Talk:Keir Starmer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Family life

I don't agree that to mention his relatives is "irrelevant and intrusive." An article on, for example, George W. Bush would say that he is married with two daughters. Also this information is already in the public domain, since it was published in the newspapers. Richard75 (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

References

All of the sentences which have got cite tags after them are derived from the sources listed under the heading "References" at the bottom of the article. Richard75 (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Omari Roberts

More should be mentioned about the above case, and his other 'poor' decisions, under a controversies subheading. refer to: 'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223342/Man-stabbed-death-burglar-ransacking-mothers-house-charged-murder.html' 'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4990760/Man-stabs-to-death-teenage-boy-trying-to-burgle-his-house.html' For more information on a case which deserves better mention. Also relating to his awful work in relation to a (rightful) change in the law by David Cameron. (and future mistakes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.119.239 (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The article currently says: "Starmer was involved[7] in the decision to prosecute Omari Roberts, a trainee builder who killed a teenage burglar in a struggle at Roberts's mother's home.[8]"

This is an appalling libel. It says Roberts killed the burglar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.216.150 (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Twitter Joke Trial

I would imagine that this [1] will be added sooner or later by an IP. "Crown Prosecution Service lawyers had been prepared to back away from one of the most controversial cases in years, telling Chambers that they no longer saw a public interest in opposing his appeal against conviction. Chambers had said he felt "immense relief" that the prosecution – which had seen him lose two jobs and gain a criminal record – appeared to be over and that the authorities seemed ready to restore his good name.

The CPS even sent Chambers and his solicitor, free-speech campaigner David Allen Green, papers stating that it now agreed that the case should end. However, at the last minute the DPP, former human rights lawyer Keir Starmer, overruled his subordinates." almost-instinct 12:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.216.150 (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Common Purpose Trainee?

Was Keir Starmer one of the CPS employees who underwent the peculiar 'Common Purpose' training in 2009 - their ranks are listed in this FOI Act request, but they were not named...https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/common_purpose_courses_costs 79.74.96.160 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)ChurchillInsurance79.74.96.160 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

11-plus examination "passed"

The 11-plus examination is a streaming tool. As such it cannot be "passed" as stated in section "Early life". See the Wikipedia article on the examination 94.197.121.105 (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC) --- That's funny. I "passed" it! 91.125.210.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You can pass it: when you pass, you can get into a grammar school, but some schools ask for pupils with a higher score, above the council set pass mark. Lbc07 (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Keir Starmer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140101194427/https://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/90506/keir_starmer_victims_law_a_real_gear_change_to_justice_system.html to https://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/90506/keir_starmer_victims_law_a_real_gear_change_to_justice_system.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

"Brexit Secretary" Vs Shadow Cabinet

I made an edit to change the Title of the section from "Brexit Secretary" to Shadow Cabinet which has since been reversed. I wanted to highlight my reasons for doing so and for reversion. I will note in my reversion note that this has been brought to the talk page.

1. There is no such things as "Brexit Secretary", this is not the official job title, it is invented by the media, we should not be using it in this way. In this instance using the term "Brexit Secretary" as a heading we are directly undermining Wikipedia's function as an encyclopedia.

2. As this is Keir's first position within the Shadow Cabinet, I have just named the section "Shadow Cabinet" as the job title is in the main body of the text for that section and is linked. "Shadow Cabinet" is a regularly used and therefore uncontroversial name for this section of a politicians Wikipedia page.

3. I do realise that a number of people seem to love portmanteau's but we need to avoid unnecessary/excessive use of the word "Brexit", especially in place of official names and terminology; Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia after-all, not a tabloid or some sort of News Outlet. I am not saying the term "Brexit" has no place on Wikipedia; I am saying we should not excessively use the word and certainly not in place of things with an official name.

4. I have also made a subtle change to the wording regarding the Single Market to make it more encyclopedic and less factually controversial. The previous wording implied that the Single Market is separate from that of political union (the phrase used was "as well as"); when in fact the Single Market is a component of EU membership. It is true to say that there are non-EU members that participate in the single market and also those that enjoy tarrif free, unrestricted (or near full) access to it but that doesn't change the fact that it is a policy of the European Union and that the EU's institutions that are it's governing body. I have therefore changed the phrase "as well as" to "and not just" as this is less factually controversial. "and not just" neither implies that the single market is seperate from political union or that they are one and the same thing; therefore it is a less controversial way of putting it.

Thank you 118.148.203.133 (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

IP 118.148.203.133: By now Starmer and most other people will have noticed that "Brexit" has been adopted in the official title of a Department and its Secretary of State, and has thus literally become "officially" part of the language, and can in a suitable context be used in a contracted form such as "Brexit Secretary", but, agreed, not in the heading you have revised . Qexigator (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

To my knowledge there is no such thing as "Secretary of State for Brexit". There is, however, a Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union... LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A local newspaper in his constituency

How is the Hampstead and Highgate Express a local newspaper in the constituency of Holborn and Kings Cross? Hampstead and Highgate are wealthy, leafy suburbs; Holborn and Kings Cross is on the edge of the City of London, is one of the most built-up places in the country, and has a lot of poverty.

