Talk:Keir Starmer/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Loss of balance

Lots of additions from recent days seem to have skewed the balance of the article to a specific and marginal point of view considerably by one editor. I would suggest that we either remove these additions below or move them to the Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer with more balance because they are quite niche issues. What are people's thoughts?

From the lead: "After Jeremy Corbyn resigned following Labour's defeat at the 2019 general election, Starmer won the party's 2020 leadership election on a platform of 10 Corbyn-style socialist pledges, including promises to bring rail and utilities into public ownership and to defend freedom of movement within the EU.[1] However, by 2022 Starmer had formally abandoned these 10 pledges, citing changed socioeconomic conditions in the years since his election.[2] The Starmer leadership has been controversial for its treatment of leftist Labour members, including the blocking of leftist candidates in local elections.[3] It has also been criticised for failing to respond to anti-black racism and Islamophobia within the party, as identified by the 2020 Forde Report commissioned by Starmer.[4]"

From the leadership section: "By 2022, Starmer formally abandoned the 10 socialist pledges made during his leadership run, citing the changing socioeconomic situation in the years since.[5]

Starmer's leadership has been controversial within the party; it has been charged with the allegedly unfair treatment of leftist Labour members, including the blocking of leftist candidates in local elections.[6] He has also been criticised for allegedly failing to respond to anti-black racism and Islamophobia within the party, as identified in the 2020 Forde Report commissioned by Starmer and conducted by Martin Forde KC.[4] It accused the party of operating "a hierarchy of racism or of discrimination" in which certain forms of racism and abuse were not taken as seriously as others.[4] The Starmer leadership failed to officially publish the report until 2022.[4]" Michaeldble (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. Sourced to RS national newspapers etc. G-13114 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
My issue isn't that it's not well sourced, the issue is about balance. 3/4 of the Leadership section are negative and fairly niche talking points with no alternative talking points. I would suggest moving these parts to the Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer for this reason where they would be more relevant/balanced. Michaeldble (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
They certainly aren't niche issues to anyone involved in Labour or left wing politics. Also they've received coverage in multiple national newspapers. The fact that Starmer has already abandoned the platform he was originally elected to the leadership on is very, very relevant indeed. Not sure how an argument otherwise can realistically be made. G-13114 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Agree! Not sure how these can be considered niche issues, they've dominated the media discourse around Starmer. Kkollaps (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The lead definitely needs to include material about Starmer's leadership reflecting the balance of reliable source coverage, summarising material from the body of the article. I don't think the passage you've quoted here does a good job of that, and the lead should ideally not require sources of its own. Some coverage of the shift of the party towards the centre should be in the lead, but so should material about Starmer's role during the Covid-19 pandemic, polling performance, and so on. That should start with an improvement in the section of the article relating to his leadership (and probably also in the article dedicated to his leadership, which is a bit of a mess—I'll try to contribute more to improving both articles). Ralbegen (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Before my additions to the lead, there was no information there about his 3 years as Opposition Leader. I've simply added sourced details that have been deemed important enough to be reported by prominent publications, including but not limited to controversial or negative aspects. If other editors can think of more "positive" and significant facts about his leadership worth reporting on, I invite them to add these. I'm not sure polling numbers really belong in the lead, however—they change all the time. I'm also not sure what important info can be reported about his COVID role, beside the non-scandals about lockdown infractions that became news. So, not too sure what else there is to add. Kkollaps (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
FWIW I have removed mention of the Forde report and added a sentence about his stance on rooting out antisemitism in the party. Kkollaps (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
FWIW @Kkollaps, I think you're right that the lead and the leadership sections need to be extended to reflect his time as leader. The additions on the u-turn of pledges are very valid. However, I do believe that both sections still seem skewed towards one viewpoint without providing alternative viewpoints.
As a starting point, what are people's thoughts on this as the final paragraph of the lead as an alternative which is partly taken from the previous version from Jan 23:
In April 2020, Starmer won the Labour Party leadership election. His tenure as leader has been characterised by his opposition to some of the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and various other issues involving the government, including Partygate, the mini-budget and the cost of living crisis. Since his election as leader, his party has had mixed results in by-elections and local elections. Amid the reduced popularity of the governing Conservative Party since late 2021, Labour have gained considerable leads in national opinion polling ahead of the next general election. Following allegations of anti-semitism within the party prior to his leadership, Starmer has made tackling this issue a priority, with the party no longer being monitored by the Equality and Human Rights Commission following reform. However, his leadership has also coincided with a disillusionment with the left-wing of the Labour Party following the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn and the reversal of his left-wing pledges during his leadership campaign.
Or something along these lines Michaeldble (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Some problems I have: 1) is there a reason you don't think the complaints about anti-black racism and Islamophobia ignored under his leadership are worthy of mention in the lead? Several high-profile black and Muslim Labour MPs have spoken repeatedly about it, and plenty of ink has been spilled on the topic in prominent publications. 2) Is there a reason you go to such lengths to bury the a) content of the policies he was elected on and b) the fact that he reneged on those pledges by citing the economic effects of COVID etc. by sticking it at the end of the paragraph, and in a sentence that conflates discussion of his policies with Corbyn's suspension and left wing disillusionment? There's curiously little in this lead about Starmer's political principles since taking office. Surely that's a more newsworthy topic than the bland "opposition leader opposed government policies" line that you open the paragraph with. "Disillusionment" also seems like a passive way to say that Starmer has taken a controversial stance against leftist members. 3) It occurs to me that we haven't included anything about the mass exodus of Labour members from the party the year after his victory—something like a decrease of 100,000 paying members in a year. Surely this is as significant a statistic as talk of his opinion polling. 4) "has made tackling this issue a priority" is editorializing—he's emphasized the topic in his speeches, but whether he has actually attempted meaningful improvement is debatable (and has literally been debated, with some accusing his actions of being superficial and cynical). 5) Why no mention of candidates being blocked in elections? This seems like a very important topic in the party's internal politics since Starmer took office, possibly more important than Corbyn's suspension. Kkollaps (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
