Talk:Keir Starmer
|
This British politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Transphobia section[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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 mail|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 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)
Parts of the "Transphobia" section[edit]
While I agree that his approach to trans rights is stupid and questionable at best, there are parts of this article that were, through no fault of the author, based on misrepresented sections of what Keir Starmer actually said. If you want to criticise him, it's best to criticise him for what he actually said and not what he was alleged to have said. For example, in [1], while he says some dodgy things, he does not say anything close to the headline (and also says "But simply turning it into a toxic divide advances the cause of no one, the cause of women or those that don’t identify with the gender that they were born into.", which while fence-sitting and rather silly, hardly sounds like "hardcore TERF" as some people said to me. Although "99.9% don't have a penis" obviously makes me pause for thought...)
Mostly my concerns are over the parts that are sourced from the Telegraph, GB News, UnHerd and the Times, which have a history of completely making up bullshit and false claims (even with regards to the Tories) on this issue, such as when they wrote articles claiming LGBT+ charities would be banned and that the Tories were writing laws to "ban children from transitioning", which even Badenoch debunked (and, as nobody really believes anything she says for good reason, they then deleted the article). Also, it would be (in the interests of criticising him fairly) to talk about the "political football" stuff he keeps going on about, and then contrast that with his other statements.
Basically, I feel that this section is too much of an attack piece and not an actual *criticism* of his status on trans issues, which is deeply questionable. While it is my personal view that his statements are more inconsistent than clearly transphobic (and that it's more deliberate cynicism, as with everything else he says and does), I more generally think that the article would be better used against him if it was reworded to take in the full context of what was actually said and remove some of the claims that are based on what could be best described as "extremely biased" sources. (The fact he chose to interview there is another problem entirely.)
(Also, the "they decided to have only one doctor instead of self-ID" should be commented in light of the Guardian article and not what some GB News dude said) Starfrost! (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Any chance we could get Beergate onto the Bullshit and Lies section?[edit]
Great article, particularly on the evaluation of Starmer's 10 pledges which are a fairly obvious set of criteria to judge the direction of his leadership. One thing though, is that I feel the whole beergate controversy should probably be in this section given how much effort the Daily Mail but into this false equivocation with partygate