I propose to delete this misleading phrase. Perhaps the Hampstead and Highgate Express is local to where he lives, and not to his constituency? Ah - the Ham and High article to which that statement appears to be cited says he lives in Kentish Town - about halfway between Camden and Hampstead, and far from Kings Cross or Holborn. The citation doesn't support the claim that the Ham and High is "local" to Starmer's constituency.

[Edit]: it seems that Highgate is within his constituency (so is Kentish Town, where he lives). Holborn and Kings Cross is a long, thin north-south constituency, and some parts of Highgate are not very affluent. I will not delete. But I still don't think it's sensible to refer to the Ham and High as a "local" paper for this predominantly impoverished constituency.

MrDemeanour (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I've struck the whole passage. It's not important to include a quote about that, it's perfectly clear in a single sentence that he prefers not to use the title. Ralbegen (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Protection?

This 'millionaire' thing is getting a bit daft now. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - there's definitely a concerted effort to disrupt this article and there's no doubt it's politically motivated. The article should be protected. The frequent disruptive edits regarding the 'millionaire' status are being picked up and reported on outside of wikipedia... TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I also support protecting the article, at least until the leadership election is over. Bellowhead678 (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I've just made it autoconfirmed for a month, on the basis of disruption of a prominent BLP. (I've edited the article myself, though only to remove deprecated sources that shouldn't be on a BLP at all.) If anyone strongly disagrees, or an admin wants to change this, by all means go for it - David Gerard (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I should probably note I have family members who are Labour Party members, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

As at 20.18 on 1st November, the official Labour Party website here still shows him as Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. We should not change that unless and until it is officially changed by the Labour Party - irrespective of the fact that the Government department itself has reportedly been abolished. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

PS: See this - "The Shadow Cabinet is the team of senior spokespeople chosen by the Leader of the Opposition to mirror the Cabinet in Government. Each member of the shadow cabinet is appointed to lead on a specific policy area for their party and to question and challenge their counterpart in the Cabinet. ...". As of today, Starmer is still the person " appointed to lead on a specific policy area for their party", and presumably the title of his position will be updated at some point. But, it hasn't happened yet and we should not make unsourced presumptions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

PPS: Also here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This article from the Guardian published yesterday (Feb 4, 2020) calls Starmer the "The shadow Brexit secretary". So please stop removing the title until it is reflected in reliable, third party sources. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

'Sir' in the infobox

The previous status quo was that the infobox included "The Right Honourable" as a prefix, "Sir Keir Starmer" as a name, and "KCB QC MP" as a suffix. I moved "Sir" to the prefixes in this edit, because Sir is a prefix, not a name. His common name, as the article title, is also Keir Starmer rather than Sir Keir Starmer. An IP changed it back (and messed up the whitespace a bit) in this edit with edit summary "it was wrong", which I reverted because I didn't feel that the IP had really made a case. Now @Manandro: has restored the version with Sir as name rather than prefix in this edit. Rather than edit-war I thought I'd bring it up here for discussion and (hopefully) consensus. There's inconsistency in how other articles do this, but I think "Sir" or "Dame" is most appropriately listed as a prefix. It's also an example for the same parameter in Template:Infobox military person, for instance. Ralbegen (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi JLo-Watson, you've reverted me as well. Please see my above comment—there's no consistency in how Wikipedia articles display the title "Sir", with featured articles going both ways, but it is a prefix. It should go in the prefix box. Ralbegen (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this matter, but common sense would seem to dictate that, as Ralbegen says, Sir is a prefix and NOT a name. His name does not change to Sir Keir Starmer, just as it wouldn't change to Mister Keir Starmer if he lost the knighthood. In any case let's get consensus before continuing to make this edit. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

In fact, a person's name does change when they are given a knighthood. Mr John Smith's legal name is just "John Smith" (no "Mr"), but Sir John Smith's legal name is "Sir John Smith". He would be named as such in any official document. Proteus (Talk) 10:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, this seems convincing. I did a bit of research and found this [2] and this [3] which would indeed imply that for official purposes, noble and knighthood titles become part of your official name. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Across Wikipedia the norm for infobox officeholder is to put Sir and Dame in the name field and not in the prefix field. In polite conversation you would address or refer to him "Sir Keir" but you wouldn't call him "The Right Honourable" each time nor list his post-nominals. The "sir" becomes part of the name in a way that other salutations generally don't.

Thank for your input Robin S. Taylor. As mentioned by Ralbegen, there is actually no convention for how Sir is presented in infoboxes across Wikipedia. See: Elton John, David Attenborough, Paul McCartney, Sean Connery, Patrick Stewart, Salman Rushdie, Alfred Hitchcock, Kingsley Amis, Arthur Conan Doyle, Andy Murray and others for high-profile examples. How one addresses others in "polite conversation" is not the definition of what is a name, nor is it some kind of qualifier for what is or isn't a prefix. Surely you'd agree? TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The convention for politicians is that "Sir" goes with the name rather than as a prefix. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The subject's job doesn't affect what their name is, and Keir Starmer's name is 'Keir Starmer'. Ralbegen (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ralbegen JamesVilla44 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. "Sir" becomes part of a person's name and is very different from "The Right Honourable". His name is "Sir Keir Starmer". Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2020

Change paragraph 1 to say leader of Labour Party the information about him being the shadow Brexit Secretary is very out of date 92.238.122.171 (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Goldsztajn (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Additional information on 5 April 2020

Request additional ingormation be added for Kier Stamer position as CPS as follows: In October 2012 it was announced that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would investigate why proceedings against Savile in 2009 were dropped.

