Talk:Keir Starmer/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 28 August 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

He would go further and outright suspend his predecessor the following month.

this is disingenuous. corbyn brought that upon his self AMassiveGay (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

How is that disingenuous? He was suspended. I did not say whether it was good or bad in the article, I just said that it happened. Did he bring it on himself? Perhaps. I thought adding my own judgement on it was going to cause more controversy than this whole matter is worth, so I just said he was suspended and left it to the reader to judge if that was a good move.-Flandres (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

as it stands it reads like it was act of partisanship of starmers part and not the result as self serving and partisan statement from corbyn absolving himself of any responsibility from a damning a report on antisemitism, refuting its findings, displaying all that was decried in the report. further his statement came after discussion with starmer, giving no indication of his statement, surprising him and who had officially accepted the findings of the report, and making it clear there would be no place in the labour party for anyone refusing to accept antisemitism was/is a problem within the labour party which is what corbyns statement essentially did. the report should a drawn a line under the whole affair, but corbyn preferred to stoke further discontent in the party.

feel free to follow the link above, i go into more detail there.

it should also be noted that starmer did not suspend corbyn, the nec (or NCC i forget which -labour party bureaucracy is confusing) did, and this as up held yesterday. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Sorry for the late reply, but I tried to use your criticism to improve my addition while still explaining why the more explicitly Leftist party members had such a problem with Starmer because of it.-Flandres (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

its a fair assessment. thanks AMassiveGay (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

labour factionalism and delusions

this is a rationalwiki article not a blog. only corbyns suspension is note worthy enough any detail. all this he said/she said has no substance, with either side blaming the other side for losing elections oblivious to anything actual voters were concerned with. i'd say its all six of one half a dozen of the other, and probably is but its the corbyn side that is the problem here. they are just fucking delusional, incapable of recognising where the fuck we are today, they have no clue how the fuck we got, and have no clue as to who 'we' - labour voters = might be. they think the tit for tat bullshit scoring zingers on johnson equals election victory. it didnt last time and wont this time. they the same tactics will end karmer and somehow everything thats happened in the last ten years will magically be reversed. it wont. this is how activists think. johnson flubs a line in pmqs and they are high fiving in the lobby. no policy has been changed, no effort to reach labour voters in the north who historically abandoned labour last election. no effort it seems to understand why the labour heartlands is currently tory. no recognising that that labour working class voters voted the tory party into power, the party of the elite and captains of industry. not labour, the party of the working class. cept its the party of londoncentric activists now who make the bulk of party membership who dont talk to labour voters. former labour voters. the labour voters stil labour are gaurdian reading london/south based and not traditionally described as working class. trad working class, in mill towns and mining communities in the north, the red wall, they vote tory now. labour is not run by nor voted for by the very people it is supposed to represent. labour does not know what labour is. it does not know what working class means today. labour activists in london live in an echo chamber, the westminister bubble. its the same thing that killed the remain campaign for cameron - hubris and ignoring the very people you need to vote for you. cameron and co spotted it to late. im not sure corbyn and friends are even aware of it to this day. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

and while johnson is an inept opportunist prick, if we take it as a given everything hes done thus far with covid is all appalling, all his fault, labour will lose the next election. period post brexit was unprecedented, labour thought they'd trounce the tories, they should have, but not what happened. the period we are in now is equally unprecedented. polls are not much good for anything right now. just complacence. labour activists think johnsons failings with covid are obvious and egregious and damning, but others wont. few will be able to point to any one mistake putting clear blue water between our response and elsewhere. many will hold off on judgements during these extraordinary times until the dust is settled, or some fantastically ill judged wrong move kills his premeirship. labour activists wont though. they'll still be high fiving in the lobby before the polls update after the vaccine business making boris look a head of the game. and with brexit still not done, its one up to us vs the eu, and the people who voted for brexit used to vote labour. they dont now though AMassiveGay (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

