This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

How is a photo form 2017 being used here? Isn't a new one available? Looks very dated. 92.59.166.156 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a new one in 42 days! --150.143.27.147 (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a glaring omissions in this article that Starmer supported the right of Israel to cut off water and food to Gaza as a response to Oct 7.

It is common knowledge, and has been repeatedly mentioned since the Nick Ferrari interview in credible media outlets.

Original instance - https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/#:~:text=He%20also%20said%20%E2%80%9CIsrael%20has,from%20Hamas%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20added

Clearly this should be reflected given how pertinent it is within the context of current events and his foreign policy views. Aak1307 (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is practically a whole paragraph about this already? Michaeldble (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a paragraph about the general theme, but the fact he said Israel had the right to cut off food and water should appear in views as opposed to within the body of text within his political career thus far. There were other specific and actually quite unique positions / situations applicable to Starmer, which are pertinent to his leadership of the Labour party and his views on this issue which have also been removed.

It seems, in part, an edit that you made to clean up some duplications actually also remove quite a lot of important information about his views on the issue. His membership of the LFI group and the fact that he has personally received large sums of money Pro-Israel groups for example have been omitted. The current views section, intended or otherwise, minimise just how pro Israel he has actually shown himself to be by removing these items. Aak1307 (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aak1307, Starmer is pro-Israel, undoubtedly, but you are selectively picking out bits of news to paint him as very pro-Israel. In reality, he said “I think that Israel does have that right. It is an ongoing situation. Obviously, everything should be done within international law," when asked by Nick Ferrari "A siege is appropriate? Cutting off power, cutting off water?" He later clarified and added to this: see here. Keep in mind, this was just two weeks after the war in Gaza started and the attack on Oct. 7 was still on everyone's minds.

Its also worth noting that Starmer came out in favor of a ceasefire back in February (see here) and just recently said he would be open to recognizing Palestine (see here). Now it isn't enough but it does indicates he isn't THAT pro-Israel. Which isn't to say he isn't; he definitely is pro-Israel... but so are most establishment politicians. And his party is far from the only one receiving pro-Israel lobby money - he personally can't receive money from any group; that is against the lobbying laws. So there needs to be balance in how we paint his views on this decisive issue. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: none of this is to defend him. Just adding context and pointing out his views on Israel/Palestine are very complex. They aren't as black and white as you're making them to be. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thoughtful reply.

I agree he has since made revisions to the statement which have suggested a more nuanced view as a matter of record (putting aside any speculation re his motivations for doing so).

I would point out that Starmer is a legal expert and knows international law well, especially human rights law. The idea that he wasn't/isn't aware of the status of such a blockade in international law is a stretch. I laude your giving him benefit of the doubt, but Starmer knows the illegality of it as well as the illegality of the broader siege of Gaza prior to October 7th. I would therefore suggest the position that "it's complex" doesn't apply here, it's something he had significant prior knowledge of and was indeed remanded on repeatedly by prominent members of the legal community (https://tribunemag.co.uk/2022/04/keir-starmer-labour-party-israel-apartheid-palestine-amnesty-report-jewish-chronicle).

Secondly, significant parts of the Labour Party think he is too pro-Israel: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48796-keir-starmer-has-handled-labours-response-on-gaza-badly-say-public-and-labour-voters

Thirdly, whilst yes he has suggested he'd "recognise Palestine", as is also pointed out in the wiki page, he's given Israel an effective veto over it (https://www.thejc.com/news/politics/keir-starmer-officially-junks-labours-old-policy-on-palestinian-statehood-r8bs7afe). This is, of course, not support for self-determination at all but does give the appearance of such.

Forthly, he lobbied Lindsay Hoyle to deliberately obstruct a ceasefire vote (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-keir-starmer-ceasefire-vote-gaza-hoyle-protect-image-endanger-mp-security/). I can't find the twitter post anymore, but the LFI director Michael Rubin did post shortly after the debacle thanking Starmer and Lammy for their "continued friendship and support for Israel".

Don't get me wrong, I know he is not the most pro-Israel politician in the country. He is materially more so than the current wiki page shows, and quite probably the most pro-Israel leader the party has ever had.