}} 92.19.57.13 (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Private wealth

Starmer's private wealth (or lack of it) is clearly going to be a factor if he stands in the the 2019 Labour leadership election, if he stands.

So what is he worth and what are the references?

JASpencer (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This article in the Telegraph is about the deletion of 'millionaire' in this article, but doesn't have anything to say he is beyond saying "Meanwhile Sir Keir’s family home in Kentish Town, North London, is worth an estimated £1.8 million. Mr Starmer and his wife Victoria bought the house for £650,000 in 2004."

There is also an article in The Sun stating that he is a multi millionaire, here. "Sir Keir, the multi-millionaire human rights QC now posing as a working-class boy." are words taken from "The Sun says" which appear on the page I've linked. The claim in The Sun is not substantiated and I'm not sure that The Sun is seen as being an RS. However, it's perhaps arguable that the allegations are worthy of mention. Boscaswell talk 11:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm doubtful if it is something worth keeping. Having a house worth over a million in London isn't anything particularly noteworthy nowadays, it's just the way it is in London. The Sun even tried to suggest that Jeremy Corbyn's house in Islington is worth close to a million [4]. Over 3.6 million households in Britain had wealth of more than £1m in 2016 [5], and one in five of over-65s are millionaires in 2019 [6]. Being a millionaire is no longer anything special, and adding it to the article would smack of trying to skew the narrative of a biography playing on an outdated notion of a millionaire being someone who has extraordinary wealth, which is no longer true. Would you add millionaire to the Jeremy Corbyn article? Hzh (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

And yet you lefties use the wealth of Conservative MPs as a rod to beat their backs. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.77.160 (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

agree with the above89.207.1.20 (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

When you start adding 'Millionaire' to all the Conservative MPs pages, then what is good for the goose will be good for the gander. Otherwise, leave your petty tribalism out of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.197.33 (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

[7] Also in the Evening Standard, a number of pages are running with the story that his Wikipedia page has been edited ahead of a leadership bid. However, [8], it appears to have only been added on 18/12 according to Wikiblame [9]. It seems like this is wikipedia being used as a smear - an invented story. WCM_email 12:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of other articles on Wikipedia, stating the wealth of politicians. Donald Trump being an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.72.73 (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump's net worth is 3000 times more than Starmer, so that is totally a different story. 2A02:C7D:A39D:F300:D414:7B62:2309:E326 (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The Sun is not a reliable source. An estimation of the value of a house doesn't tell us much: your house can be worth lots, but if you've got a large mortgage on it, you're not a millionaire. Nor do we know whose name the house is in: his, his wife's, both? The Telegraph article is complete mountain out of molehill stuff. Nothing to see here, I suggest. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You are trying a bit too hard here. The Land Registry is public and contains details of mortgages etc.

Starmer's Party is all about taxing so called "unearned windfalls" for other people; it is entirely reasonable that they be held to account for how their own unearned windfalls fit in with their values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.60.80 (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh come off it. Wikipedia is not the place for politicking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.3.47 (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Early activism and political activities

Thought it would be worth recommending a suggestion for a heading on Keir Starmer's early involvment in Labour youth movements. What do others think?

He was a founding member of the East Surrey Young Socialists (the youth wing of the constituency labour party) in his teens and later established and joined a local branch of the LPYS. In his twenties he was also a member of the Editorial Collective for the magazine Socialist Alternatives wherein he interviewed Tony Benn (at his house) and Hilary Wainwright as well as wrote an article entitled Wapping - Beyond a Defeat.

References

Title Description

The Title Description for Keir Starmer should say “Leader of the UK Labour Party” since he leads the Labour Party which represents all of the United Kingdom. “Leader of the British Labour Party” is inaccurate as the term Britain excludes Scotland and Northern Ireland. I changed the title description to “Leader of the UK Labour Party” but it has since been changed back. To anyone who has access to the page please correct the Title description to “Leader of the UK Labour Party”. AhmedJ1971 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi AhmedJ1971, as far as a I can see, the page describes Keir Starmer as 'Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition', with no 'British' or 'UK'. It makes clear in the previous paragraph that Keir Starmer is a 'British politician' (i.e. he comes from Scotland, Wales or - in this case - England). Hopes this clears things up, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 07:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

AhmedJ1971. Your statement is incorrect. "Britain" includes Scotland (and Wales) - it does not exclude them - and the Labour Party does not operate in N Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020

Please remove:

"In February 2009, Starmer approved a decision not to prosecute any police over the controversial shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes."

This decision is disputed and it is claimed this decision was actually taken in 2006. By a different Director of Public Prosecutions (Sir Ken Macdonald).

