Talk:Keir Starmer

AMassiveGay edits on page for Keir Starmer
Hoping to get some help with this and a consensus to be reached to resolve.

The page for the Labour leader Keir Starmer has a section called "Ten pledges?" which is about the written promises he made for policy directions for the party should he win the contest, and assesses these each in turn against the policy direction that the party has actually taken since then, before providing a conclusion on whether or not the pledge has been kept - in most cases this is that pledges have been broken. Sources are provided to reputable media outlets to back up the pledges being broken, undermined or countermanded.

Starting 28th March User:AMassiveGay has been trying to whitewash the article in general by removing content that might be seen to show Starmer in a negative light, justifying Starmer breaking these pledges, or making a political argument that breaking the pledges was good. His claims on the talk page for the article are that he wants to make the article "balanced", but from his actual edits his idea of "balance" involves defence of Starmer, the watering down of any criticism that can be evidenced and criticism of Starmer's predecessor and anyone who might be presumed to be politically opposed to Starmer.

An example is his edit last night regarding pledges on welfare and healthcare, which as you can see from the diffs completely changes the meaning and does not reflect what sources actually say or the truth of the matter, instead justifying the pledge being broken, blaming others for the pledges being broken, and including extraneous criticism of others ("...inducing shrieks of privatisation in some for whom just the mention of private is a cardinal sin despite a pragmatic solution for a real crisis"), while also watering down the conclusion (justifiable, per the evidence) that the pledges have been watered down, ignored or broken to "a mixed bag". I have reverted this.

The behaviour on the talk page has also not shown AMG acting in good faith. His original proposal was to bin the "Ten pledges" section entirely. He hasn't meaningfully engaged or provided any coherent example of things that aren't actually accurate, bar one thing where I actually accepted some of his edits and worked to integrate them into the language of the page. He objected to the existence of the section at all on the basis that it's "more suited to essay space", but when it was pointed out that many other politicians have sections on RationalWiki discussing their promises (broken or otherwise), he simply said he would "just edit it to death then". He was asked to discuss first regarding any edits and didn't do so. He also appears, per comments on the talk page, to be coming at this from a distinct ideological/Labour faction standpoint, as opposed to one where what Starmer promised to do is fairly assessed against what he is now saying or doing.