Aak1307 (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aak1307, hey there. No worries at all, I appreciate your thoughtful response as well. Indeed you are right. He has been more pro-Israel than pro-Palestine since the war in Gaza. I only give him the benefit of the doubt because he's obviously been careful about what to say given the upcoming election (it would have happened sooner or later but definitely this year) on anything really.

I do think he was aware that a blockade/siege is against international law which is why he was quick to clear up his answer. I genuinely believe that his answer that day was a gaffe more than anything which came at the worst possible time and it really annoyed me that he ballsed up his answer on an important question that bad. That said, he definitely could be more clear on exactly what his stances are and be more decisive on the matter. So far, he's walking a tightrope in order to not anger either side of the debate in Britain. I think we'll find out more clearly after the election and in the highly likely event he becomes PM. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would say that while Starmer is definitely up in "most pro-Israel leaders of Labour", I would Clemente Attlee is the most pro-Israel Labour leader and a handful of others have been more pro-Israel, including Tony Blair. Again, my belief is that we'll only find out if and when Starmer becomes PM just how pro-Israel he is. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starmer was replying to a complex question. It's possible he was agreeing to the question of whether or not Israel had a right to defend itself, which is how he later explained his answer. He also said in his answer that everything must be done according to international law. TFD (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces, that is very much what happened. Here. ETA: This isn't defending him - I didn't like his initial comment either - but context is important and he has been consistant on humanitarian aid to Gaza since. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a taskforce is made for getting this page ready for July 5th. Starmer is topped to be the next Bitish PM, if the polls are correct. 2A0A:EF40:E81:7701:C9E4:23A8:8929:A3F7 (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. If polls are correct, I suggest the article "Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer" be renamed to "Keir Starmer's tenure as Leader of the Opposition". --150.143.27.147 (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be two separate articles for his time in opposition and a 'Premiership of Keir Starmer' article if Labour do win next month. Michaeldble (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any chances of there being a sub-article for his legal career? His political career has a sub-article (Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer) so think a lot of the legal career section could be better served in a sub-article. Something along the lines of "Legal career of Keir Starmer". 150.143.27.147 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a draft here: Draft:Legal career of Keir Starmer. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's been done elsewhere for politicians: Legal career of Hillary Clinton and Legal career of Mary Robinson. If there is enough coverage in reliable sources then I have no issue Michaeldble (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There already looks to be enough coverage of Starmer's legal career in reliable sources as shown in this article, and there is further information about it not featured here that could be featured in a sub-article (such as Boris Johnson bringing up Starmer's time as Director of Public Prosecutions back in 2022). Whilst now predominantly best known as a politician, his legal career is still notable enough for a sub-article, especially as now he looks set to become the next PM as indicated by several opinion polls. Like Hillary Clinton, I think having a sub-article for Starmer's legal career would be for the best. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A book was written by Tom Baldwin about Starmer earlier this year called Keir Starmer: The Biography. Worth a mention here at all? 150.143.27.147 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's included here in the 'further reading' part. What would you suggest mentioning on this page? It might merit its own article as it did have quite a lot of coverage at the time Michaeldble (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in that case I'd would recommend the book having its own article as per the coverage, and also as The Starmer Project has its own article. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a draft article about the Legal career of Keir Starmer. As such, the information about his law career here should be significantly trimmed down. As per Hillary Clinton's article not going too in depth about her law career as a sub-article for it exists. 150.143.27.147 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the draft is accepted, it can be trimmed down to be a summary of his legal career. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the consistency? Go to Jeremy Corbyn's article and you'll find chockablock information about his tenure as Labour leader. Why is the same not true of this page, and whenever I've tried to expand information on his leadership, it's been reverted? Corbyn also has a Labour leadership stub-article but that doesn't stop his main page having a lot more information about his leadership than Starmer's article.