See source for this information https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1215297292254707713 KierStarmerCorrection (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that supports this change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020

Change "But" to "And" in "Ideologically he identifies as a socialist but has been described as being on the soft left of the party". Runetouch123 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Goldsztajn (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Fathers factory

It was reported in the Financial Times in May 2020 that the subject of this page's father was a factory owner https://www.ft.com/content/35982886-8e77-11ea-a8ec-961a33ba80aa. Are there any sources that contradict this or should it be added to the page? 80.47.148.59 (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, there are multiple sources that say he was either a toolmaker or worked in a toolmaking factory BBC Politico Even the Spectator agrees. Incidentally, your link doesn't even say he owned a factory, it says he ran one. I run (manage) an office full of people, but my employer would be surprised to learn that I owned it. Black Kite (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So we could amend the page to clarify he was a toolmaker and ran a toolmaking factory? Someone can start as a toolmaker and then run a tool making factory, they're not mutually exclusive. Additionally his father does refer to it as "my factory" in this newsletter for the Barn Theatre in Oxford http://www.barntheatreoxted.co.uk/BTN_Aug14.pdf 80.47.148.59 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, no, because we've only got one source that says he ran it, rather than that he worked there. Also "my factory" could mean a factory that he owned, a factory that he ran, or just a factory that he worked at. Again, if you worked for company X and invited your child to come and work there temporarily, wouldn't you say "my child is working at my company today"? I think we need more accuracy to write this in Wikipedia's voice - it is clear that his father was simply a toolmaker originally, but we have no clear source (apart from the FT one) that says he ran or owned the factory later on - he might have, he might not. Black Kite (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The Financial Times is a perennial source that is considered to be generally reliable, and there's no reliable sources that contradict it 80.47.148.59 (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Most RS coverage of Rod Starmer call him a toolmaker, so we call him a toolmaker. If there's some RS coverage that goes into depth on Rod Starmer's life and work, then maybe another sentence about him could be added here, but for now the current description is fine. Ralbegen (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Being a toolmaker and running a factory are not mutually exclusive. Like I said there's no reliable sources that contradict the Financial Times reporting he ran a factory. Whilst it is better to have multiple sources, I'm not aware of any rules or precedents that say you can't use a single, perennial, reliable source that is not contradicted by any other reliable sources. 80.47.148.59 (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There is also no reliable source apart from the FT that says he ran a factory, whereas multiple sources describe his as a toolmaker (some like the Spectator are as specific as "his father worked in a factory as a toolmaker") and we go with the majority of the RS coverage, especially as the language in the FT article is vague. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That argument only makes logical sense if your position is that being a toolmaker and running a factory are mutually exclusive. Is that your position? 80.47.148.59 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:DUE. It'd be different if most coverage of Rod Starmer talked about him as a shop foreman, but it doesn't. As long as he's generally referred to as a toolmaker in RS coverage of Starmer, we should keep that description here. Ralbegen (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware of WP:DUE and there's nothing in it that applies here unless your position is that being a toolmaker and running a factory are mutually exclusive. If someone says that's their position then I will accept their objection as logically consistent, otherwise it is not logically consistent and we'd be in a position where their only logical argument would be "there is a rule or precedent that says you can't use a single, perennial, reliable source that is not contradicted by any other reliable sources." 80.47.148.59 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There's also the temporal issue. What did Starmer's father do at the date when Starmer was born? It seems extremely unlikely that he would own or run a factory at a young age, so was he indeed a toolmaker, and like many others rose through the ranks to run a factory when he was older? That could explain the alleged inconsistency (and it's very possible), but the answer is, we don't know - so we have to go with the majority of the sources here. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2020

Given that, as stated in the page: "however, he prefers that people do not use the title "Sir", should the title "Sir" not be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.212.2 (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The title exists and it would be incorrect to remove it although its use within the article should be limited to the three current instances only. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Political views & positions section

There has been some speculation in the media that Starmer may run for leader of the Labour Party once Corbyn resigns (expected early in 2020). I do not think that this speculation talk should be included in the article (too speculative and also WP:Recentism). However, with such speculation we can probably expect to see more people viewing this article and with particular interest in Starmer's political views and positions (and how they have evolved).

So, I have created such a section (as is common with other articles on high-profile politicians) and moved an existing paragraph that spoke to Starmer's political views and positions taken on Brexit into that new section (under a Brexit subsection). It would be good if we could add further subsections on his views and positions in other areas too.

The existing paragraph in the Brexit subsection could do with some reworking I think, perhaps to show more explicitly his stated positions at various times. I note that there was a sentence in the article describing Starmer as having campaigned for Remain. This was removed for being unsourced. I have found a source quote from Starmer that does explicitly say that he campaigned for Remain but have not added this back in yet, as I feel the Brexit material needs some reworking anyway and want it to be incorporated well into the text. Here is the quote:

“I campaigned to stay in the EU. I voted to stay in the EU and I was very disappointed by the outcome. And if there was another vote I would vote to remain in.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/24/keir-starmer-we-cannot-allow-labour-to-break-apart-over-brexit

Oska (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

On the section about his various political views, his Guardian interview is very revealing and would clarify things in an informative way for readers. Ahead of the upcoming election, these quotes would be particularly relevant.

