own savings for the future.' The charity has matched more than 85,000 young people with their child trust funds, recovering more than £165 million for young adult account owners. The accounts will continue to mature until 2029, when the last children to get a fund will turn 18, but the worry is that many won't be reunited with their money. • NatWest says stolen £8,500 child trust fund is not its problem There were many other criticisms of the scheme. For example, the investment options were limited and expensive. A parliamentary report highlighted that investment charges for managing the funds were 'very high'. Another issue is that no provision was made for children with disabilities who were unable to manage their own finances. A report has previously suggested 80,000 such young people were unable to access their funds without their families going through the Court of Protection — a process that can be costly and time-consuming. If the amount in the fund is relatively small, the legal fees might outweigh claiming the cash. Analysts have looked for positive outcomes. There was some evidence to show that the accounts appeared to have led some parents to open savings accounts for older siblings who did not benefit. However, it found the scheme did not have a statistically significant effect on the rate of savings for children overall. Education is essential when it comes to encouraging people to invest. Many prefer to keep their savings safe in risk-free cash accounts, where they are unlikely to keep pace with inflation. If you have long enough to ride out the ups and downs of the stock market, investing usually results in a much higher return. A £100 monthly investment into the average global equity fund for the past 18 years (£21,600) would today be worth about £52,800, according to analysis by the investment platform AJ Bell. The same £100 a month saved in an average child's savings account over the last 18 years at 2.93 per cent would today be worth about £28,465, according to Moneyfacts. That's 85 per cent less than if the money had been invested. Currie said: 'Education, awareness and ease are the cornerstones to creating a nation of investors or to put it differently: there needs to be a seismic shift in trust, ease and confidence. 'In the UK, investing is still associated with gambling — people must understand that when you're investing you're owning real assets and the potential for future growth. It's also about getting to grips with the concept of risk and understanding different levels of risk — and the hidden risks of holding too much cash against a backdrop of inflation and longer lives. These are big hurdles to overcome to establish a culture of retail investing in the UK.' • How to get a nation of savers investing Laith Khalaf from AJ Bell said that the UK had a long way to go before reaching the investing culture in the US. Khalaf said: 'The US has been a leader in terms of financial products such as unit trust funds, exchange traded funds, trackers and self-invested personal pensions. As a result there is a greater familiarity with investments and probably a greater risk appetite amongst everyday Americans. That's positive for US investors and stocks over the long term, but it's not without its risk.' In the UK there's perhaps not enough risk being taken, with many people holding large sums of cash and never considering the stock market. Khalaf said: 'At least £100 billion is sitting in cash Isa accounts held by savers with £20,000 or more in cash, but no stocks and shares Isa investments. 'The chancellor's efforts to ignite a retail investing revolution are therefore well met. Getting more people to invest in the stock market will be positive for their long-term wealth and for the economy as a whole. In particular a regular investment plan can help reassure those who don't like the full thrills and spills of the stock market because it leads to a smoother journey.' He added that some things needed to be addressed to encourage investing. 'For example, it's nothing short of bizarre that the Treasury wants people to invest in domestic stocks but charges stamp duty of 0.5 per cent on UK share purchases. An investor can buy shares in a US company like Apple with no stamp duty to pay, but if they buy £10,000 of London-listed AstraZeneca shares, they will pay the government £50 for the privilege.' • The Share Foundation is campaigning for the government to start automatically releasing unclaimed CTF funds once account holders turn 21.• You can search for lost CTF funds using a free HMRC-linked search tool. Have your national insurance number to hand. Tayo Olutunde, 22, received a £2,500 windfall last year when he decided to check whether he had a child trust fund account. Tayo, who lives in Leeds and is studying accounting and finance, watched a TikTok video that prompted him to check with his parents about a child trust fund. They remembered setting one up and contributing to it for a time but couldn't remember with which bank. Olutunde said: 'As a family we moved a lot, including abroad. The contributions would have stopped when we went abroad and the paperwork was lost. I came across the Share Foundation who helped me locate where my account was — with NatWest. 'It took a long time to access the money because I didn't know which address was registered with my account, so I kept failing security. Eventually I got through and found I had £2,400. I was shocked.' Olutunder decided to spend about £400 on a holiday to Italy to celebrate his 21st birthday and invested the rest. But he said more needs to be done to educate young people about the world of investing. He said: 'I have a friend who also located his child trust fund recently. He spent most of it on a fast car, which I'm not sure is the best use of the money.' Scott and Julie James were thrilled to receive the £250 from the government for their daughter Holly when she was born in 2009. The couple, who live in Glasgow, decided to invest the sum to start building a nest egg for her future. Scott, 54, who works as a company director, said: 'The government was giving away free money which was great. Sadly the rest of the scheme wasn't quite so impressive. We wanted to invest the money, knowing that stocks and shares perform better than cash over the longer term. 'But at the time we opened the account, there wasn't a huge number of companies to choose from, and those that did offer child trust funds had a limited investment choice and the charges were high.' They opened an account anyway and it was topped up with money from grandparents. But when junior Isas were launched two years later, Scott felt they offered a bigger range of investments and lower charges, so they started saving in one of those accounts instead. Scott says they are still saving for Holly, now aged 16, perhaps to help with a first property purchase or whatever she might need in adulthood. He said: 'The child trust fund was a nice try, but it just didn't work.
