This is a thread about @Keir_Starmer, particularly about his early commitment to the Labour Party. It’s first hand.
#Starmer
1/x
I was brought up in Caterham, Surrey, just up the road from Keir, in Oxted, and in the same constituency. It was a completely safe Tory seat, then and now. I tried to join the Labour Party in 1979 at the GE, aged fourteen,
2/
by the simple tactic of going to a rare election public meeting of Sir Geoffrey Howe, asking a hostile question about the NHS and looking for the people at the back who smiled.
3/
(Oddly, because I had long hair, I got embarrassingly misgendered) The Labour Party people said I was too young to join, but they took my name. A little while later I got a letter from the party about East Surrey Young Socialists - which was being set up by a chap called Keir
4/
I cadged a lift and with my brother @TomPike00075908 we got stuck in to the LPYS. The great @TamsinStirling1 and her brother were also involved.
5/
‘East Surrey’ conjures up images of the stockbroker belt and those are not wholly inaccurate. But in the South East, then and now, there is a lot of light industry, especially light engineering - including around Gatwick. Keir’s dad was a toolmaker, and a labour mt stalwart.
6/
There were large pockets of semi-rural poverty, ageing and neglected social housing, poor public services (including a terrible rural bus service) There was and is a labour movement, and a relatively active labour party.
7/
So a few of us with Keir in the forefront, established an LPYS group. The LPYS nationally at that time (1981-3) was run by the Militant, and the first major political introduction we had was to keep our branch independent from them
8/
and that was fairly straightforward because Keir was in the non-Militant group from the off. But we didn't go for expelling folk: we wanted to do our own political thing - and argue - a lot.
9/
Partly because of Keir, this was a *political* argument: one of the things that came up a lot was internationalism, for two reasons: first the Militant reduced every important international issue to support for their own front organisation.
10/
(The Chile *Socialist* Solidarity campaign, for example) Second, because of their Bennite endorsement, even then, for leaving the EU. Keir and the rest of us learned to be critical of both.
11/
But mainly the Militant were just boring. We also escaped being captured in an attempt to ‘round up’ the independent branches in the YS by, I think, Labour Briefing (the group closest to Corbyn at the time)
12/
One of the big troubles was organising meetings and lifts. We were generally not old enough to drive, and there were two centres - Oxted and Caterham and no easy way to get between them.
13/
At that point two key social networks of the semi rural left kicked in. My mum was doing an @OU degree, and so was Keir’s mother Jo, who was a nurse. They also knew each other through church links.
/14
Jo wasn’t well, and Keir has a brother with disabilities, so my mum went over to see them, to study with Jo, and could give us a lift to LPYS meetings at the same time.
/15
We ran jumble sales (very well attended) and held public meetings,(not so well attended) and poked fun at the Tories. We weren't always politically or socially astute.
/16
One time, we found out that Geoffrey Howe was starting a fun run in Oxted. We all signed up so as to go to the start and heckle him. Heckling done, it then dawned on us that we had to actually run the course. A certain amount of walking and smoking of fags may have occurred.
/17
Keir was left wing, thoughtful, non-sectarian and amiable then, as he is now. Some of the life went out of the LPYS branch went out when he went off to Leeds to do his law degree.
/18
Four years later, I met up with Keir again, @OULC and we were in a different kind of faction fight. Again it was respectful and amiable partly because of Keir. A main source of contention was the Wapping dispute.
/19
The dominant group in the labour club was led by @DavidMiliband and @StephenTwigg: they weren’t as enthusiastic about supporting the sacked Sun workers as we were: and there was quite a sophisticated row about the intersection of ideological and class struggles.
/20
Keir was the sophisticated one, with @Gargi_at_home
Keir went down to Wapping a few times, as a NCCL observer. I was in the forerunner of @workersliberty
at the time, and spectacularly failed to recruit Keir.
/21
But we agreed about quite a lot over the odd pint in the Kings Arms - only the odd, because he was incredibly hard working. As is known, he ended up working for a while with @b_schoendorff whilst turning from study to his legal work
/22
So Keir is not (merely) a North London Barrister who turned, later in life to ‘go into politics.’ He’s got working class roots, knows about hardship, and has a long and deep commitment to the Labour Party and particularly to its left.