It’s highly unbalanced. An entire paragraph of criticism in the lede with no more positive coverage. The Forde report is nowhere near important enough for the lede nor does it have much to do with Starmer himself.
This was already removed from the lead, not sure why you're bringing it up. But in fact, its results are directly relevant to the claims of anti-black racism and Islamophobia in the party. The notion that it's "nowhere near important enough" is opinion, and a strange one given that Starmer himself commissioned the report. See comments about his handling of racism below. Kkollaps (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
You insinuate in this reply that you’re questioning the neutrality of another editor’s views on this issue, despite the fact that you have done nothing but add negative coverage and inflate the scale of these issues.
I'm not approaching this through a lens of "positive" or "negative"—you are, which is itself bias (why assume that a "balanced" approach reflects the reality of media reporting? And worse, why assume the reporting of facts about his leadership constitutes "negative" coverage?)
“is there a reason you don't think the complaints about anti-black racism and Islamophobia ignored under his leadership are worthy of mention in the lead?”
Just because something is verifiable doesn’t mean it should be included. Project policy states this directly. I question why you are so insistent on adding this to the lede of Starmer’s article instead of relegating it to Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer, like all the other coverage has been.
You haven't answered the question. Why do you consider the controversy over his handling of anti-black racism and Islamophobia less important to the lead than his handling of antisemitism?
Further, you keep trying to justify the omission of reporting about Starmer's career as leader by gesturing to the Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer, as if the presence of a more narrow article topic absolves us of the need to report on a high-profile 3 year career as opposition leader on Starmer's own article. This was ostensibly why you thought it acceptable to leave Starmer's own page almost completely devoid of reporting about his leadership...until I added some of that missing info. Surely, things which occur directly under his leadership are as relevant to his personal career as any other career activity (you mention, for example, the party's election results and polling.) Interestingly, I note that almost none of the "negative" coverage you decry in the current version is present in the lead of the article on Starmer's leadership. Why is this imbalance acceptable there? Kkollaps (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Your phrasing is bizarre. According to you, any of this content not in the lede is ‘buried’, as though some editors are deliberately hiding it. This, of course, is undermined by the fact that it would still be in an article directly linked with Keir Starmer. Asperthrow (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
My version of the lead is chronological—it begins with discussion of the leadership pledges that he made to get elected. Your version buries it as the final sentence. And again, I don't understand how a more specific article about his leadership means we can avoid describing relevant info on his personal article.
Beyond these points, you've failed to respond to other comments I made about phrasing and other potentially relevant info for the lead. Kkollaps (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
It goes without saying that you should not be editing other users’ comments, even if it’s simply to reply.
What on Earth are you referring to? I haven't edited anyone's comments. Kkollaps (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
By incorporating your replies into my comments, you are. Asperthrow (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
The acccusation is correct: it's bad form to insert your responses inside the body of another editor's talk-page comments. That's partly because it breaks the flow of their comment, and partly because it makes it insanely hard for a reader to attribute stuff, i.e. who said what.
Please stop doing it. Please make your own reply, and if you want to respond to specific remarks, quote them in your reply.
Thanks.
MrDemeanour (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
“This was already removed from the lead, not sure why you're bringing it up. But in fact, its results are directly relevant to the claims of anti-black racism and Islamophobia in the party. The notion that it's "nowhere near important enough" is opinion, and a strange one given that Starmer himself commissioned the report. See comments about his handling of racism below.”
Yes, removed before I noticed. By you, without any discussion.
This entire debate is one of opinion.
The only person advocating the removal of sourced information here is you. Kkollaps (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
A single source detailing allegations by three people warrants a sentence in the lede? Really? Asperthrow (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Starmer’s commissioning of the report does not warrant including it on the lede of his article.
Why?
I'm not approaching this through a lens of "positive" or "negative"—you are, which is itself bias (why assume that a "balanced" approach reflects the reality of media reporting? And worse, why assume the reporting of facts about his leadership constitutes "negative" coverage?)
A balanced approach reflects whatever reliable sources say; and editor consensus. The ‘blocking of left-wing local election candidates’ is sourced by a single article detailing allegations by three people. This doesn’t warrant inclusion at all, let alone in the lede.
Are you suggesting there is only one article detailing these allegations? Would you like me to compile every single source I can find describing this topic, and include the long list of citations behind the sentence? Alternately, are you suggesting the blocking of left-wing candidates was not reported in various prominent publications? Kkollaps (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
The source in the article is insufficient. Feel free to produce more sources. Asperthrow (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Kkollaps (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Don’t play dumb. Any rational person has an unfavourable view of unreliability and the breaking of pledges. It’s negative coverage.