i note kwasi kwarteng has been given a cabinet position now. thats the full set of britannia unchained cunts in johnsons cabinet now. its these cunts and those like them, who think thatcher was a wet, that we should be worried about. soon brexit will make all their dreams true. the post war consensus has little time left to live. it will take the union with it, or the union will take the concensus with it. everyones been looking at the car crash of trump, but hes gone now. we stil hav brexit and we cant vote brexit away so simply. its been years and we still dont understand how much we have lost and will yet lose. the uk as a nation wont survive for much longer past this pandemic. without the scots, any semblance of the left would vanish from england and wales. they've effectively been absent for years already. this is what pains me so about corbyn all this could have been averted with more effort during the referendum, he made no effort. he was the leader of the opposition with tories a 4 year long own goal. somehing cold hav been done then to mitigate the worst of brexit, maybe reversed it, or simply reevaluate or something. anything to build on and move forward. but nope. and know here we are and hes gone but his pals still not understanding whats happened. still not helping. i could blame cameron or johnson or farage for all of brexit and beyond, ut they are tories. they did tory bullshit. its what they do. i didnt vote for those cunts i voted for a different cunt. turned out a different cunt is stil a cuntAMassiveGay (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

labour wont be swatting anyone away in 2024

not if we believe that its the vaccine that won it for boris this time, or that tory scandal or brexit or general incompetence from boris will hand labour a victory.

labour lost in the 2021 local elections because they failed to reconnect with red wall voters they lost in the 2019 general election, and they still do not know how to reconnect.

starmer's time at the helm has been entirely eclipsed by covid. covid and lockdowns have been the only show in town, and thats provided by tories. starmer and labour have effectively been sidelined, unable to make themselves heard, unable to convince voters outside large metropolitan areas labour is for them. unable to really say just who labour is for.

make no mistake, covid killed any chance of labour gains in the local elections, but they would have still struggled to win back lost voters. too little time has passed since 2019 general election for the necessary dialogue with the electorate, or create policies with appeal outside of big city centres.

labour needs to find out who they are and what they stand for. and they need make sure every knows what that is. i fear 2024 might be too soon. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Dude, please just get a blog.... --Invare (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

or you could just fuck offAMassiveGay (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

lol ok --Invare (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

honestly, just fuck off you petty little prick AMassiveGay (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't very nice, @AMassiveGay. However, @Invare, questioning other's posts is a little risky here. This isn't a safespace so be careful or you will expect these insults/ --Andrew5 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

1. this was months ago

2. this was responding to pissy edit comments and nminor edit warring AMassiveGay (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

and 3. the pissy comments here warrant the reply i gave AMassiveGay (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

this exchange was freaking epic Invare (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Transphobe?

"In September 2021, after over a year of ignoring Labour MP Rosie Duffield's transphobia, Starmer went mask-off and advocated excluding trans women from some "women-only spaces"."

Shouldn't he be placed under the category "Transphobia", aswell? 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:E0DB:B5B4:E1C8:5A8B (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Good observation. I added the category. LongStylus (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Which Jewish Labour member did Keir Punish for defending Corbyn.

I Was hoping someone would put a citation for which Jewish Labour party member stood up for Corbyn. I would love to know. The closest I could find was this YouTube clip from 2020 https://www.youtube.com/user/NovaraMedia/about. Yacob01 (User talk:Yacob01|talk]])

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi? Seems she got suspended again the other day: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/naomi-wimborne-idrissi-suspended-by-labour-again-over-banned-organisation-speech/ Mr Larrington (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Centrist Stupidity?

I know I have edited this into the page before, and it was turned down so I thought. I would put it to debate this time. I personally think Starmer Definitely fits into this category like a glove. Given his actions and listening to Blair's advice. --Yacob01 (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)-

Maybe the person who reverted your edit (AMassiveGay) just had a fundamental disagreement with the category itself rather than disputing your arguments themselves. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

this artcle is nothing short of a hit piece

i will be editing significantly shortly AMassiveGay (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

latest piece from the guardian

Found this piece on starmer in the guardian. By a guy called Matthew Goodwin, Same old crap that labour is too focused on elite university students on Twitter and that most of the working class are a silent majority that oppose things in culture wars like trans rights, discussions about the colonial legacy of the monarchy all that red bait bullshit while saying that the the Democratic Party are losing for dismissing working trump supporters as racist.