/23
He’s frighteningly intelligent, and a ferociously hard worker. If he’s a ‘careerist’, he’s one who spent a lot of time at the age of sixteen trying to build a LP youth branch in a Tory safe seat. That’s either playing a *very* long game, or having your heart in the party.
/24
I think I know which.
#Keir4Leader
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There are some general questions for @ConversationEDU @ConversationUK @ConversationUS that arise from the Sinclair piece.
The conversation is an international brand with regional autonomous organisations. Its reputation rests on the integrity of the pieces it publishes. ...
... it is fairly simple to demonstrate that the Sinclair piece lacks integrity and makes serious errors, thereby misrepresenting the policy it discusses. This isn't a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.
The ever reliable @Scienceofsport and @FondOfBeetles have ...
... dissected the errors and misrepresentations, so check out their threads, if you haven't already.
It's a frustrating experience: a network of academics have thought quite carefully about these matters: Where should the cut be? What about CAIS? what about Swyer syndrome? ..
That rather petulant piece by Dr Pape in Le Temps directs us to a short paper I'd forgotten about, but which is indicative of the complete absence of rigour in the IOC's Framework Document That's the document that led to the boxing debacle #Paris24. Here's a short thread ...
... The Framework Document was supposed to guide IFs in constructing their eligibility rules. Most of the big IFs have ignored it, not necessarily for ideological reasons, but perhaps mainly because it makes no sense. It's the one with 'no presumption of advantage' on the basis of sex. ...
Here is my latest paper, published today in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport and co-authored with Dr Emma Hilton @fondofbeetles from Manchester University. I would like to thank @OpenUniversity for their ongoing support of my research tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
It is a response to this paper by Hilary Bowman-Smart, Julian Savulescu, Michele O'Connell and Andrew Sinclair.
Somewhat confusingly, as we explain in a footnote, the Bowman-Smart et al. paper criticises the WA regulations as they were in place from 2023 ...tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
... till earlier this year. But the 2023 regs were a more restrictive version of the approach that has been taken for many years by WA: requiring that athletes with a set of specific conditions must reduce their T levels in order to compete in the female category. ...
This is, at least from my perspective, and probably, good news.
Reason: @realworldboxing is the new affiliate of the @IOC and has eligibility rules that involve PCR sex screening for the SRY gene.
These are the rules that were introduced just before Eindhoven, and dissuaded Imane Khelif from attending.
The eligibility rules of @realworldboxing contradict the extant position of the IOC Framework Document.
'Contradict' is a strong term, and I need to make good on it. ....
... So, check out this 2023 paper published in the BJSM: (I'll put the references at the end).
The authors are a list of senior IOC figures, who have tried by one way or another to allow male athletes into female sport. Martowicz is the head of Human Rights at the IOC, Budgett and Pape wrote the framework document, and Pitsiladis is the main sport science advocate of T suppression.
... The paper is an amplification and justification of the Framework Document (You can read my critique of the Framework Document in my pinned post)
The 2023 position paper is, at least, explicit on sex screening.
There will be academics at @SussexUni - which is under the cosh for other reasons, at the moment - who will feel unfairly hit by this OfS fine, because they, themselves, did nothing wrong.
But:
They did nothing wrong, because, in many cases, they did nothing. Complicity is a ...
... notoriously tricky concept, but I know that some saw what was going on, realised it was out of order, but failed to act. The students who protested, who demanded that @Docstockk be sacked for wrongthink, all had tutors. ...
... Many did much more than sit on their hands - Sussex @UCU were much more than complicit by omission. Not only were they rubbish at the basic tasks of trade unionism; they were actively vile, accusing Stock of 'weaponising Employment Law.' ...
... Of course, 'setting up a task force' is what people do if either (i) they want to solve a problem in a big organisation or (ii) they want to kick a problem into the long grass. So we can't know which it is. The devil is in the details. If it is anything like the process...
... that led to the framework document, it will be a disaster. But it doesn't need to be.
Second, 'working with the international federations' sounds bland. Who'd be against this? ...