On Corbynism: ""I don’t think anybody would call me a Corbynista, but I’m a socialist,” he said. “I don’t need somebody else’s name tattooed on my head to know what I think. A Labour party that strays too far from its values, loses. In the end, the Labour party strayed too far from its values between 1997 and 2010,” he said, citing the Iraq war and the failure to reduce inequality."

On the Brown/Miliband eras: ""Different errors were made by the party in its opposition years," he added. “In 2010, we thought because they’d won the election, they’d won the argument about austerity – they hadn’t. We thought in 2015 because they’d won the election, they’d won the argument about welfare – they hadn’t. We mustn’t make that mistake again.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/17/keir-starmer-labour-leadership-pitch-radical-government

Jonzo67 (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2020 (GMT)

How someone considers themselves isn't a factual position to be included in a wiki page. Starmer may have tried selling himself as a socialist but based on his policies since becoming leader of the Labour Party he is in fact just left of centre. --SWragg (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Jean Charles de Menezes

The article says "In February 2009, Starmer approved a decision not to prosecute any police over the controversial shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.", giving https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/family-of-jean-charles-de-menezes-1009708 as a source.

However, Starmer was not DPP at the time of the shooting of De Menezes; that was Ken Macdonald. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/30/jean-charles-de-menezes-police-officers-shouldshould-not-be-prosecuted-echr says that "The Crown Prosecution Service decided the following year that no individual should face charges."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/30/jean-charles-de-menezes-your-questions-answered says "In 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service said there was “ insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any individual police officer” "

Therefore, are there any other, credible sources, other than the (rated "questionable" by MediaBiasFactCheck) Daily Star that show that Starmer personally approved a decision not to prosecute any police? Sobi2203 (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The above edit is correct. Can we make sure this is edited please? It's not right to publish false information about someone, especially a website as popular as this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sootsprite87 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2020

Political positions section is looking very empty - would like to add more (e.g his support for Votes at 16, his views on Israeli/Palestinian conflict, his staunch socialist views, etc. Dante1292 (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

Dante1292 (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

More needs to be added to the list of his political positions, it's very lacking

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

Please change reference to "occupational therapist" to "NHS keyworker". Lady Victoria Starmer is not registered as Occupational Therapist with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). She is therefore unable to use the protected title "Occupational Therapist". Third parties are also unable to use the protected title "Occupational Therapist" to describe her.

The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) is the statutory of 15 professions, including Occupational Therapists. The title "Occupational Therapist" is a title protected by law under Article 39 of the Health Professions Order 2001. Anyone who uses this title must be on the HCPC register. For more information, please see https://www.hcpc-uk.org/about-us/who-we-regulate/the-professions/ LPTO (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The source says "[part-time] occupational therapist". –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether an individual works part-time or or full-time is not relevant. Only individuals registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) can use the protected title of Occupational Therapist. Lady Victoria Starmer is not on the HCPC register (www.hcpc-uk.org/check-the-register).

Article 39(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 makes it a criminal offence for a person, with intent to deceive (whether clearly or by implication) to use a designated title to which they are not entitled.

Third parties are also unable to use the protected title to describe her as she is not a registered Occupational Therapist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPTO (talk • contribs) 18:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

Please change reference to "occupational therapist" to "NHS keyworker". Lady Victoria Starmer is not registered as Occupational Therapist with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). She is therefore unable to use the protected title "Occupational Therapist". Third parties are also unable to use the protected title "Occupational Therapist" to describe her.

The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) is the statutory of 15 professions, including Occupational Therapists. The title "Occupational Therapist" is a title protected by law under Article 39 of the Health Professions Order 2001. Anyone who uses this title must be on the HCPC register. For more information, please see https://www.hcpc-uk.org/about-us/who-we-regulate/the-professions/ LPTO (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that the source says "[part-time] occupational therapist". However this does not alter the fact that only individuals registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) can use the protected title of Occupational Therapist. Lady Victoria Starmer is not on the HCPC register (www.hcpc-uk.org/check-the-register).

Article 39(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 makes it a criminal offence for a person, with intent to deceive (whether clearly or by implication) to use a designated title to which they are not entitled.

Third parties are also unable to use the protected title to describe her as she is not a registered Occupational Therapist. LPTO (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You're going to have to point to secondary sources that mention her being an NHS keyworker, because Wikipedia isn't able to use primary sources when it comes to biographies. This does sadly lead to us repeating errors that secondary sources have printed, but that is a preferable situation over having editors doing original research using primary sources about living people. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. As the reference to Lady Victoria Starmer being an Occupational Therapist is incorrect, (she is not on the HCPC Register as an Occupational Therapist) please could this be removed i.e. change the sentence to "Starmer married Victoria Alexander, then a solicitor in 2007". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.194.4 (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see the following article which refers to Lady Victoria Starmer as an "NHS Keyworker" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8350085/Keir-Starmer-reveals-children-attended-school-lockdown.html Please substitute "Occupational Therapist" with "NHS Keyworker" for the reasons cited above.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

Please change reference to "occupational therapist" to "NHS keyworker". Please see the following article which refers to Lady Victoria Starmer as an "NHS Keyworker" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8350085/Keir-Starmer-reveals-children-attended-school-lockdown.html

Please substitute "Occupational Therapist" with "NHS Keyworker" as Lady Victoria Starmer is not registered as Occupational Therapist with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). She is therefore unable to use the protected title "Occupational Therapist". Third parties are also unable to use the protected title "Occupational Therapist" to describe her.