Wrong. Starmer himself has characterised his shifts as a sensible, pragmatic response to changing economic conditions, as my version states. So have others in support of Starmer. There's no need to characterize this as a negative—it's simply a fact of his political development since taking office. Kkollaps (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
You haven't answered the question. Why do you consider the controversy over his handling of anti-black racism and Islamophobia less important to the lead than his handling of antisemitism?
Antisemitism in the party has been well reported on for years. Jeremy Corbyn has an entire section of his article dedicated to allegations of it. There’s a well-sourced and lengthy article on it.
Sounds like a party issue that predates Starmer's time as leader. Why is this admissible but another controversy over racism that has only taken root under his leadership not considered relevant? Kkollaps (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Because antisemitism has been widely covered and allegations of Islamophobia and anti-black racism have not. Asperthrow (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I don’t view your two sources on allegations of Islamophobia and anti-black racism as sufficient to warrant inclusion in the lede of Keir Starmer’s article.
Are you suggesting only 2 sources exist on this topic? Again, would you like me to compile a list of sources about this topic? Kkollaps (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Do so. Asperthrow (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] Kkollaps (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Some of these are opinion pieces, included because they recount many individual complaints and allegations in the text. Kkollaps (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Further, you keep trying to justify the omission of reporting about Starmer's career as leader by gesturing to the Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer, as if the presence of a more narrow article topic absolves us of the need to report on a high-profile 3 year career as opposition leader on Starmer's own article. This was ostensibly why you thought it acceptable to leave Starmer's own page almost completely devoid of reporting about his leadership...until I added some of that missing info.
There was consensus several months ago that the coverage of his leadership be split into a separate article, consensus with which I was involved.
This consensus presumably decided that the content of the "Starmer's leadership" article and the "Keir Starmer" article would mutually exclusive? That no information about his leadership would be included in the lead of his person article? This is not just absurd, it's also the opposite of how other party leaders have had their personal articles handled in the past. Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn—all of their personal articles describe their leadership in the lead, and in some detail beyond "they were elected". Kkollaps (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
You storm in, delete the original paragraph and replace it with poorly sourced negative coverage, then demand lengthy discussion on the talk page about its inclusion. You’re quite happy to adjust it yourself though, given you deleted the mention of the Forde report.
This is a lie. I didn't delete any original paragraph—there wasn't anything there to begin with (besides mention of his election victory, which was kept!) Kkollaps (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Surely, things which occur directly under his leadership are as relevant to his personal career as any other career activity (you mention, for example, the party's election results and polling.)
When did *I* mention that?
Oh, my error, I assumed you were the original poster, since that is the editor I'm responding to. Your phrasing ("Yes, removed before I noticed") suggests you were part of this discussion before, but it seems you're just jumping in now. Kkollaps (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Interestingly, I note that almost none of the "negative" coverage you decry in the current version is present in the lead of the article on Starmer's leadership. Why is this imbalance acceptable there?
When did I say it was? I’m not involved with that article. I recommended its creation and then edited it once to correct grammar.
Again, assumed you were the other editor. Kkollaps (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
You have, multiple times, gestured to that article as reason for the exclusion of information on this page. Why would anyone justify their removal of "bias" with reference to an article that they also believe is biased? Kkollaps (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
My version of the lead is chronological—it begins with discussion of the leadership pledges that he made to get elected. Your version buries it as the final sentence.
Irrelevant when what I’m disputing is the substance of your edits themselves.
Precisely: you are disputing a clear and straightforward statement of Starmer's election platform and policy shifts because you think they make him look bad. Can't understand the justification for removal of widely reported facts in favor of a complete void of info about a politician's career in the lead of that politician's article. Kkollaps (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
That’s a very serious accusation of bad faith and civil POV pushing. While it’s false as I despise Starmer, I recommend you retract it.
”widely reported” is generous. Asperthrow (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who you despise or don't. You have explicitly problematised my additions to the lead because you believe they reflect too negatively on Starmer in a way that is misleading. The fact that Starmer ran on a socialist platform and then abandoned those policies is a matter of widely-known public record. A high percentage of his media appearances see him asked to address this change of policies. You explicitly stated that I have "done nothing but add negative coverage," and that on this basis you oppose the content of my edits. Those are your words. You didn't delete part of my paragraph that you found especially unnoteworthy, or add in other sources to "balance" it (as michaeldbl helpfully attempted to do in this talk page), you deleted the entire paragraph detailing his time as leader, including mention of his policy shifts. Utterly ridiculous. Here is your edit.
"'Widely reported' is generous." Try this Google search! Kkollaps (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
And again, I don't understand how a more specific article about his leadership means we can avoid describing relevant info on his personal article.
Editor consensus. Already responded.
Editor consensus on an entirely different page?? In what way does that prevent us from describing Starmer's political career on his own article? What consensus was reached on this page, stating that info about Starmer's leadership doesn't belong here? There seems to be no such consensus. Kkollaps (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Consensus that materials about his leadership of the party would be moved to a separate article. I see no reason why only the standard “he won the election…” and your negative coverage should remain. Asperthrow (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Beyond these points, you've failed to respond to other comments I made about phrasing and other potentially relevant info for the lead.
I’m not obligated to as I object to your edits on the basis of their content. Asperthrow (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