And what's the point of having a foreign affairs section if his views on the middle east conflict aren't included in it? Either include the middle east stuff here, or don't include it at all. ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be including chockablock information about anyone: WP:SS. If Corbyn's page has it then it's wrong; just because one page is badly done doesn't mean another has to be. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say chockablock information, whoops. But you still get the idea. That being said I see your point as well as the other editor who's raised this with me. I agree to keeping things the way they are if that is preferable. This being the case, can we start trimming the length of Corbyn's page to match Starmer's? One of my points does still stand though, his views on the middle east conflict are a political position and so should be included in that section. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I get it, but all the polls are pointing to him getting a "new job" soon (whether he gets it by 150 or 350 doesn't matter—even Tory ministers are resigned to it). Soon his Labour/Opposition leadership will no longer be his primary notability. Whatever happens in the election, whether he loses it, Parliament is hung or he gets a "stonking" majority there will be new things to say. I'd save on this until 5 July when we can gauge his place in history a bit more accurately rather than just parroting the news churn. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree, I've watched this election quite closely and all the polls are indeed pointing to him getting a "new job" soon. Brilliantly put. As a compromise, I've heavily reduced the length of this article whilst still keeping some important things in there, like shadow cabinet appointments (per David Cameron). And I've added the response to the middle east conflict back to where it works best - in the political positions section. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Tim O'Doherty's comments. Personally, I think less is more when it comes to these types of articles - you don't want to overwhelm readers. I'm not sure the Corbyn article is a great blueprint, I think it's better to only summarise the most important parts on here and go into more detail on the separate articles such as the leadership election, shadow cabinet etc. For example, I don't understand why you've copied and pasted his election results (by-elections, local elections) from the Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer page - that article is redundant if both articles contain identical levels of detail and content.

Regarding the Middle East points, I don't think his comments on LBC and aftermath should be in the political positions section. The most important part of this story is the backlash (resignations etc) which is more relevant to his leadership. His views on Palestine should remain in the political positions section obviously. Michaeldble (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, I also agree with his comments, and yours. This is why I've done a compromise edit; I've heavily reduced the length of this article whilst still keeping some important things in there, like shadow cabinet appointments (per David Cameron). But you can put the comments on LBC and aftermath back in the leadership section if you think it would fit best there. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are going around pages mass removing cited content. Please, please stop. You've been asked multiple times to stop and have yourself agreed. There is no requirement to have pages a certain length. Wiping out cited information benefits no one. Helper201 (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been resolved as I've done a compromise edit that has heavily reduced the length of this article whilst still keeping some important things in there, like shadow cabinet appointments. As for the legal career section, I reduced that as his legal career now has a sub-article (Legal career of Keir Starmer) so no point duplicating the same info here. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starmer "served as Leader of the Opposition from 2020 to 2024" No, Starmer is still Leader of the Opposition. This position maintains until he resigns as leader of the Labour Party, as per precedent if you look through previous Labour/Conservative Leader pages. Don’t confuse dissolution dates (sitting as an MP) with the Party leadership dates e.g. Alec Douglas-Home became Leader of the Conservative Party in October 1963 whilst not an MP, he continued as such until becoming an MP in a by election held a few weeks later. Starmer can be reasonably expected to be Leader of the Opposition until at least 5 July 2024, and is still Leader of the Opposition now. 92.40.200.240 (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lately two differing conventions on where to place the pre-nominal "Sir" in biographical infoboxes. The first convention (which used to be more prevalent) is to put it in |honorific_prefix=, but a second convention (which has been become more widely used) is to put it immediately before the person's name in |name=. Given that Starmer is probably the most well-known/consequential politician with a knighthood at the moment, this is probably a good time to discuss this in relation to this article's infobox. Personally, I reckon that we should put it in |name=, since I think it looks slightly jarring to have "The Right Honourable" linked but "Sir" unlinked, and it matches the practice of bolding "Sir" in the lead. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed a few problems with the bit dealing with the lead in the polls.^[1] I think the problems were the result of people editing the text without worrying about which citation was for which statement. I propose to remove the following unsupported commentary on the poll lead: often by very wide margins, as the governments under prime ministers Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak were affected by high-profile scandals and issues such as Partygate, the cost of living crisis, the July 2022 government crisis, the September 2022 mini-budget, the October 2022 government crisis, the industrial disputes including National Health Service strikes, railway strikes and postal workers strikes, and a number of scandals involving Conservative MPs. The commentary is a list of things that happened during the period of the poll lead. I think it woudl be better removed, so that the section concentrates on the topic - the poll lead.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]