https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-is-a-shallow-hollow-man/
And, fine, it’s politics. You take a position for a while, it doesn’t work out, you ditch it and move on, all the while briefing that you’ve been consistent from the start. I get all that. What I don’t get is the prologue. There was a time when Starmer came to believe that men who called themselves women were women. How did he arrive at this conviction? Who did he read? What evidence convinced him? It must have been very persuasive to get a KC to adopt a highly contested interpretation of the law, doubly so when he was leader of a political party and eager to win the next general election.
And now he no longer believes that men can become women. It appears that the Supreme Court judgment changed his mind, but that only returns us to the above questions. How did he get the law so wrong? Has he reflected on how these errors came about? Have they prompted any doubts about his wider judgment?