You're not obligated to do anything, but you went ahead and deleted sourced information on the basis of some past consensus that apparently took place on an entirely different page and flies in the face of Wiki precedent. Again, I initially assumed you were another editor. I'm not sure why you've responded to comments that were directed at their proposed paragraph change. But thus far, you seem to be arguing something distinct: that no information on Starmer's leadership career should be included in his article lead. This seems straightforwardly absurd—please tell me if I misinterpret you, and let us know what you think the lead should look like. The burden is also on you to build consensus that sourced material in the article is an inflation or mischaracterisation of media discourse. Instead, you deleted my additions of sourced information without any discussion or talk page contribution. Kkollaps (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
You’ve failed to understand the situation. I’m perfectly free to delete sourced information at least once if I think it’s not appropriate, as your poorly sourced paragraph is.
When did I argue that no information on his leadership should be included? To make it perfectly clear: I said your edits are bad and the sources are not enough.
It’s bizarre of you to invite me to say what I think the lede should look like when this whole discussion is about whether or not we’re keeping your changes.
You should have asked whether or not your edits had support when you made significant changes to the article. In fact, if you’d like to make such big changes to a significant article, your edits really should not be in place while it’s being discussed. Not the other way around. These are big changes which need to be discussed first. Asperthrow (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm really unable to see any valid argument for why Starmer's abandonment of the pledges which he was elected to the leadership on should not be considered a central part of the coverage of his time as leader. Also regarding the antisemitism issue, could it not be relevant to mention the large increase in expulsions of Jewish party members under his leadership? (if reliably sourced of course) G-13114 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Exactly! I could see an argument that the other controversies (re: Labour Left and anti-black racism/Islamophobia) are a bit less noteworthy and belong in the body—I don't agree, but I can understand this perspective. But Asperthrow gave up the game by deleting the entire paragraph, including mention of his pledges and policy shifts. No "negative" coverage could be included at all, it seems, even completely fair game like his politics and public rhetoric. Kkollaps (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean by: "Asperthrow gave up the game" above?
FWIW, I think the reversal of the pledges could merit a mention in both the lede and main body as it has gained significant attention across the media.
Replying to your comments on my (very) initial draft yday:
Point 1) on the anti-black and islamophobic part. Frankly, I didn't mention it because it has never dominated his time as LOTO. I wasn't even aware of these suggestions until you've added them.
Point 2) This comment was odd imo: "Is there a reason you go to such lengths to bury the a) content of the policies he was elected on..." It suggest I'm acting in bad faith when I'm clearly not. The lede acts to summarise, it can't/shouldn't include every story over 3 years of leadership, most things the LOTO does is not incredibly notable. It should expand on them (providing reasonable counterarguments) either in the main body or on the other page. One of his predecessors as Leader of the Opposition: Ed Miliband's lede (which was ranked as a good article) is a decent template potentially. In the third para, it adequately summarises his leadership without being overly critical and highlighting less notable stories in only four lines.
Point 3) "Mass exodus" seems like a loaded term to me. Again, I've seen very little news coverage on this. Ultimately, I was under the impression that membership rates tended to increase ahead of an election and then decline afterwards but I may be wrong. If it is noticeable and verifiable compared to previous Labour leaders, I think it could be added into the main body/other page.
Point 4) As for the editorialising point, I think that's reasonable (it is a draft). I think we could give antisemitism a mention in the lede though.
Point 5) On blocking candidates, I think it could be included in the main body - if there is clear, verifiable proof that Starmer's office has blocked candidates themselves.
Overall, I think you were right to add info on his leadership - I find it odd that all of his time as leader was removed from the lede and main body in Jan/Feb. However, I do strongly agree with Aspethrow that you've inflated the scale of negative stories which have had considerably less media attention than what would warrant additions to the lede. Michaeldble (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
That's all very fair, thanks for responding. Re: "This comment was odd imo: "Is there a reason you go to such lengths to bury the a) content of the policies he was elected on..." It suggest I'm acting in bad faith when I'm clearly not" —I only asked this because it seemed strange that you'd completely restate a sentence whose subject you seem okay with including, but now with new phrasing and clauses, and additional information that seemed to crowd that one idea, and then moved it to the ending of the paragraph. I see the issue of his pledges and subsequent political recalculation as important enough to stand on their own, without conflation with other topics (ie Corbyn's suspension), and particularly at the beginning of the paragraph, as it serves to broadly summarize his time as leader. It seems G-13114 is in agreement about clearly stating that in the lead.
re: the critical points brought up, I can only say that in contrast to you I've seen them reported on quite a bit, and I included a lengthy list of sources above attesting to this. Perhaps these areas of criticism can be summarized in one sentence with less detail than they currently have. I do think, however, that the topic of his pledges and changing policy objectives is distinct from these "criticisms"—it's a straightforward description of his politics as leader, and he himself has been very straightforward about that. Re: point 3, here's one source using that exact phrasing. The loss in paying members seems to be causing unusual financial difficulties for the party as well.
"Gave the game up" just meant "revealed their lack of interest in making constructive contributions to the page." They deleted the info without suggesting an alternative on the talk page (as you helpfully did) or rehoming relevant info in the body or anything—just an immediate deletion of sourced content. And they've continued criticizing my "negative" edits without trying to convincingly explain why they're not noteworthy or what should be emphasized instead. Again, before I made my edits there was NOTHING there about his leadership at all. My edits were a starting point. Appreciate your help on this. Kkollaps (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest in future you don't suggest that other editors are burying information at all without good reason though, it's rude and implies I have an agenda. To be fair to Asperthrow, I opened the discussion regarding the lack of balance on your edits initially. He thinks they're poor edits and thinks they should be removed - I don't necessarily think he's being unconstructive as that it is the main topic of the discussion.