I Checked his page on the other wiki and he’s a member of eugenics supporter tony young’s free speech union. So that tells you all you need to know . Here’s the link: https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/27/labour-lose-election-three-hurdles-working-class-immigration Yacob01 (talk)

the article in many respects is essentially true, unless you blinkered to realise it.

i read an apt quote that encapsulates the situation in a different article (a will hutton article, also frtom the guardian - 'the disease of left-wingism...absurd exhibitions of self-righteous sectarianism'

and why are you posting here? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

and sign your posts AMassiveGay (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry mate. Made the adjustments now. To answer your question, I posted this here because I wanted to vent. I’m not happy about Keir pushing Labour back to the middle. But it has worked before so I can accept it. What really gets my goat is that he won’t stand by transgender people. That’s why I dislike him. Yacob01 (talk) 14:43 28 March 2023(AEST)

Another thing, i actually did read that other article a few hours after it was published. Yacob01 (talk) 14:50 28 March 2023 (AEST)

the whole trans thing is disingenuous nonsense. everything 'anti-trans' thing in this article either misleading or outright false. gonna be editing today. promise. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay I have been following Keir's anti trans crud for a while. I don't think It's False or misleading. I think there are plenty of points where Starmer shows either his bigotry to them or his endorsing of Tony Blair's Bigotry toward trans people. I can make a list of times like that.

1) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/23/labour-must-discuss-gender-with-respect-says-keir-starmer

2) https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/11/02/keir-starmers-mumsnet-interview-trans/

3) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tony-blair-keir-starmer-is-a-work-in-progress-dk3hnpmv6

4) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-labour-piers-morgan-b1857735.html(In this one Keir said he was listening to an article where Blair said Labour would never regain power if it didn't support J.K. Rowling.

5) https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/11/25/keir-starmer-trans-rights-jk-rowling-respect/

6) https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/01/16/lgbt-labour-transphobia-definition-keir-starmer/

I could go on, but I think I've made my case. Yacob01 (talk) 9:09 29 March 2023 (AEST)

made start

i have much more planned to get to this article to even a remotely fair assessment of him.

i am in two minds about the 10 pledges though there is much factually wrong contained, much twisting of and omitting of key events that i plan to go line by through it all. i am in two minds though because the 10 pledges is far far too long, giving far far too much weight, and is by and large almost entirely opinion. i have a mind to delete the whole section. we shall see. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This is ludicrous, to be frank. I reverted your edit to the preamble, which was to remove this section: "As of now, he is now largely favoured by the party's centre-right faction, with many of the "soft left" who voted for him coming away embittered. The harder left, meanwhile, never trusted or liked him in the first place." I don't see how this is a controversial or unfair statement, the only reason that I think you don't want it there is because you think it makes Starmer look bad or don't agree with it - that you don't agree with it is irrelevant. Similarly, with the "Ten Pledges" section, I took great pains to factually source every statement in it. If you have any actual factual issues with this then you should discuss them on this talk page and we can work to correct them, but as it is again your only material objection here seems to be that you don't agree with it or think it makes Starmer look bad. But it should also be noted, RationalWiki is not required to have a neutral point of view in the same way that Wikipedia does, and if (as is the case) the preponderance of evidence shows that Starmer has reversed course on, dropped or simply ceased to mention his pledges after becoming leader, this is a fair thing to mention and criticise him for. MortgageBalls (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

To be clear - your idea of "a fair assessment of him", based on these already early edits, seems to be one in which nobody disagrees with him, he's never lied or not told the truth, he's never changed his mind about anything and he's done nothing wrong ever. That's ridiculous. Any attempt to completely remove the Ten Pledges section, or compromise its accuracy by you removing things that you simply don't like or agree with, I will revert immediately. MortgageBalls (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

the 10 pledges section is almost entirely opinion. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It's based on cited sources, and those sources show that he has reversed many of his pledges and undermined others. Per wiki policy if you're planning to make large, controversial edits to articles you need to talk about them here first, not just decide that you don't like things criticising someone you like (again, on verifiable factual grounds) and want them gone because they're "opinion". MortgageBalls (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

i am trying for accurateAMassiveGay (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Accurate will necessarily involve things you don't agree with or mention of criticism from people you don't like. Omitting mention of Starmer's many broken pledges would make the article inaccurate, not accurate, since it would then fail to mention pertinent information about him i.e. that he ran for leadership citing a certain set of beliefs, principles and specific policies, and has now deviated from them. MortgageBalls (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

its not all sourced. its not good enough if its supoported elsewhere in the article, its not supported there. sources if you have you have them.