The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) is the statutory of 15 professions, including Occupational Therapists. The title "Occupational Therapist" is a title protected by law under Article 39 of the Health Professions Order 2001. Anyone who uses this title must be on the HCPC register. For more information, please see https://www.hcpc-uk.org/about-us/who-we-regulate/the-professions

Lady Victoria Starmer is not on the HCPC register (www.hcpc-uk.org/check-the-register).

Article 39(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 makes it a criminal offence for a person, with intent to deceive (whether clearly or by implication) to use a designated title to which they are not entitled.

Third parties are also unable to use the protected title to describe her as she is not a registered Occupational Therapist. LPTO (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done LPTO - Please stop making multiple requests unless you have something new to add, it clogs up the talk page. As detailed above, Wikipedia is built on verifiable and reliable information, meaning that we have to take sources at face value, even if they (as in this case) seem to be false or out-of-date. I think the best thing we could do is to take out the sentence altogether until a reliable source can be found. Also, The Daily Mail is widely seen as unreliable and cannot be used as a source (see WP:DAILYMAIL). Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 19:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you PinkPanda272. Removing the words "and later an occupational therapist" would resolve this issue. Please make this change as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.194.4 (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have removed and later an occupational therapist, glad to reach a compromise. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Reference to Lady Victoria Starmer working as an Occupational Therapist, has now been removed from the source article (New Statesman). Therefore please remove the reference to occupational therapist from this Wiki Page. LPTO (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Hello again LPTO. After checking the source article [10] against an archived copy [11], It does seem like the New Statesman have retrospectively edited the article, changing the description of Victoria Starmer from a part-time occupational therapist for who works part-time for the NHS. With this in mind, I will change the article to remove the mention of occupational therapist, and replace it with part-time NHS worker. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 06:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request

Can someone add the "semi protected" lock icon to the page? It seems to be protected without any lock icon to signify that. 45.251.33.52 (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

supports Zionism

edit should include his political views that he supports Zionism link -> https://www.timesofisrael.com/keir-starmer-elected-uk-labour-chief-apologizes-to-jews-for-party-anti-semitism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.99.144 (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

His claim to support Zionism is nuanced. A group he was addressing was accused of being Zionist and Starmer said he was a Zionist if the term meant supporting the existence of the state of Israel. But then that has always been Labour Party policy. It's even the position of the PLO. TFD (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"The suspension appears to fly in the face of one of the important recommendations made by the EHRC"

Quote from the article. You haven't even read the source have you? Revert it back when you've done so. Cheers. ItsKesha (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not from a reliable secondary source, it's a quote from Len McCluskey. It's inappropriate to put it in Wikipedia's voice, particularly so in a BLP article. Ralbegen (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

So you're saying McCluskey is lying? Fascinating stuff. ItsKesha (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Birth name is Keith?

There is some controversy w/r/t claims that Starmer's real name is Keith, with Keir being his "stage name" of sorts. There are some web articles from the 90s apparently referring to him as Keith rather than Keir. Is there any evidence to support the claim that Keir is his birth name? Probably not enough evidence either way on this so far to make it worthy of a mention in the article, but just a heads up to curators to keep their eyes peeled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.135.177 (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

FreeBMD says that his birth name is Keir - "Index entry". FreeBMD. ONS. Retrieved 21 November 2020..

Lead paragraph

The lead currently reads Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB QC MP (born 2 September 1962) is a British politician who has served as Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition since 2020. He has been Member of Parliament for Holborn and St Pancras since 2015. Ideologically, he identifies as a moral socialist and has been described as being on the soft left. The last sentence is supported by inline lead sources; the first part is supported by an essay Starmer wrote in the Guardian during the leadership election without due weight established by a secondary source. The second part is the first section of his "political views" section with the same sources.

I don't know why this should be included in the lead, or particularly the first paragraph of the lead. Coverage of Starmer doesn't typically view him through an ideological lens to the extent that this is one of the most important things about him, and certainly not enough to overshadow his legal career. The description of him as a moral socialist being extruded from his call for a "moral socialism" doesn't strike me as encyclopedic or appropriately sourced and should be removed; I also think that the last sentence in the first paragraph of the lead should be struck from the lead and left in the body of the article. Ralbegen (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I moved moral socialist to the main text since any clarification on that would likely clog up the first paragraph. Alex (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have rephrased the mention in the 'political positions' section to clarify that he doesn't explicitly 'identify' as anything, and I agree that it isn't notable enough to have in the lead. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, the "moral socialist" phrase? Or do you think the whole sentence is not notable enough for the lead. Alex (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Alex B4 - Apologies, I was meaning the 'socialist' point, I should of clarified that better. However Ralbegen does make a good point that the 'soft left' position comes before anything about his legal career or role as DPP, so it might make sense to move that down into the third para of the lead. Thoughts? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 10:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's lead-worthy at all per WP:LEADREL. Starmer's ideology within the Labour Party isn't one of the most covered aspects of the man in reliable sources. I'd also advise removing the two opinion articles used as sources to support "soft left" in the body of the article. Ralbegen (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Leadership campaign donations