The whole point I think we're both trying to articulate is that we should only add things into the lede only if they've dominated his leadership. As the lede is short, we do have to condense a lot. I think the left wing of the party feeling disenchanted after Corbyn/reversal on pledges as relevant but I don't see how it could justify several sentences - that's why I 'conflated' them. We could add a sentence instead on him moving more towards the centre over his tenure, citing his reversal on his pledges as a solution: "Starmer's tenure has seen the party move towards the centre which has coincided with an increased disenchantment (if this isn't too loaded) within the left-wing of his party following his reversal on his initial left-wing election pledges". Or something along these lines.
I think the party membership would only go in the main body not the lede as it hasn't remotely dominated his tenure. We should probably add info on 2022 numbers too and would highlight the financial difficulties that it has provoked. On the anti-black racism, I would be more inclined to add it to the other article if at all - it certainly hasn't dominated his tenure like antisemitism did for Corbyn as an example. As asperthrow said, just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean we should include it. It has clearly had little news coverage compared to other issues.
Over the next few days, I'll try and add more info into the main body to include the news stories that haven't been added yet. I would prefer it if we could find some more consensus on this talk page (hopefully with the feedback of others too) regarding the lede as I really don't think it currently provides a balanced summary of his tenure whatsoever. Michaeldble (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
should it be "alleged antisemitism" ? 82.11.163.59 (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm new to contributing and so don't know where in this tread to put this hopefully I can delete if it's wrong but.
On this issue of balance there is the segment of his "Political Positions" which I think is fair in its descriptions of being "described as unclear" due to his background in proximity to socialism and then his policy positions and almost all questions related to the public or "people" as a proxy for public seemingly to be in the range of neutral to direct opposition.
However I've noticed the "The first strand focused on a critique of the British state for being too ineffective and over-centralised. The answer to this critique was to base governance on five main missions to be followed over two terms of government; these missions would determine all government policy" sentence is inaccurate in 2 ways:
1) The link about the five main missions links to something that in no way could be interpreted as "answer to this critique"
2) "The first strand focused on a critique of the British state for being too ineffective and over-centralised."
Once again Stormers beliefs, pledges, public statement, strands or whatever term you use or reference for his speech if it was that it was "over-centralised" if it was while he was supportive of Corbyn then that makes sense as under the Corbyn era and his article already has such a section.
However Labour under his leadership there has been a disproportionate lean of marking as ineligible people with Trade union backing and high local support, current Mayors by association with no scrutiny or due process, Centrists who are not in the faction, and even dissolving CLP seats
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63636469
https://inews.co.uk/news/out-of-control-factionalism-blocking-of-corbyn-ally-jamie-driscoll-mayoral-list-labour-row-2384858
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/10/labour-dissolves-harman-seat-selection-panel-in-row-over-candidates
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/30/labour-expelling-mp-activist-neal-lawson
https://www.ft.com/content/8075bdfb-2a67-4d69-b0ba-f8bc4e9a3537
All this is clear context that I think warrants at least a small comment against the idea he opposes "overly-centralised" governance when most of the actions of the Labour HQ have been in direct opposition to local CLPs, dissolving them, removing from shortlist people who have unanimous support from constituents, members, unions, polls of voters, even bipartisan across political parties support (which if they campaign on that basis then yes it should be auto-expulsion) but the argument that "any liked post when any other party does a positive action" is that is absurd on its face.
Anyhow. That's my analysis of that section I think it should:
1) Have the period that his politics aligned with statements
2) Indicate when his actions were counter to stated beliefs
3) For balance's sake the argument they keep using of "electability" could be cited
4) Polls from this period indicate it's dislike of the current government over positive like of the opposition that is the cause
As I say I've not posted so may have been better to put this as a new talk or word it differently I don't want to be tarred with the "it's just the left trying to get at him" brush. The things I've referenced have happened, they're factual.
If there's some metric like number of articles or source trust or that I should put these events alongside the opposing view that "It's all fair" that's fine but I think this context simply and fairly adds to the "hard to define" qualifier. His statements defining "Starmarism" with that "over-centralised" qualifier is either false or implying that these actions are being carried out by others. StuartJAtkinson (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
"I think the left wing of the party feeling disenchanted after Corbyn/reversal on pledges as relevant but I don't see how it could justify several sentences." I agree—one sentence on inter-party controversy seems plenty. But I want to stress, once again, that this is a separate issue from his election pledges and subsequent shift in policies—that is straightforward description of his political proposals as leader, and shouldn't be relegated to a sentence about controversy, which would seem to downplay its importance as a mere "leftist talking point" or whatever.
Re: "it's rude and implies I have an agenda"—I asked "why" you made the move, I didn't imply anything at all. It was one of several questions I asked. I earnestly couldn't understand the reasoning behind moving a simple description of his political proposals from the beginning to the end of the paragraph and into a sentence about Leftist disillusionment. Now I see you were trying to condense info so it wouldn't be given undue weight. But again, my point above about those two things (Starmer's election platform and subsequent policy proposals; member disillusionment over centrist drift, blocked candidates, Corbyn, "hierarchy of racism" etc.) being unique and separate points.
Re: "On the anti-black racism, I would be more inclined to add it to the other article if at all - it certainly hasn't dominated his tenure like antisemitism did for Corbyn as an example." It's true that the level of coverage hasn't been equal, but the lead of Corbyn's personal article has an entire paragraph devoted to the party antisemitism controversy. I'm suggesting just a mention of racism claims under Starmer. There are certainly prominent sources (listed above) which attest to its media coverage spread over 3 years.