'dont like someome criticising someone you like' oh that is rich. you dont like anything at all positive all with the disingenuous analysis AMassiveGay (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Point out anything that you think is inaccurate or untrue and we can discuss it and come to a consensus, but right now all you have is generalised criticism saying "it's opinion" and "it's disingenuous" without talking about any matters of substance. MortgageBalls (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

of what was reverted, although that is correctv is the hard left do not like him. cennre right? bullshit. this kind of analysis is fascile AMassiveGay (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Starmer is supported primarily by the centre-right faction of the Labour party, and his main factional supporters in terms of groups are groups such as Labour To Win and Labour First who are on the right of the Labour party. This is also factual and not particularly controversial so not sure why you want it removed other than that you don't like it. MortgageBalls (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

they are on the right of the labour party. they are not centre right.

its rich that you say i dont like any criticism of someone i like you when clearly you clearly dont like anything positive about about someone you dont like. play the ball not the man. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that you're not proposing to add anything positive, what you're suggesting is taking away things that are negative. There's a clear difference there that you don't seem to get. MortgageBalls (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

A fair assessment isn't equal to a "neutral point of view" assessment in the Wikipedia style, to my mind, but rather considering all known facts. Indeed RW shouldn't be trying to mimic Wikipedia in that regard. But I've seen how far-leftists will go harder on Biden than necessary (leaving out certain known facts, not so willing to seek them out and give a 'fair assessment') and am willing to consider this may be the case for Starmer as well in some regards, though my prejudice is that it's less true (my impression is the guy is the ultimate archetypal centrist politician). I was a little put off by the suggestion that the entire ten pledges section should be bulldozed; it seems like a fine framework to analyze his political record from, though maybe incomplete and an extra sub-section might be added for miscellaneous issues not touched on there (or does that go here?). The work put into this section tells me this page wasn't written as just a "hit piece".

A side note, I'm just a mere American with a moderate interest in UK politics due to some distant connections with the country, so I'm not engulfed in your day-to-day news such as to be on the level of a British political-junkie. Chillpilled (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting - I think your instinct here is right with regards to being cautious about people going overly hard on centrist politicians a la Biden (for the record I'm nowhere near far left and tend to identify as a social democrat, and have a mixed to positive opinion of Biden). I did consider adding a section about other issues that weren't mentioned in the ten pledges (and think this also would be fair to include) however the only reason I've not done so is to precisely avoid making judgments based on either a) vibes (e.g. "I thought he'd be X but he's actually Y" when X wasn't really supported by much or something he'd promised or b) Starmer simply not matching up to my own personal politics. The pledges are an excellent start to assess his leadership and where it is headed, because it's both something that he gets asked about and criticised for regularly (from both left and right, albeit in the latter case for more cynical reasons), is probably the most coherent evidence of what he presented himself as during the leadership contest, and is something that there is documentary evidence of.

I also did include (and mostly write) the "Bullshit and lies" section specifically because there are some things where Starmer has got an unfair rap (especially in the case of the thing about the riots, which is something that comes from the left but is just nonsensical on its face and directly contradicted by his own words). I think the drive to remove the ten pledges section entirely (and as with another recent revert by AMassiveGay, discussed below) seems to hint at an idea of completely removing mention of criticism of Starmer rather than provide a balanced view of it, which simply doesn't make for balance, it makes for a portrayal where Starmer's always been right, has never lied and has never done anything anyone could have a legitimate grievance with.

I am fine with Starmer being given credit for things that he has done right or for honouring his promises. I am not fine with any criticism of him being removed or sought to be buried in essay space (as per another suggestion by AMG) purely to present a one-sided view. MortgageBalls (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

