Why Keir Starmer Is Fighting Off Sexism Complaints
As he tells it, the first time Keir Starmer spoke to his wife of 18 years, Victoria, he was so rude that she exclaimed, 'Who the f*** does he think he is?' Fortunately for the UK prime minister, she gave him a second chance and agreed to go on a date. Some female politicians these days say they've encountered similar treatment from Starmer — but are less forgiving.
A perception has emerged since Starmer's Labour Party was elected last July of a leader and his court who, at best, fail to pay regard to the optics of a white man talking down to women in his orbit, and at worst, open themselves to charges of misogyny. In private, many women Labour MPs lament what they describe as a boys' club around the prime minister.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hamas is the cause of Gaza's predicament
The situation in Gaza is 'intolerable and appalling', the Prime Minister told MPs. Whose fault is that? Sir Keir Starmer laid the blame at Israel's door, whereas just a few months ago culpability would have been attached to Hamas. The terror group has got precisely what it wanted: international opinion has turned against Israel and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu must take steps to make sure they are not aiding and abetting this. He and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) must avoid turning a just cause – the defence of their homeland from the murderous predations of its enemies – into a diplomatic coup for the perpetrators. Hamas thinks nothing of using hospitals, schools or other civilian buildings to house its command posts, knowing they will be targeted by the IDF seeking to extirpate the group's command structure. Inevitably civilians are killed, but the terrorist group considers them expendable. Now, Hamas is using the efforts to bring humanitarian aid to Palestinians to further its media campaign against Israel. It is no longer able to control the delivery of food and other emergency supply because Jerusalem has cut the United Nations out of the loop. The reason for this is that when the UN ran the convoys they were intercepted by Hamas which then sold the goods at marked up prices. Israel's attempts to stop this has led to riots at aid posts, with the IDF firing on queues. This is reported by the BBC with little in the way of context. Of course, it is appalling to see civilians die in these circumstances and a ceasefire deal on terms set out by the US – accepted by Israel but rejected by Hamas – would be the best way forward. But such an outcome is increasingly difficult to achieve when the BBC's narrative that Israel is always in the wrong permeates into the political discourse. The Trump administration has criticised the Corporation for accepting Hamas's word at face value, something BBC chiefs deny. Israel is also furious with what it considers to be biased reporting. The BBC invariably reports the worst of Israel, only to add the caveat that it cannot verify reports because it is denied access to Gaza. This makes it naively vulnerable to Hamas propaganda, which it seems all too ready to swallow. There is a way around this, which is for Israel to lift its ban on foreign journalists entering Gaza independently to let them see for themselves. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Starmer's defence pledges are all smoke and mirrors
Three words sum up the hollowness of Sir Keir Starmer's bold pledge to make the UK's Armed Forces 'battle ready' in the wake of the latest defence review. They have nothing to do with enhancing the defence of the realm. Time and again the ambitious programme, set out in the 144-page report, to revitalise our military after more than a decade of woeful decline is undermined by the catch-all caveat 'when funding allows'. Thus, while the review concedes that the Army, which is now smaller than at any time since the Napoleonic Wars, could do with increasing its manpower, the modest uplift proposed by the review will only be implemented if the relevant funds become available. The procurement of other equipment deemed vital to safeguarding our national defence is subjected to the same budgetary constraints. While the review argues that the previous government's decision to cut the number of operational E-7 early warning and control aircraft from five to three needs to be reversed, this, too, will only happen 'when funding allows'. Boeing's E-7 Wedgetail aircraft are deemed to be a vital component in controlling the battlespace during armed conflict with their advanced radar systems, and would be a vital asset in the event of war breaking out with a hostile country like Russia. Yet, despite the review issuing a dire warning about the worsening 'geopolitical context', there is a distinct lack of urgency about the Government's claim to make the country an 'armour-clad nation'. So, when Starmer talks, as he did when announcing the conclusions of Labour's Strategic Defence Review, about making Britain 'safer and stronger', the truth is that he is simply indulging in wishful thinking. This is a Prime Minister who, only a few weeks ago, was talking enthusiastically about putting British boots on the ground in Ukraine as part of his 'coalition of the willing'. But he knew full well that the UK does not have the military resources necessary to sustain such a mission. Starmer's bold plan to dispatch a European 'reassurance' force to Ukraine has now been quietly watered down to a more realistic support mission for the Ukrainian military. The Starmer's empty rhetoric regarding his grand ambitions for the defence review is likely to suffer a similar fate. It will inevitably become clear that, despite his boast that he is overseeing 'the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War', the actual funding being made available is negligible. Starmer's smoke and mirrors defence pledges are part of a long and undistinguished tradition of British governments making ambitious spending commitments for the Armed Forces they have absolutely no chance of fulfilling. Former Conservative chancellor George Osborne, for example, made much political capital out of his claim that he had raised defence spending above the minimum 2 per cent of GDP level required by Nato. Closer examination of the figures showed this could only be met by 'efficiency savings' in defence spending that were unachievable. It was the same with Rishi Sunak's pledge last year to raise UK defence spending to 2.5 per cent. The move was immediately compromised by the qualification that such an increase would only be possible 'as soon as the economic conditions allow'. Starmer's policy of over-promising and under-delivering on defence spending is very much in this dishonourable tradition. But the Prime Minister's difficulty is compounded by the fact that the global-threat environment is becoming more dangerous by the day. So his hollow pledges will come under far greater scrutiny than those made by his predecessors. This is particularly the case where the UK's Nato allies are concerned. Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte has already fired the first shot, over Starmer's ambivalence about when the money will be made available to fund his rearmament programme. Rutte warns that Nato will require the UK to spend 3.5 percent of GDP on defence as part of his plan to 'equalise' European defence spending with the US. Starmer has indicated his ultimate 'ambition' is to raise spending to 3.5 per cent by 2034, but has given no clear explanation about how to achieve this figure. As one of the main premises of his defence review is that the UK should focus on being a 'Nato first' military force, failing to meet Rutte's ambitious target could prove to be deeply embarrassing. Starmer will need to take care that his empty defence pledges do not further inflame the more hawkish members of the Trump administration. They already believe that the Europeans are taking the US for a ride when it comes to defence spending. Nato's European member states are likely to come under intense American scrutiny at the summit being held in The Hague later this month. If the Trump administration concludes that Starmer's boasts about increasing UK defence spending do not add up, the Prime Minister could find himself in for a very tough ride indeed. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
Crew rescued after ship carrying cars and EVs catches fire
The crew of a cargo ship carrying 3,000 vehicles to Mexico, including 800 electric vehicles, abandoned ship after they could not control a fire in waters off Alaska's Aleutian island chain. Smoke was initially seen coming from the deck loaded with electric vehicles Tuesday, according to a Wednesday statement from the ship's management company, London-based Zodiac Maritime. There were no reported injuries among the 22 crew members of the Morning Midas. Crew members abandoned ship and were later transferred from lifeboats to a nearby merchant vessel in the North Pacific Ocean, roughly 300 miles (485 kilometers) southwest of Adak Island in Alaska's Aleutian chain. Adak is about 1,200 miles (1,930 kilometers) west of Anchorage, the state's largest city. The crew initiated emergency firefighting procedures with the ship's onboard fire suppression system, but they couldn't bring the flames under control. 'The relevant authorities have been notified, and we are working closely with emergency responders with a tug being deployed to support salvage and firefighting operations,' a statement from the management company said. 'Our priorities are to ensure the continued safety of the crew and protect the marine environment.' The U.S. Coast Guard said it is sending air crews to Adak and a ship to the area.
