Jon Pike Profile picture
Jan 4, 2020 25 tweets 4 min read Read on X
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
 

Keep Current with Jon Pike

Jon Pike Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @runthinkwrite

Oct 13
How justified are age bands in sport? Highly justified, they preserve fairness and make sport inclusive. There are no serious arguments against them. ...
... No one serious would say 'well, we should be flexible about age bands, so as not to upset anyone. And perhaps we need to consider scrapping age bands altogether.'
... Here are a couple of unserious but interesting arguments.

(i) 'moving from 20 years and 364 days to 21 years old is not a magical change which makes you stronger and faster overnight. So the under-21 rule is arbitrary' ...
Read 7 tweets
Sep 30
More good news, that deserves a bit of comment. The rules that established male puberty as a cut off for entry into the female category, were, at the time (2022-4) a largely welcome step towards fairness in sport. They marked a significant break with the ideological claim that TWAW...
... and effectively said: 'No, the science counts more than identity claims.' Some of those who pushed for these policies at the time were brave, pushing against the influence of Stonewall and other pressure groups in NGBs. ...
... I argued, at the time, that the idea that these created an incentive toward puberty blockers was right, but it was a social and ethical problem, not just a sports one. ...
Read 10 tweets
Aug 24
There are far more important things wrong with that piece by Dr Kennedy, but I know my place, so I'll just do a thread on this one, since Kennedy has a PhD in Philosophy, apparently ... Image
Oh dear, where to start? Maybe with (1) a *bog standard* debate in the philosophy of equality about affirmative action or positive discrimination. And (2) a *bog standard* feminist political principle. Now, I'm not going to try persuade you of my views on these matters, but I am going to try to spell out the argument, and its relation to the debate on trans identifying males in female chess competitions. ...
... So, (1) what is the argument for preferential entry to university for African Americans? What is the argument for all women shortlists? It's that years of exclusion and discrimination have moulded the structures of opportunity and constraints for each group, first in to higher education, and second into representative politics. Rules that are insensitive to that moulding - 'may the best man win!' replicate the structures of subordination that anyone interested in equality ought to oppose.

The argument is not 'African Americans are cognitively deficient so we have to lower standards.' It is not 'Women are naturally more self-effacing so we have to push them forward.' The argument rests on a pretty simple (indeed crude) distinction between structure and agency. It rests on the claim that there are disabling structures for which we should compensate.
Read 10 tweets
Aug 5
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? ..
Read 7 tweets
Jul 20
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. ...
... The paper to which Pape points - for which I can't find a date - is here: olympics.com/ioc/human-righ…
Read 19 tweets
Jul 18
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. ...
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(