STARKEYISM

Home / About

About and method

What this site is, and how it is sourced

An honest argument deserves an honest presentation. Here is what Starkeyism sets out to do, what it refuses to do and how you can check it.

What this is

Starkeyism is an independent explainer of one argument: the historian David Starkey's case that Britain's decline is constitutional, and that reversing it requires repealing a specific body of law and restoring the primacy of elected politics. The site lays that argument out in full, maps how its parts connect, tests its claims against real figures, traces one policy from law to outcome and sets the strongest objections beside the case.

What this is not

It is not affiliated with or endorsed by David Starkey, and it is not a fan page. It does not reproduce his lectures or writing; it links to them so you can hear the argument in his own words. It does not pretend the thesis is settled fact. Where the argument is strong, the site says so. Where it is contested or unproven, it says that too, in the same plain voice.

How the figures are sourced

Every number on the evidence page is drawn from a named source: government statistics, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the National Audit Office, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, parliamentary libraries, court judgments and established news reporting. Each panel links to its source so you can check the figure yourself rather than take it on trust.

How disputes are flagged

Real figures can still mislead. Where a headline number is contested, the site marks it "contested" and gives the counter-argument on the same card. The Birmingham bankruptcy figure and the small-boats trend are both handled this way. Where a critic of the thesis has conceded a point, that is marked too, because a concession from the other side is stronger evidence than a claim from your own. The case against page exists for the same reason.

Why the objections are here

A thesis you cannot argue against is not an argument, it is a catechism. Setting out the best replies is not weakness, it is the only way a reader can actually judge the case. It is also the only way this argument reaches people who do not already agree, which is the whole point of making it well.

Start with the argument →