RationalWiki isn't Wikipedia. There is no need to follow NPOV. Articles on politicians often seem to contain a fair amount of critical material (compare Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau). That makes sense given that skepticism and debunking dubious claims is a core part of RW's mission. I think the "ten pledges" thing is just a framework for analysing Starmer's record. If said record looks bad on paper, that's probably because it is bad. Having broken campaign pledges isn't exceptional. Most politicians don't deliver on everything they promise. That's the nature of politics. But some failures warrant greater scrutiny and sharper criticism. Like Chillpilled, I'm not from the UK. But I've built up a certain familiarity with UK politics due to how the UK has become a focal point of the anti-trans movement. Starmer's spineless heel-turn on GRA reform? YIKES. Nope Rocket (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

this is nom excuse for a hideously biased hit piece AMassiveGay (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I will repeat that you have not made any criticisms of substance, bar one, which I have already agreed with you on and incorporated changes you have raised. If you feel it's really such a "hideously biased hit piece" (despite being supported by citations and the preponderance of evidence) but you can't actually make any coherent suggestions to reach consensus on fixing that problem, then that feels more like your perception is the problem rather than the article. MortgageBalls (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I will also note you are fine with - and indeed appear to have added - statements critical of the previous leadership even when these aren't relevant or are themselves debatable. I really have no interest either way on this (Corbyn is a busted flush at best) but it does highlight that your goal here does not appear to be a sincere portrayal of the neutral truth but instead that you have an axe to grind. MortgageBalls (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

A weird reverse clock smash for Starmer, who at the same time opposes the death penalty to the very end.

this is outright bullshit. the mps were sacked from the shadow cabinet because of collective cabinet responsibility - a no brainer for a party trying to present itself as a government in waiting. the mps voted against the bill on the 2nd reading. ignoring the cross bench efforts by john healy and david davis in the committee stage to make the bill fit for purpose to provide legal protections for british troops abroad instead of throwing them to wolves while the government looks after its own arse, and efforts to appeal to servicemen, who tend to favour the tories at the polls. their performative outrage jeopardised this, when they could have waited until the third reading to see if healy and davis's work had succeeded. it did not and labour voted against the bill. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fair to mention but I also do think it's fair to include that the disciplinary move was because of breaking of cabinet collective responsibility and the stated rationale for voting for. I'll reinsert but edit to reflect this. MortgageBalls (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This entire articles reeks of bile written by someone who's pissed because Corbyn is not leading the Labour Party anymore. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The main trouble with Starmer is that he's got the charisma of a paving slab.Scream!! (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Realistically personal opinions of Starmer don't really matter here. I don't think it has any bearing on anything related to this. His lack of charisma or whether he's better or worse than Corbyn is completely irrelevant to any (perceived) issues of the article, which as written I think is factual and the conclusions it draws both fair and in line with those afforded to other politicians on RationalWiki. MortgageBalls (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

thats still more charisma than corbyn ever had.

the whole ten pledges section needs to go. it is more suited to essay space, not main space. who can one edit (wrong)opinion without inserting own opinion? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You only say that because it makes Starmer look bad. RationalWiki has plenty of sections (e.g. for Joe Biden) detailing campaign promises and whether these are being honoured. The ten pledges section is of a piece with that. MortgageBalls (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

fine i will just edit it to death then. if we can have your opinion, we can have mine. and i will defend every edit here. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"Edit it to death" really strongly implies you're not editing in good faith and you really do just want to bury criticism. Again, I will resist and revert any attempt to do so where you do not even try to find some kind of consensus first. MortgageBalls (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you can't fight here, this is the NCC! The ten pledges are pretty blatantly obviously relevant to Starmer, there's no way it isn't IMO. He lied his arse off and treats it as a checklist of promises to break. I still keep the ten pledges leaflet here as a souvenir - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

its only an issue for labour activists and true believers. voters dont give two shits AMassiveGay (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That's as may be (although I'd quibble to what extent "voters" and "Labour activists and true believers" do not at least overlap somewhat), but the mission for RationalWiki is not "write stuff that's relevant specifically to voters in British general elections, and absolutely nothing else". MortgageBalls (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Social justice

‘Since he was elected leader, Starmer has not even brought up the "National Goal for Wellbeing" or preventative services, so we can assume he has (1) killed them, (2) let others kill them, or (3) let them die.’

This is false. See [1] this is not leting it die.

'Wes Streeting, has a nasty habit of popping up to tell everyone that he wants to bring more private provision into the NHS'

Disingenuous. There is a shortage of beds. Private hospita;ls have beds. This is pragmatism to deal with a very problem. This is not a long term solution, but in the short term, whats the problem here?