Hi PinkPanda272, you restored the text Starmer was criticised by some for not publishing full details of donations to his campaign. to the article. But this misses out the crucial element that Starmer's donors were released in the register of members' interets; the actual dispute was about releasing the information independently of Parliament earlier than required. It only includes articles from before the update of the register of members interests in early March. Making the only coverage of the leadership campaign that Starmer was elected in an outdated attack line from his opponents is giving it undue prominence; you'll note that there's not much coverage of Starmer's donors after they were published, which doesn't say much about the lasting impact of the news story. I'm happy to write more text about the leadership election that would see something like Supporters of Long-Bailey criticised Starmer for releasing details of his campaign donations on the register of members' interests rather than independently, as Long-Bailey and Nandy had done. appropriately weighted amongst a longer paragraph. See e.g. [12] and [13]. Ralbegen (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Ralbegen - I'm all for adding an explainer about the register of interests. I had previously trimmed it after a POV editor added a paragraph explaining the viewpoints of various left-wing Labour figures, but I can see why it could still be seen to portray Starmer in an unduly negative light. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think the two issues are: the presentation is non-neutral, or at least unhelpful, by eliding important material, and it's undue weight for this to be the only material about the leadership campaign. The first one can be fixed by redrafting it, like in the line I offered above (though actually I think that was unclear because it didn't explain what the objection was: Supporters of Long-Bailey criticised Starmer for releasing details of his campaign donations on the register of members' interests rather than independently, as Long-Bailey and Nandy had done, which meant that details of his donors weren't published until after voting had opened. would be better! But the second part can only be remedied by writing more about the leadership campaign in general. I'm happy to do that but I'll need to find some time to do it, maybe later today. Ralbegen (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to what you suggested above, and added the two sources to the article. I'll help add some more content about the campaign later, it seems to skip some important details anyway such as his campaign platform. Best, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 13:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2021

Though previously a advocate for a second Brexit referendum after the process of the UK's withdrawal from the EU was completed he ruled out a return to free movement or substantial renegotiation of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement if Labour won the next United Kingdom general election.[129]

Should be

Though previously an advocate... 82.5.6.61 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, all set. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Tammbeck^talk 19:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2021

New to wikipedia and can't edit the semi-protected article myself so posting here instead.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-i-may-not-believe-in-god-but-i-do-believe-in-faith-951607

Thought this should be added to the personal life section as a simple "Starmer identifies as an atheist".

Thanks, and do tell if I made any mistakes in how I went about doing this as I'm still pretty green! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zexal42 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – moved the semiprotected template out of the header (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)   melecie   t 02:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. — Czello 06:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Father's business

I know there has been a previous discussion about this. We have new info from Tom Harris, talking about the Lord Ashcroft book on Starmer, who says Perhaps Ashcroft hopes that revealing that Rodney Starmer was in fact the owner of his own business (contrary to repeated claims by Starmer that his father was a jobbing toolmaker)[14] I believe this is in the author's voice, but it might be relying on Ashcroft who would not be considered an RS by any means and it's a book review rather than a DT news article. Adding it here until more info comes out. Solipsism 101 (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from Ashcroft's book. Ashcroft says that Starmer's father owned the "Oxted Tool Company." However there is no record of any such company and Ashcroft doesn't know how successful it was. It makes me wonder how Ashcroft heard about the company at all. If it did exist and Starmer's father owned it, it was likely that he undertook work outside his day job or at least intended to. Ashcroft seems to have an agenda to portray Starmer as middle class and isn't too concerned about accuracy. It's ironic considering how much the Tories play up the humble origins of their leaders: Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher and Major. TFD (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

He's certainly not a reliable source, even for Conservative members. Solipsism 101 (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Starmer's Vegetarianism

In personal life, the following is mentioned

Starmer is a vegetarian, believing that "it's better for yourself and for the environment".[157] from July 2017

I do not believe this to be the case, I believe Starmer is a pescatarian, which means he eats fish. My sources are as follows:

https://twitter.com/PaulWilliamsLAB/status/1385648662609604613

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/keir-starmer-plymouth-fish-chips-5270054

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-westminster-eats-for-lunch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.177.111.81 (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021

I think the last line of the Personal Life section, which currently reads "Starmer is a vegetarian, believing that "it's better for yourself and for the environment".[163]" should be changed to:

"Starmer claims to be a vegetarian, believing that "it's better for yourself and for the environment".[163]. However he has been seen to be eating fish on several occasions since making this claim [15], and also told Times Radio's Matt Chorley when asked what he was having for breakfast on the morning of day 3 of the Labour Party's 2021 conference that he was having cheese and fish [16]. This would make him pescatarian. DVDoyley (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Seems pretty WP:UNDUE. Once I said I was on a diet, and someone saw me drinking apple juice instead of black coffee. It should probably be recorded forever in an encyclopedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

He does not describe himself as a socialist.