Kkollaps (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

1st para: I can understand your viewpoint, I was thinking of the pledges from a more left-wing POV more, that's why I added them together. I think that's reasonable to separate it. I would however condense this in the lede. There's no need to say which pledges (freedom of movement, tuition fees etc) - that's what the main body is for.
2nd para: I didn't get irritated at the several questions you asked, it was specifically on "is there a reason you go to such lengths to bury..." Burying info implies a concerted effort to avoid certain talking points which is BS - avoid using this phrase in future imo.
3rd para: I've noticed you've removed the anti-black racism from the lede - I appreciate that. I have less issue with keeping this in the main body (although I'm not entirely happy) if it can be fully sourced but to keep it in the lede is a different story entirely.
Elsewhere, I would still like to remove the "The Starmer leadership has been controversial for its treatment of leftist Labour members, including the blocking of leftist candidates in local elections" part. It isn't an issue that has dominated his leadership or received considerable mainstream media attention. Even adding into the main body seems reasonably controversial to me. Michaeldble (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Thoughts on this as an initial draft (not fully cited)?
"After Corbyn resigned following Labour's defeat at the 2019 general election, Starmer won the party's leadership election. His tenure as leader has been characterised by opposition to some of the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and on issues such as Partygate, the mini-budget, and the cost of living crisis. Starmer has emphasised the importance of tackling antisemitism in the Labour Party. Since his election, Starmer has repudiated some of his election pledges and has also moved the party closer to the centre."
In this one, I've left the reversal of the pledges to its own sentence and trimmed the details of the reversal of the pledges down - this can be added to the main body later. I would also add his reasoning - "changed socioeconomic conditions" further down. I've also removed the blocking of leftist candidates as it isn't a dominant issue - I hope this is more balanced, bearing in mind that it must be brief. Let me know if I've missed anything Michaeldble (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I've taken your template and modified it a bit, here's something closer to the version I'd support:
After Corbyn resigned following Labour's 2019 general election defeat, Starmer won the party's 2020 leadership election. His tenure as leader has since been characterised by movement toward the political centre, with Starmer renouncing several of his leftist campaign pledges. His leadership has opposed the government on issues such as its COVID-19 pandemic response, Partygate, the mini-budget, and the cost of living crisis. Starmer has emphasised the importance of tackling antisemitism in the Labour Party. The party has seen mixed results in local elections under Starmer's leadership.
As you can see, I moved the bit about his political trajectory to earlier in the paragraph, since it functions as a broad summary of his leadership before more specific details are given. I do think the labeling of his pledges as leftist is important if we're going to contrast them with his move toward the "centre." I also think brief mention of some specific policy proposals would be welcome—other party leaders have specific proposals mentioned. For example, Corbyn's lede says "Taking the party to the left, he advocated renationalising public utilities and railways, a less interventionist military policy, and reversals of austerity cuts to welfare and public services. Although critical of the European Union, he supported continued membership in the 2016 referendum." Starmer's lede is currently much thinner than that as far as concrete proposals go.
Re: "I would still like to remove the "The Starmer leadership has been controversial for its treatment of leftist Labour members, including the blocking of leftist candidates in local elections" part. It isn't an issue that has dominated his leadership or received considerable mainstream media attention. Even adding into the main body seems reasonably controversial to me" — sorry, but I really don't see this at all. I'll repost my earlier list of prominent sources below to underscore this, but the issue of Starmer's treatment of leftist party members has literally gotten a feature in no less prominent an international paper than the New York Times just this past month, not to mention coverage of some sort (some critical, some supportive, some neutral reporting) in many major UK papers. This is just the first batch I found on a quick Google search, there are certainly more.
I just don't see how one could justify saying "It isn't an issue that has received considerable mainstream media attention" at all.
Kkollaps (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
That's far better for me - I'd be happy with publishing something along those lines. I think the moving towards the centre part works better with your example. I would possibly add "and by-elections" next to the locals in the final sentence as a very small addition - Hartlepool & Batley-Spen were the closest his leadership was at risk to date imo.
Being specific on policy proposals is quite difficult imo - he's far more ambiguous on policy than most of his predecessors which makes it hard to characterise frankly - especially before he's published the GE manifesto. The blocking of left-wing candidates may be verifiable but it has never been close to being a front-page issue. I've barely heard about any of it myself even. If you want to add it into the main body, I'd be happy enough but it doesn't have a place in the lede. Michaeldble (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
> I think the moving towards the centre part works better with your example.
I'm not OK with "moving towards the centre". Who defines the centre? That formulation suggests that Starmer has not yet even reached the centre.
But if you move from the left in the direction of the centre, you have undeniably moved towards the right. That's what it should say.
MrDemeanour (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@MrDemeanour I'm not entirely sure I agree. The centre is a widely used term in politics in media and elsewhere. If you say he's moved right, you're correct but people might read that as he's become right-wing which isn't true - depends how it's phrased Michaeldble (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
> people might read that as he's become right-wing which isn't true
You see, whether he's become "right-wing" or not depends on what you mean by "centre", and most people define "centre" as roughly "in accordance with my views".
Can we say "towards the right", rather than "towards the centre"? I for one view him as a dangerous authoritarian racist.
MrDemeanour (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The term centrist is used by reliable and mainstream sources often:
https://www.politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-uk-labour-party-conference-election/
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-keynote-speech-labour-party-conference-liz-truss-tory-kwasi-kwarteng-b1028265.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/05/a-centrist-pitch-from-keir-starmer-means-he-will-need-to-show-how-he-differs-from-sunak
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63037696
Some of this is him describing himself as moving to the centre or others describing this. I'm pretty sure there would be more if I looked for longer. Thanks for being constructive at the bottom though! Michaeldble (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
OK. I'm sure I can find WP:RS that say he's moved to the right, but I'm not up for a fight on a political page. I just dropped by, and thought my contribution would help the page. Now I'm off.
MrDemeanour (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