I'd be interested to get other's views and discuss here as this is getting out of hand. MortgageBalls (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * this is out and out bullshit. i have not edit warred (i probably should). i have been civil. some people dont seem to like their (biased) opinionsd challenged. bad faith? fuck of with that. this is entirely spurious designed shut down anything challenging their opinion. this should be case closed. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this dispute belongs to the talk page. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 12:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, why are you taking this here?BobJohnson (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I'm not familiar specifically with dispute stuff on RationalWiki, so was hoping for some neutral input to perhaps help defuse the situation and reach a consensus. Apologies if this is the wrong place. MortgageBalls (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Opinion seems pretty split from the talk page. So getting consensus will be "fun". But this is not the place for it, this is for actionable bad behavior. Of which mere opinion differences aren't.
 * I'm not familiar enough with UK politics in this case to have much of an opinion. My personal thought is that mission wise it seems "low importance", Keir Starmer doesn't seem like an authoritarian, and doesn't seem "cranky" enough to me to be worth too much coverage here either. But I think others in the talk page, some who may know more than me about UK politics, seem to disagree. BobJohnson (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fair. My argument here would be that he is essentially a (putative) national leader and, as with e.g. Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau, assessing his promises and pledges rationally falls within the remit of RW. But I'm happy to take this to talk page, although as you say I think reaching consensus on this will be extremely challenging. MortgageBalls (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole article seems to have a pretty tenuous connection to RW's mission. I'd be inclined to cut most of it.  But that is really a talk-page discussion.
 * As far as this coop process is concerned I think it should be archived without the need for a vote.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree on the article (it's been pretty established that British political leaders have articles on this wiki for some time) DELETED THIS. Apologies! MortgageBalls (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be better to have someone more familiar with British politics weigh in on this (moderator or  who did a minor edit on the page), but from a US perspective it does seem overly long at the moment. Any non-missional bits could be trimmed down some. Bongolian (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for the record I now do not wish for this to be archived because AMG just posted this on the talk page:
 * "oh go fuck yourself you sack of shit. i have done nothing resembling bad faith, despite you accusing me of acting bad faith. and neither have i attempted to whitewash the article. all i have done is attempt to remove the hideous bias, your bias, of the article from a sectiuon that is as long as it is irrelevant, giving far far too much the 10 pledges are of no interest to anyone but true believers salty that corbyn was ousted. get over your self you prick"
 * He isn't engaging in good faith and he's not actually trying to contribute to the article to make it better in any serious sense, he's just doing it to pursue a factional vendetta against people who he sees as "true believers salty that corbyn was ousted". MortgageBalls (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, in Labour politics it's hard to distinguish between a shill and a stan who just will not get a grip, and on RW we have extensive experience of the second. AMassiveGay needs to consider frothing a bit less. Starmer is likely to be next prime minister, so it's hard to argue he isn't important just because the US doesn't hear much about him - David Gerard (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * i apologise for saying some bad words. but bad words are not the only kind of incivility. how about the incivility of constant accusations of bad faith which prompted my bad words. but how dare i have a difference of opinion. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * and for the record, i do think not starmer is unimportant. i think the 10 plegdes are irrelevant. i think the weight given to them is undue for their irrelevancy, and i object to being taken to the coop for removing distortions of the facts or adding necessary context. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The only person who thinks they are distortions is you, and your response to that has been to introduce distortions yourself. MortgageBalls (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still entirely unconvinced that this isn't just talkpage drama and ought to be fought out there. I'll note that insofar as recentism on our pages goes, our Brexit coverage is IIRC still a goddamn mess since people aggressively tried to liveblog-edit the entire thing. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree on the Brexit page as it happens, fixing it is something I have in the back of my mind. It's a sprawling mess that doesn't really describe and evaluate the subject at all. MortgageBalls (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this is better off on the Starmer talkpage for now. Bongolian (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That certainly seems to be the consensus.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to pitch in that I've refrained from directly commenting in this discussion due to an unrelated run-in with AMG last week that I believe had a number of similarities to this situation. I don't think MB was jumping the gun in bringing this here, and I'm doubtful as to whether punting this to the Starmer talk page will yield constructive results, or whether it'll just reset the clock for the next coop case. Nope Rocket (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Gay and Balls here. Yes, I think such a heavy bit on the ten pledges is of limited worth, but I agree on the latter that on the whole, Starmer has 'forgotten' them almost as quick as the ToryKippers have forgotten about those 'benefits of Brexit' we were promised. What's more, I don't think it's 'controversial' to simply say that in general, Labour's main policies under Starmer seem to be a carbon copy of Nu Labour, the election strategy that followed by Blair c1995 [don't spill Mondeo Man's pint and let the Tories sink themselves] and showing all the tact to the leftish wings of the party that Dennis Healey did in 1980 - 'You have nowhere else to go' [so shut the fuck up, sit down and do as I say.] KarmaPolice (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * this is all correct. Interest statement: my wife is a Labour member, which is why I have the original Ten Pledges leaflet. I have never been a member of a political party. I vote Labour cos Stella Creasy is my MP and she's pretty okay. And it is objectively true that Starmer is a steamed ham - David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

wew lad
full public transphobe oh boy - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * He doesn't even know what his own party seems to want or believe, let alone what "99.9%" of women believe, when someone is telling you what everyone in the room is thinking, despite evidence the reality is far different, that's projection. Why is Keir so spineless about trans rights? Who put these brainworms in his head? Also, why is it that they'll put on a massive zero tolerance show about antisemitism but won't do a damned thing about transphobia in the party? Maybe OpenSecrets can tell us a bit about that. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Already updated that about it on the article. It's grotesque, proper full on hardcore TERF shit. Fundamentally, the reason he's not doing anything about transphobia in the party is because at best he is indulging TERFs because he thinks it'll win him votes, at worst he is an actual unrepentant transphobe. Morally, those positions aren't particularly distinct either way. MortgageBalls (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like Starmer may have been briefed by Labour Together; they released a report basically saying Labour should be more socially conservative to win elections. Per the Observer they had a word with senior Labour figures about it. On page 30 the report specifically does allude to trans topics. Chillpilled (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * He's even somehow managed to get worse today. He's now openly defending Duffield... Christ alive. MortgageBalls (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on this it looks like he's adopted the Labour Together line on crime/drugs as well. Think that report may be his clique's new rubric for appealing to voters. It certainly seems like he's read it himself or maybe even attended that briefing. Close advisors were there at least. Chillpilled (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The more I read/hear about Starmer, the more he seems like an unprincipled (bar his devotion to destroy/marginalise anything that hints of “Corbynism” or similar leftist strains within Labour), triangulating douchebag, basically a British Bill Clinton sans charisma and the optimism that the Third Way at least had at the beginning.