BBC News
9 minutes ago
- BBC News
YouTube videos of life on Gloucestershire farm keeping it afloat
A beef farmer who uploads videos to YouTube every evening has said the channel is keeping his business Pullen, whose family have been in farming since the early 17th Century, now has 46,000 subscribers to his Farmer P channel, with each video making up to £100. Mr Pullen began documenting life on the Gloucestershire farm so that his late mother Jean Pullen, whom he affectionately calls "The Dragon", could watch from hospital during the fans now watch over supper – and some, he said, have even sent him love letters. He said he dare not mention running out of anything for fear of parcels arriving the next day. The father-of-four, of Bradley Farm in Wotton-under-Edge, said: "We started the YouTube channel with the farm about five or six years ago. "It's just an open diary of daily life on the farm and what we do. It seems quite a few people like to follow along and see what is going on. "It means they know how we rear and raise our stuff, and I think that is one of the reasons we are popular... folks know how we do it." The videos go up at 18:00 each day. "People organise their evenings to watch it," said Mr Pullen, who can often be seeing riding in his tractor with dog Biskit. "We have subscribers who have their supper at six o'clock now so they can sit and join us to have their supper. It's a mad world."An average video could make £100. It's one of those things where the farm is not really making any income now, and to be honest YouTube is keeping us going."Without it I think we would struggle now to actually survive as a farm." Mr Pullen inherited the farm business from his father in 1993, by which time he was also running a tree surgery company, which is still in business daughter Holli also helps by making bread and using beef from the farm's Dexter cattle to make pies, which he said she posts to customers around the country.
Daily Mail
9 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Australian TV show gets 'derailed' by 'gross' sex debate - as viewers slam the controversial comments made about women on the shock series
SBS program The Feed has been slammed by viewers after it was 'derailed' by a 'gross' debate about how many sexual partners a woman should have. The episode, titled Men Debate Masculinity, saw six men weigh in on issues surrounding gender roles, domestic violence, and the male identity. But it quickly devolved within minutes when they were asked if 'having lots of sexual partners is tied to your status as a man'—leaving some viewers disgusted. While most agreed men didn't need many sexual partners to be masculine, some of the panellists were quick to bring up their views on the 'body count' of women. Clayton Harrop, a self-proclaimed hypnotherapist and performance coach, said he believed a woman with a 'high body count' had a 'chink in the armour'. 'I don't like the idea of a super high body count in women if I am completely honest,' he said. 'I personally believe that the lower a woman's body count, the better for her, and her future partner,' he continued. Clayton went on to boast he had 'slept with my share of women' and insisted he doesn't 'look at a woman any less because of it'. However, he confessed he wouldn't want '20 other men to be able to say, "Yeah I have been with her bro."' 'It's a chink in the armour that directly affects every other area of our life,' he said. Dean Wells, who got his controversial start on Married At First Sight in 2018 and is now engaged to Beauty and the Geek star Aimee Woolley, agreed and added he found women who had many sexual partners 'unattractive'. 'I am not going to try and break it down on an intellectual level, but I just find a chick that has been with way too many guys, unattractive,' he said. The episode was around 43 minutes long and saw a myriad other controversial debates between the men. Clayton, Dean and Chris Katelaris represented the conservative side of the panel, known for their inflammatory online posts about gender-related issues. Meanwhile, well-known advocates Tarang Chawla, Mitch Wallis and Jeff Kissubi represented the opposing progressive side of the debate. The episode has garnered significant backlash online, with many slamming SBS for platforming controversial views for 'rage bait'. Women's safety advocate Mia Findlay shared a video that called out the network for failing to host a productive conversation about men's violence and misogyny. 'What was this episode intending to achieve, other than virality, clicks and rage bait?' she asked on Instagram. 'It just underscores the continued lack of seriousness in having informed, effective conversations about men's violence and misogyny in this country.' Other viewers online agreed with her sentiment, with one person writing: 'The rage bait worked. We, women, as the collective, are enraged.' 'These men are so old to be talking about body count. I thought this was high school talk,' said another. 'Men still talking about "body count" as if that matters. It's so gross,' someone else added. 'Knowing that more people will see this type of red pill... regurgitated rhetoric, and believe it to be true. Makes me retract from the world even more,' commented one. 'I saw some of this clip first thing in the morning and it made me feel awful. Stop platforming these men and their... backwards ideas towards women. Do better @thefeedsbs,' yet another said. Tarang, one of the panellists, has since come out to say the debate was often 'derailed' with controversial remarks. 'The space of online coaches, podcasters and men's health advocates has an underbelly that often blames women or says controversial things for clout,' he told on Thursday. 'I didn't go on the panel to debate for entertainment. I went to discuss the realities of masculinity and because my sister, Nikita, was murdered by her partner, and too many men still don't take that seriously. 'If even one man who watched starts to question the culture we've built, then it was worth it for me to be there despite the personal cost.' Tarang became an anti-violence campaigner after his sister Nikita, 23, was horrifically murdered by her husband in a jealous rage in 2015. SBS has since released an official statement addressing the backlash the company has received on the episode. 'Like all our content, The Feed Debate is subject to the SBS Code of Practice, which states that SBS will share a diversity of views and perspectives, and requires our news and current affairs programs to provide balanced and impartial coverage,' the statement said. 'The six panellists who appeared in The Feed's 'Masculinity' debate were informed in advance that the program would be fact-checked and edited to fit The Feed's debate format, and were also told there would be a diverse range of views represented. 'We appreciate the participation of all the panellists who were willing to share their perspectives.'