@Kkollaps: Please avoid replying to other editor's statements by placing your replies within theirs - it makes the conversation extraordinarily difficult to read. I suggest using the {{tq}} function for talk quoting. — Czello (music) 19:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thanks Kkollaps (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Gutteridge, Nick (26 July 2022). "Sir Keir Starmer scraps 10 'socialist' Labour pledges". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 4 March 2023.
  2. ^ Gutteridge, Nick (26 July 2022). "Sir Keir Starmer scraps 10 'socialist' Labour pledges". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 4 March 2023.
  3. ^ Driver, Tony. "Keir Starmer accused of 'purging' Labour Left as Corbynite candidates blocked from standing to be MP". Telegraph. Retrieved 28 April 2023.
  4. ^ a b c d Adu, Aletha. "Labour accused of still not engaging with 'hierarchy of racism' claims". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 April 2023.
  5. ^ Gutteridge, Nick (26 July 2022). "Sir Keir Starmer scraps 10 'socialist' Labour pledges". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 4 March 2023.
  6. ^ Driver, Tony. "Keir Starmer accused of 'purging' Labour Left as Corbynite candidates blocked from standing to be MP". Telegraph. Retrieved 28 April 2023.

Naming of Sir Keir

Sir Keir has said he does not know why his parents chose the name "Keir". It is therefore only assumption he was named after Keir Hardy. REReedEsquire (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to a reliable source that says that? We've got two sources we treat as reliable there at the moment that say he was named after Hardie. If you can provide a source saying otherwise, we can do something. — Trey Maturin™ 16:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
That comes from Ashcroft's biography. See a review here: Starmer "admitted, in a 2015 interview, that he had no evidence to support the claim that he was named after Keir Hardie, the founder of the Labour Party, because he had never discussed it with his parents." I looked into this a while ago and found sources supporting Starmer having updated this... here's a very recent one that he wrote himself: "Dad was a tool-maker, Mum an NHS nurse, and yes, they did name me after Labour’s Scottish founder Keir Hardie." Someone ultra-cynical might look for sources asserting the same thing while his parents were still alive to contradict him, but I'll leave that to another someone. EddieHugh (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
It seems pretty likely they did, because Keir is a surname. TFD (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Separate article on political positions

I think it is time we established a separate article describing Starmer’s political positions in greater depth. Similar to the article on Corbyn’s views. Discuss. W3shelby (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

"Starmer has emphasised the importance of eliminating antisemitism in the Labour Party."

Could anyone explain this to me? Starmer mentioned it early on in his leadership, but has done little about it. Martin Forde KC has called this stance into question, citing lack of transparent systems in place. It has also been put forward that Starmer's allies obstructed investigation into antisemitism, which given their continued and enhanced roles within the party would send the opposite message. Furthermore under Starmer Jewish people are more likely to be expelled than non-Jewish people. Another source mentions how Jewish people have seen sanctions against them increase under Starmer.

The current article does not cite a source about why the sentence is there, and I do not see evidence of it. If anything it appears Labour has grown more intolerant of it's Jewish membership under Starmer. 86.16.161.28 (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggested change

In this article it is stated that Keir Starker went back on all his pledges from the leadership contest. Whilst this might be true for some pledges, it is unfair to say all, including specifically the pledge to renationalise the railways. This article could be cited as evidence that this pledge at least is indeed being kept to. Labour commits to bringing railways back into public ownership | The Independent 77.102.150.252 (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for change

Kier Starmer has described his father as a "toolmaker", however it is also the case that his father owned and worked at Oxted Tool Company. I suggest a slight edit to reflect this. 2A02:C7C:E38D:4100:7DA2:5DB6:E900:DF29 (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Trilateral commission

We mention that Keit is a former member of the Trilateral Commission. It is sourced to Declassified UK. Afaict, the reliability of Declassified UK has never been discussed. Declassified UK was not the first to report this. It was mentioned by "Labour Heartlands" in 2020, with a link the the Commissions 2020 membership list.[23] In this case, we can believe what both sources say because the Trilateral Commission list KS as a former member.[24] It also has a profile on him on its website.[25] The 2020 membership list includes KS.[26] Burrobert (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Threat by ICJP to prosecute Starmer