 * As for BumblingBuffoon’s question above (”why is it that they'll put on a massive zero tolerance show about antisemitism but won't do a damned thing about transphobia in the party?”), the big brouhaha about antisemitism was the best stick around to beat Corbyn over the head with. It did not have much to do with principles and Starmer clearly thinks that he needs to tack somewhat in the direction of the Tories who are currently trying to copy/paste GOP “war on woke” nuttery into UK political discourse.


 * Starmer thus seems to be convinced that “moderation” consists in moving towards the Tories on all areas in order to seem “responsible” in contrast to offering “too radical” alternatives. He has essentially back-pedalled on all the promises by which he won the Labour leadership contest and if the Tories weren’t in full meltdown, I wonder how his polls would look. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * How is winning meaningful if you abandoned all the reasons you needed to win along the way and picked up the shovels that your opponents were using to build their policies and culture instead? Yeah, you win the elections, but as a Tory candidate, not a labour one. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose such a shift in leadership is important to people who view politics as mere red/blue team sports and not a means to effect change. But on the other hand. I'm not so certain this new Labour platform can be one-to-one equated with whatever the Conservatives want. I can't personally name how it'd be different but there's got to be some things of significance? The Conservatives are taking advice straight from US-oil-backed think tanks after all. Don't think I can say that of Labour even if they're trying to mimic the Tories to some extent now. Chillpilled (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my comment above: I don’t think Starmer is equivalent to the Tories, seeing as the latter are now firmly into bonkers GOP culture war territory with all the bells & whistles (e.g. the “small boats invasion”; Jesus wept…).


 * Still, given how far into this ideological La La Land the Tories have moved and how disastrously they are faring in the polls, it seems odd that Sir Keir thinks that he has to move even slightly in that direction to appear “serious” and “ready for office”. But perhaps he is hoping to emulate Saint Blair to the extent that he is angling to get an endorsement from The Scum? ScepticWombat (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether that's even feasible for him to attain. Even when The Sun endorsed Blair, they qualified that they disagreed with his policies on minimum wage and devolution of powers. I don't see why Murdoch should favor Starmer over the current Tories? But who knows. Chillpilled (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Murdoch and his rag may support Starmer for the same reason they supported Blair (and Brexit, for that matter): To retain their influence on and access to power, particularly when the Tories seem hellbend on self immolation. Your point about the sort of “non endorsement endorsement” they gave Blair (and how quickly they swung back to the Tories, once the latter became viable again) is illustrative of how pointless and short sighted it is for any Labour leader to pander to them. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Transphobia section
FYI - I have excised a lot of the text from the Ten Pledges section on "Equality" and created a new section with it called "Transphobia". I don't think, given recent statements by Starmer, that this is anything but proportionate, or something that should solely be mentioned in the context of the pledges. MortgageBalls (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like the UnHerd crowd is still unhappy with him. One wonders whether they'll ever be happy with him.
 * Meantime, the Torygraph says: Keir Starmer backs rewriting equality law to ban trans people from same-sex spaces. Well, how about that. Little different than Rishi Sunak now? Chillpilled (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Starmer on migrants
In ye olde Tory Times of London. Also in Arab News, an English-language Saudi outlet. I'll quote from the Times.

An ally of Starmer said: "It's about showing that when Keir says he would strike a better deal than the Tories in government, he absolutely means it. We need to demonstrate that we are as keen as the government to stop the boats — the difference is competence."

Starmer has said he wants to "stop the boats, smash the gangs, sort out the returns and clean up the utter mess".

Lisa Nandy, the shadow levelling up secretary, declined to say whether Labour would keep the Rwanda deportation deal if it was in government because she did not think it was "real". She told the BBC: "I don't think we're ever going to be in the situation where we have to dismantle this because I don't think it's real, just like the barges that the home secretary promised this week that it turns out didn't exist.

Chillpilled (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Steamer’s latest folly
I heard the news about this tweet that Labour made saying that the Tories don’t want pedophiles to be locked up. I know the tweet has caused great controversy and is considered to be a dirty attack. But Dear Keir Stands by every word of it as he wrote in the daily snail]. Not only that Lord Peter Mandelson reckons he would have happily signed off on it himself. As labour can’t reply on right wing press. Speaking to the [[The Times|times radio https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-labour-attack-ads-sunak-b2321394.html?amp When spawn of the devil Mandelson likes your style, you know you’re in trouble. Yacob01 (talk) 12:10 21 April 2023 (AEST)
 * I'm fine with your edits and have just made a couple of tweaks for spelling and grammar. MortgageBalls (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)