'going on to attack doctors and doctors' unions'

No, he responded to criticism from the bma. Actual quote ‘I am treated like some sort of heretic by the BMA – who seem to think any criticism of patient access to primary care is somehow an attack on GPs’

'While there have been commitments to keeping the NHS universal and free at point of use, it's difficult to see how any of this can be construed as "defending the NHS" given it seems to be deliberately picking a fight with doctors and the health service.'

Mere opinion. The link to MIND shows policy is still being worked on. As with all of these pledges, there is still 2 years for before the next general election. Then will be the time to assess any pledges made.

more tomorrow. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

As expressly promised, I have reverted this edit because rather than make things "balanced", all you have done is change it to make excuses for Starmer clearly breaking pledges ("It's the Tories' fault", in one case) or justify Starmer breaking the pledges ("It's actually good that Starmer wants to do X rather than the Y he promised") and then watered down the conclusion to a weak "some pledges have been reneged" on. You also didn't discuss on the talk page first.

On your specific points:

1. Your source doesn't talk about a National Goal for Wellbeing or preventative services at all;

2. It literally doesn't matter about the merits of Starmer breaking his pledges, the problem is Starmer breaking his pledges, that's what the section is about, his pledges and whether he is keeping them or not. Similarly I'm not having any kind of argument with you on the merits of whether Starmer breaking his pledges is good, because that's not the issue here and it seems to be what you want the section to be about;

3. He was attacking the BMA and the doctor's unions per the source on the page;

4. Someone who talks about wanting to outsource care and spends their time arguing with doctor's unions is not meaningfully "defending the NHS" in any real sense.

5. We do not need to wait for a general election if Starmer is dropping his pledges now. Naturally if he then magically keeps them in government, the page can be reassessed, but right now he is breaking them.

"More tomorrow" will just get reverted again if you don't try and get consensus first and/or you try to simply whitewash the article like you did with this first salvo. MortgageBalls (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

1. doesnt talk about a nataonal goal specifically, but so what? that really is a joke. '- Putting an open access mental health hub for children and young people in every community, providing early intervention, drop-in services' its one piece of the puzzle. the statement was bullshit

2. 'literally doesnt matter about the merits starmer breakiong his pledges?' why, so you can take a dig at him? the merits absolutely matter. i provided context n what you wasnt to nail him to wall with.

3. i stated what happened neutrally. can the reader not make up their own mind? do they need to be tolod how to interpret what actually happened? or is it just your opinion you like?

4. perhaps you are unaware of the problems of the nhs actually faces. a pragmatic solution to a shortage of bed is not the same as simply outsourcing care and in the short term, ie until more hospitals can be built, what do you do? let patients suffer because you cant stand starmer?

5. yeh we do. policy iks constantly being developed and it makes not to reveal all too early so tories can still the best policies. its two year still the next election and two weeks is a hell of a long time in politics. we cannot make these assumption so early.

6. about blaming the tories - the one instance i blamed the tories is the one instance that also blames brexit, ukraine, and covid. why not blame blamnne tories for their handling of these things?

yes there will be more today. its not even as if i whitewashed starmer. i gave context and i removed patently false statements.

did you get consensus for adding this nonsense? thats not quite how it works. and your coop case btw is spurious dogshit. your stock in trade it seems. do one. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

i can and will do this for every part of the ten pledges section AMassiveGay (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

1. If he's not talking about a National Goal for Wellbeing, which was one of his pledges, he's broken the pledge.

2. Because "has Keir Starmer broken his promises" is a separate question from "is it a good thing if Keir Starmer has broken his promises".

3. No you didn't, you skewed it to make out as if Streeting was the victim.

4. This is you arguing that it's good if Starmer breaks his pledges again, it's not you arguing that Starmer didn't break his pledge.

5. No, we don't. That's ludicrous.

6. You're missing the context that Starmer himself blamed COVID and Ukraine (as is represented in the article), whereas you are the one that interjected to also say "well it's the Tories' fault", thus defending Starmer for breaking a pledge.

Again, any more bad faith edits like this will be reverted on sight as noted. So far all you've done is try and whitewash the page so it presents Starmer as, at worst, a victim of others' wrongdoing. MortgageBalls (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

i say yeh you nah. thats all your argument is. this is ridiculous. you keep going on about bad faith. that is out right bullshit. so is this 'whitewashing' bullshit. why should i have to debate this with someone who is constantly slandering me? hows the coop case going?AMassiveGay (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

i repeat the the 10 pledges sections is nothing but biased opinion based on distorting the facts. the whole thing should be deleted. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not "I say yes, you say no", though, is it? You're simply wrong on many points.