@Smartse: I believe my addition of this material The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) issued notices to Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak and others of its intention to prosecute the politicians for what it referred to as “their role in aiding and abetting Israel’s perpetration of war crimes”. is DUE – it is remarkable than any British politician would be threatened with prosecution for aiding and abetting war crimes. I added the same material to the Rishi Sunak article – no-one has reverted me there. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC) PS :I see I have now been reverted at the Rishi Sunak article. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: As far as I can see, that live Guardian article is the only RS coverage about this which is why I cited WP:UNDUE. It's not a sufficiently important piece of information to include in this article unless there are more sources discussing it. The same applies at the Sunak article. SmartSE (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
It is not credible to independence to suggest that a single source disqualifies this information from the article. That the likely future British Prime Minister is under threat of prosecution for aiding and abetting Israel's perpetration of war crimes' is anything but a non-critical piece of information - and therefore deeply relevant. And the fact that this has been materially ignored by the British press is evidence of WP:UNDUE. Should Wiki continue this?
Or is the suggestion that the Guardian article is inaccurate? JimmyB999 (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Foreign policy: Israel-Hamas War

I believe the section on foreign policy has a very lengthy and unnecessary commentary on regarding the Israel-Hamas War. Not only that, but to me it appears to be blatantly partisan in the way it is written.

All that is needed is a concise discussion on his position; 'Israel has the right to defend itself within international law and for hostages to be released', and now, as of 22/12/2023, he is in favour of a ceasefire. The initial paragraph on his position on Israel is perfectly sufficient and a further overview of his position on this latest conflict would be a good addition.

However, the large paragraph now added to the bottom of the foreign policy section fails to do this. Instead it frames his entire position based on a quote from an interview with LBC and the fallout from certain groups like Labour Muslim Network, Amnesty International, Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, and even Ben Jamal, who called it 'grotesque' (is that really necessary?). And then there is the attempt to push the idea that Starmer is a war criminal himself or that he is endorsing war crimes, it's not very clear), citing (what are in my opinion) unreliable sources such as the 'Middle East Eye' and 'The National UK'. A running commentary of every time and instance someone in the Labour Party steps aside from their position based on its position on the conflict seems excessive. Mapperman03 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of councillors resigning as a result of Labour policy on Israel-Hamas War

I am unsure if whether 47 councillors resigning as a result of the Labour leadership response to the Israel-Hamas war is significant enough to warrant coverage in this main article on Keir Starmer, and whether it is best left to Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer where this level of extended discussion is appropriate. While I concede to @EddieHugh that it likely does not constitute "partisan discussion", I believe that considering the Labour party's over 6,000 councillors, and the limited media attention it received (the cited articles being: (1) a general article on the parliamentary rebellion mentioning the council resignations in only a single sentence, and (2) a BBC local news article focusing on Oxford City Council) it constitutes excessive discussion in this article. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I made the edit. Still open for discussion of course though. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The Labour Muslim Network, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and Amnesty International criticised his statement as endorsing "collective punishment" which is a war crime. Seems significant to his own bio. Also the loss of Oxford City Council is significant. Readers may wonder why he needed to clarify his original statement.Burrobert (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree this is due in the article about his leadership but not in his bio. It feels like a case of RECENTISM to me. Wikipedia is NOT NEWS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Should content from the 'political positions' section be moved into the 'leadership' section?

Political position sections for politicians on Wikipedia generally focus on ideology and broad, short statements on specific issues (e.g. 'X supports constitutional reform'). A good example for this would be Ed Miliband#Policies and views, which describes his ideology (for example his statements as a 'socialist' and 'feminist') and general positions on things like corporate taxation, while keeping the bulk of policy discussion to the leadership section. A counterexample for this while looking at Labour leaders would be Jeremy Corbyn however which also has an extensive 'positions' section that delves deep into policy developed during leadership.

I would support moving policy from this section into this leadership section and reducing the positions section to statements of ideology and of broad support. I think this would help to address the problems of undue weight within this section highlighted by the notice, and make the positions section more focused and readable. There is already some duplication between the two sections, and this would help to address it. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to add a more general note that it is important for this article to be as good as possible with 2024 a likely UK General Election year, with people of course coming here for important information. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2024

Change “the couple’s son and daughter” to “the couple’s son and trans-son” in the Personal Life section.

Keir Starmer is currently listed as having a son and a daughter, but as per this Sky News interview on the 7th January is now referring to his younger child, previously his daughter, as a son.

https://news.sky.com/video/sir-keir-starmer-opens-up-on-how-his-family-has-supported-him-as-labour-leader-13043476 Tony Pts (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This is WP:OR. Source doesn't call his child trans. — Czello (music) 16:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request regarding Trilateral Commission

Please change the sentence "According to Declassified UK, Starmer is a former member of the Trilateral Commission" to simply "Starmer is a former member of the Trilateral Commission". Most sentences on wikipedia put the reference as a footnote rather than listing it explicitly in the text. Please keep the reference to Declassifed and add a reference to the Trilateral Commission list of members and former members https://www.trilateral.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/EUROPEAN-MEMBERSHIP-LIST-2022-MASTER-June-2022.pdf . 86.146.30.169 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keir_Starmer/Archive_3&oldid=1221510698"