Registered On: September 7, 2015
You do realise that Keir Starmer comes from a less well off background than St Jeremy, the apparent man of the people?
Corbyn’s net worth is similar to Starmer’s last time I checked.
Now, maybe, but not when Starmer was a child. Starmer’s childhood house was an ordinary semi-detached house, whereas Corbyn grew up in his family mansion. Starmer has been a top human rights lawyer and head of the CPS, so of course he’s wealthy now.
However, the point I am making is that you can’t bemoan Starmer for having a title and being prestigious when you didn’t complain about Corbyn, whose background was far more privileged. Starmer may now be a Sir, but that comes from being head of the CPS, which he earned through merit of rising through the education and justice system. Whether you agree with the honours system or not he got that through recognition of his services as a top human rights lawyer and not because of his background. We can’t bemoan those who have received recognition for their work and services to society, and it seems churlish to bemoan those who have received recognition where it is at least somewhat earned. Starmer didn’t become a sir like others who have done purely for political purposes, he got it because he worked himself up to head of the CPS, as I have said.
This is not something to begrudged, as the OP insinuates, and when it’s made out he’s less like the rest of us because of it it does feel rather one sided when the same person has nothing to say about a man who has been born into wealth and found his way into a safe Labour seat while not gaining life experience through work. This is not to say that wealthy people like Corbyn cannot be good socialists, but if you’re going to complain about a socially mobile MP like Starmer for being above everyone at least have some self-awareness about those you do support if they have been privileged too.