I'm talking about bad faith because you are acting in bad faith. I'm talking about whitewashing because you are whitewashing. There is literally nothing you've proposed so far which doesn't come from an angle of wanting to bury anything that makes a political candidate you support look bad, while also insulting people you don't agree with. Meanwhile I've accepted reasonable amendments that you've proposed and actually altered the article just today to add a couple of points in fairness to Starmer.

You're transparently not interested in seeking consensus, you just want to hack the article apart to reflect your own support for Starmer and disdain for people who don't, as evidenced by the fact that you keep returning to the idea of deleting an entire, sourced, factual section because you can't adequately spin it the way you would like to. I've made my argument perfectly plain, and the reason this was taken to coop was in an effort to try and gain some reasonable consensus on the article that you are unwilling to try and reach while also keeping it as factual, accurate and not simply a hagiography/defence of Starmer.

Frankly - shit or get off the pot. Delete the entire section and I'll revert it to put it back. Try and do another bad faith edit where you try and slant it like you did with the social justice bit and I'll revert it. If you can try and make reasonable, factual arguments against things you want to change on this talk page, as I have now requested numerous times, then we can work together to try and incorporate them. This "no, hate it, hack it to pieces, edit it to death" approach that you're taking is just something I'm going to resist firmly. MortgageBalls (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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 AMassiveGay (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

1. If he's not talking about a National Goal for Wellbeing, which was one of his pledges, he's broken the pledge.

i clearly showed policy but was doing that just this. you are full of shit.

2. Because "has Keir Starmer broken his promises" is a separate question from "is it a good thing if Keir Starmer has broken his promises".

you dont even wont an explanation of just 'how' he might havve broken preomises. what i am surmise from that thasn you dont want anythging to get in a way of spurious attacks on starmer.

3. No you didn't, you skewed it to make out as if Streeting was the victim.

i said he responded to criticism from the bma. how is that making him out to be the victim? you are full of shit. that is literally what happened. tghats what the linked article described. but nope, to you hes 'picking fights'. i note you neglect to say just what hes 'picking fights' over. worried peoiple migyt side with him?

4. This is you arguing that it's good if Starmer breaks his pledges again, it's not you arguing that Starmer didn't break his pledge.

agsain this is you not addressing how pledges have been broken or why. heaven forbid people might agree starmer if they saw the context

5. No, we don't. That's ludicrous.

but of course that would be silly. if we waited he might actually address these things - couldnt have that now can we. we must damn him now while we have the chance.

6. You're missing the context that Starmer himself blamed COVID and Ukraine (as is represented in the article), whereas you are the one that interjected to also say "well it's the Tories' fault", thus defending Starmer for breaking a pledge.

only a fool or true believer cannot see brexit and covid and the war in ukraine represent extenuating circumstances. only a fool or true be;liever doesnt want want face the reality of the challenges facing country because starmer is a stinker and we must leety the whole world know it. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Policy != National Goal for Wellbeing

2. If he's broken promises he's broken promises, his stated reasons for breaking those promises are included in the article, you seem to want the article to say that it's good that he broke the promises

3. That is making him out to be the victim

4. See point 2

5. The idea that we should have to wait for Starmer to become PM to point out that the things he is saying and doing now contradict what he said he would do when running for leader is idiotic

6. See point 2

Make coherent suggestions we can work with or stop with this crap. My responses won't change. You rather showed your hand a bit by saying "the 10 pledges are of no interest to anyone but true believers salty that corbyn was ousted" - it really isn't about anything for you but denying that the dumb lefties might actually dislike Starmer for rational reasons. MortgageBalls (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

AMassiveGay thinks he isn't whitewashing the article, but frankly it's functionally indistinguishable. I suggest he step back from the role of gatekeeper here - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

fine, have it your way. the article is a disgrace as it stands AMassiveGay (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

and my edits in no whitewashed anything. that is flat out bullshitAMassiveGay (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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 [2] 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. GeeJayK^{Where 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 @Spud or @David Gerard 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)