Talk:Keir Starmer as Leader of the Opposition

Forde Report section

Is there a reason why the Forde Report is covered in such detail on this page? Most of this section focuses on internal disputes during the Jeremy Corbyn era. I would say the only parts that seem relevant to Starmer's leadership would be that he commissioned the report and the part about anti-black racism at the end which seems slightly undue to me anyway. What are people's thoughts on its inclusion? Michaeldble (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Then again, if it is correct that Starmer promised to act on the Forde Report, are there any reason why the findings of the report should not be covered in detail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.136 (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Large David Lammy image in Gaza-Israel war section due to LFI support

I am unsure why David Lammy is given a large image in the Gaza-Israel section solely for his support of LFI. It does not seem like a relevant, justifiable inclusion to me, and appears to be placed for the reader to reach to conclusions on their own rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.

Would the person who placed the image @Helper201 like to explain?

I do not have 500 edits so am uncomfortable making any edit myself regarding this contentious topic in this case. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reduced the size of the image. Its relevant due to Lammy occupying the most senior foreign office role within the party's Shadow Cabinet. Obviously, the role of foreign secretary governs the party's stance on foreign affairs, of which this is a major foreign affair. It is therefore notable and worth inclusion to note if the most senior person in the Shadow Cabinet regarding foreign issues has an affiliation to either side in the war (as it would be if he was a supporter of those on the opposite side). This person was also chosen for this role by Starmer. These are facts and his support for LFI is properly cited. This fact is being let to speak for itself. Helper201 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Starmer's abstention strategy

Firstly, regarding the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, the following sentence was recently removed from the article:

Starmer ordered Labour MPs to abstain on the reading of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which, according to Jacobin, "effectively puts undercover state operatives beyond sanction"

The reason given was “The source does not substantiate that Starmer personally ordered abstentions. There are also no other secondary sources that justify the attention put on the Jacobin article”.

Firstly, if Keith did not order the abstentions then someone else must be pulling the strings at Labour. Given Keith’s authoritarian streak this seems unlikely. Anyway, I had a look at some other sources to see if they could shed light on the mystery behind who was giving the orders at Labour headquarters. I also wanted to see if the criticism of the Bill which appeared in the Jacobin article was also published elsewhere. Here are some results related to the Bill:

• Keir Starmer has been accused of adopting an “abstention strategy” ... Labour MPs have been instructed not to vote at all. The overseas operations bill saw 18 Labour MPs defy the whip.[1]
• The trio of junior ministers broke the party whip by refusing to abstain on a vote on the second reading of the Overseas Operations Bill. Keir Starmer sack[ed] three MPs from frontbench roles after they defied whips' orders to abstain. Amnesty International UK has warned the legislation could cause "real and lasting damage to the reputation of the Armed Forces". Director Kate Allen said: "It is in no-one's interests for members of the Armed Forces to be given a free pass over alleged war crimes." [2]

The following source from November 2020 mentions that Labour may have later changed its position on the Bill:

• Labour is gearing up to vote against the overseas operations bill in the Commons on Tuesday, to halt a damaging run of rebellions.[3]

So what happened in the end? The Bill received Royal Assent on 29 April 2021 but is not mentioned again in this article.

Secondly, our treatment of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill also known as the Spycops Bill is incomplete. We mention that 34 MPs rebelled on its third reading but apparently a fortnight earlier 20 Labour MPs had rebelled at a second reading. Later, the party’s leadership refused to back a Lords amendment from Shami Chakrabarti. In this case there are plenty of sources which mention that Keith gave the order to abstain:

• The Labour leader had told his MPs to abstain on the third and final Commons reading of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill ... Starmer, whose decision not to oppose the bill has triggered a string of resignations.[4]
• Keir Starmer’s decision to dictate a Labour abstention on the “spycops” Bill in the Commons saw the biggest Labour revolt yet against his abstentions policy[5]
• A Labour MP has quit the shadow Cabinet in protest at Keir Starmer’s failure to oppose a new Bill confirming that spies can commit crimes.[6]
• Starmer ordered his MPs to abstain on the third reading of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) Bill, also known as the “spy cops bill”.[7]
• Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, had called on the party to abstain over the bill ...[8]

We should also inform the reader of the reasons Labour MP's voted against the Bill. E.g.

• Amnesty International have described the bill as a “licence for government agencies to authorise torture and murder”, as it does not explicitly rule out such crimes.[9]
• The Bill in effect legalises illegal acts by undercover government agents[10]
• Mr Carden, in his resignation letter to Sir Keir, said: “You will understand that as a Liverpool MP and trade unionist, I share the deep concerns about this legislation from across the labour movement, human rights organisations, and so many who have suffered the abuse of state power, from blacklisted workers to the Hillsborough families and survivors.”[11]
• the legislation which human rights groups have said would allow undercover officers to rape, murder and torture in the name of national security.[12]

Burrobert (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I made the revert. Here is the diff for the revert for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Labour_Party_leadership_of_Keir_Starmer&diff=1197895934&oldid=1197842748.

The changes you made seemed to do nothing but to change wording as to take a POV, and add a quote from Jacobin. On reflection, an explanation on the reasoning for the rebellion would improve this section, and I agree on that point. It might be a good idea to keep the wording and add an explanation on the rebellion, for example using the Jacobin quote; something like:

"On 23 September 2020, three frontbenchers (Olivia Blake, Nadia Whittome, and Beth Winter) rebelled against Labour's position of abstention on the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill and voted against the bill; all three lost their frontbench roles over the issue. The bill faced opposition from the left of the party due to concerns that [Jacobin quote or something here]. This move was seen as an indication of the firm discipline Starmer intended to exert over his party."

On another point, I think trying to frame much of the article in terms of Starmer as an authoritarian is tenuous and must be well substantiated given this forms part of a WP:BLP, and consensus should be reached on this first before any significant advances are made on that in article space. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• It is usually a good idea to explain why people do things. Readers appreciate that. So yes we should add explanations when they are provided.
• Where possible we should avoid the passive voice which "is the favourite rhetorical tool of propagandists worldwide, who “regret the mistakes that were made” without having to admit who made them".[13] That's why we should say things like "Starmer sacked the three front benchers" rather than "all three lost their frontbench roles over the issue".
• There are a few other gaps that need to be filled as mentioned above.
• Putting "Starmer authoritarian" into the duck brings up a few results. Even Andrew Marr says Starmer has a "mildly authoritarian streak" although, as expected, he goes on to say it "chime[s] with the times".[14] Burrobert (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Transgender Policy

Forgive me since I'm extremely new to editing Wikipedia, but I was thinking that Keir Starmer's decision to walk back the party's previous support of Gender self-identification should be covered here. This was made official in July:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/24/labour-will-lead-on-reform-of-transgender-rights-and-we-wont-take-lectures-from-the-divisive-tories

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66299705

There has already been intra-party tension since 2018, but I'm struggling to find sources that aren't either self-published or opinion pieces. I don't know how far the scope should go regarding this topic, but since it is mentioned briefly on Anneliese Dodds's page, I think it's worth bringing up here too. Would appreciate help from a more experienced editor. BLACKCATFOXRABBIT (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)