There's no reference for that, but if he has in the past he certainly doesn't now. 2A00:23C7:B020:9E00:2558:A738:75B6:9051 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It is sourced, citations 150 and 151. — Czello 19:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

He does in fact, which is not surprising for a life long member and leader of a party that calls itself socialist. TFD (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

Add PC to his post-nomials. 72.69.162.180 (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/privy-council-appointment-keir-starmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.162.180 (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-07-19-List-of-Business-Part-1.pdf

It's already in his biography in the Honours sections. Add it to the Bio box and in his postnomials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.162.180 (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Privy Council

The post-nomials PC should be added to his Bio Box. There are sources already cited in this article for his lifetime appointment to the PC. 72.69.162.180 (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Most similar articles don't show it, but I think it should be there. Does it go before or after the knighthood? TFD (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

PC should go right after MP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.162.180 (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, it seems that these postnominals are rarely used in the UK, although they are used in other Commonwealth nations, and few UK biographies show them. Before adding it, I would like to see a guideline for UK biographies. TFD (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Opposition or support of Conservative government's COVID-19 policy.

A recent revision to the lede mentions Starmer's "opposition" to the Conservative government's coronavirus measures.

The text is as follows: "Starmer's tenure as Labour Leader has been largely defined by his opposition to the Conservative government's coronavirus pandemic measures".

Personally, I don't think this statement has much merit. Of course, Starmer and the Labour Party have largely supported and not opposed most of the pandemic measures, for example, continuously supporting the lockdowns and advocating their extension.

I suggest we find a consensus to rewrite this sentence or remove it altogether.

JLo-Watson (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Not only does it seem incorrect to me, but I think it's also wrong to say that it would "largely define" his tenure. Suggest removing it. — Czello 17:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This statement is controversial - many say that Starmer has supported most of the measures- and I would argue it isn't a defining aspect of his tenure at all. Instead, the Wiki page should refer to his relationship with previous leader Jeremy Corbyn (including whip suspension), tackling antisemitism and internal factional battles, and the ways in which he differs from Corbyn. -Internet is Freedom (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a sentence that is difficult to reword without substantial rewriting. He has opposed some but not all of the Government's measures, and it is wrong (or at least non-neutral) to suggest that his tenure is "defined by" any of the events mentioned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been bold and just removed the statement, especially given that it's unsourced. However, what's left now is removing the party whip from his predecessor, a by-election loss in the previously Labour seat Hartlepool and a hold in Batley and Spen, with mixed results in the 2021 local elections. I worry that this is WP:UNDUE-ly negative, so I'm thinking about just removing the whole thing (especially given that it's, again, all unsourced -- who says this "defines" his tenure?). — Czello 06:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with removing all mention of his position on the COVID regulations, so have reinstated that part - but, changed "defined by his opposition to..." to "marked by opposition to some of...", which is a more neutral statement. Statements in the lead do not need to be sourced, so long as they are sourced in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like an acceptable compromise. — Czello 07:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

"marked by opposition to some of..." is not accurate. Rather "marked by support for..." would be correct. Support for the extraordinary measure of vaccine passports and mandatory NHS injections surely illustrates this clear support beyond question? Further along in the text there is a quote where Starmer affirms his broad support for the government in his own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.246.154 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Personal Life

In the section on his personal life it should be added that he has a country home and a seven-acre estate, and that it is worth ten million pounds.

source: https://medium.com/politics-in-britain/what-is-donkeygate-5495c5ae8b57 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.162.180 (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

So he inherited his parents' house and bought the field behind it. You're making it sound like Blenheim Palace. TFD (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2022

Under "Political Positions", Paragraph 3 it says " Though previously an advocate for a second Brexit referendum after the process of the UK's withdrawal from the EU was completed, he ruled out in 2012 a return to free movement with the EU or substantial renegotiation of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement if Labour won the next United Kingdom general election.[170]"

The year is wrong, the cited source is from 2021 and does not indicate that his statements were made in 2012 (which wouldn't make sense give that the Brexit Referendum only happened in 2016). I assume this is a typo. Corrected text:

" Though previously an advocate for a second Brexit referendum after the process of the UK's withdrawal from the EU was completed, he ruled out in 2021 a return to free movement with the EU or substantial renegotiation of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement if Labour won the next United Kingdom general election.[170] " EnormousAnt (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out, EnormousAntJBW (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible compromise on Saville episode

If people think that the Jimmy Saville comments and harrassment having their own section is WP:recentism then maybe a better option would be to move that information into the main part of the tenure section just below the sentence about the Nick Ferrari phone in.--Llewee (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

As nobody has objected I have moved it.--Llewee (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I would have waited a week before moving it, not everybody edits every day and some of us have a life on the weekend. So no I wouldn't suggest you have consensus. You removed the tags, the POV issues still remain and this is still an example of recentism. Personally I would recommend removing it and its been nearly a week since I made that suggestion without any comment. WCM_email 07:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)