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
A couple of reflections about process, as we get to the end of a fluffed opportunity after a years long process. I've been involved in quite a few of these eligibility discussion, as you might expect, and still the best model is @WorldRugby: Two days, in a big room, face to face, with lots of different perspectives argued out. ...
... This is very different from a series of Zoom presentations over several months, with none of the 'experts' cross-questioning each other. It's a *deliberative* model you need. It's an *iterative* model.
... I don't think these processes are particularly easy, and you do have advocacy groups on both sides. But for WT, I'm annoyed that I had no chance to explain the limits of the T-suppression model, and that those pushing it were not subject to cross questioning from other sports scientists. ...
So @worldtriathlon has just released new eligibility rules fro Transgender Athletes. The embargo on these rules passed about two hours ago, so you can see them and download them here.
In this thread about the new eligibility rules I’ll analyse them, saying what I think they get right, what they get wrong, and what these rules say about the developing and changing regulation of female sport, and the fight to preserve the integrity of the female category.
The regulations are difficult to sum up, because they are a bit of a mess. If you really want a TL:DR: I think they are deeply confused, to the point of being incoherent, but in practice likely to be OK.
I think that it’s unlikely that, under these regulations, any male triathlete will get to compete in the female category. I can’t be certain of this: World Triathlon has left itself open to having its own Lia Thomas moment. If this happens, it will only have itself to blame. I think the proposals are, in part, unethical, and in some respects cynical, but that this won’t turn out to be a huge problem in practice.
Perhaps the best way two understand this is to start with two positions: the first is that of the Fair Sports Brigade, and the second is the T-suppression sports scientists. The FSB (people like @FondOfBeetles @cathydevine56 @Scienceofsport and me) tend to prefer a Female category and an Open category. We are also critical of a division between elite and non-elite sport, holding that women have a right to fairness at all levels of sport. I should add that some of us (including me) were consulted in the WT process.
Well, we got Female and Open, but we also got a division between elite and non-elite sport. And the T-Suppression people, like Yanis Pitsiladis and Joanna Harper got the elite policy.
This is very odd, and interesting, because so far, lots of these policies have differentiated between elite and non-elite, but the other way around: the elite have had fair sport secured, whilst the non-elite have been told to ‘be kind’ and allow males who identify as women to compete in the female category...
... WT has gone the other way. Transwomen: trans identified men will not be eligible to compete in WT sanctioned events, at Age Group level. These are the competitive races all around the world, at continental and global level that are split into 5 year age group categories. These are fiercely competitive races. Age groupers are hard training, somewhat obsessed amateurs. I know, I was one. But they are amateur, and non-elite.
These races will be organised on a Female/Open basis. They will be fair, and the female category will be protected. This is very good news.
The policy for Elite and Para triathlon is a mess. The WT working group took evidence from those sports scientists who are still committed to the now discredited T-suppression model, and, unfortunately, they have built T suppression into the eligibility rules in a complicated way. This means that there is potential for unfair competition in elite triathlon with male bodied athletes competing in the female category at events like the World Triathlon series – the pinnacle of the sport for ‘Olympic distance’ racing....
This @ECB_cricket response to the widespread calls for a boycott of the upcoming match between En gland and Afghanistan is interesting. I'll be a bit charitable, and then a bit analytical 🧵 bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/…
... Whilst it's easy to see this as a rebuff to those calling for a boycott, I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The ECB say:
"A coordinated, ICC-wide approach would be significantly more impactful than unilateral actions by individual members."
And this is *true.* ...
... I want to take that declaration and run with it: How do you have the greatest impact on the Afghan state? How do you get the changes that are required? These are good questions, and an ICC boycott rather than just an England boycott *would* be preferable. ...
It's been clear for a while that there is a shift in the argument from the other side, away from the claim that T suppression makes it fair for TW/TiM to compete in the female category. ...
... I think the T suppression argument (which was never much good) has collapsed. Now the advocates of males in female sport have gone in two directions. ...
... The first is to weaken or undermine fairness in women's sport, by claiming that only 'meaningful competition' is required. I've covered this in print. ... tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
There's a new edition of the Sociology of Sport Journal (@SSJ_Journal) and it's making me twitch and grind my teeth. I still can't get over the intellectual dishonesty and sloppiness of some contributions to the debate over sport eligibility. Here's an example from a ...
... sometime interlocuter here @MichaelSabres14.
Michael Burke wants to argue against Gender Critical Feminists so much that he seems to have forgotten some basic standards of intellectual discourse. I'll unpick this step by step.
Here's the paper ($) ... journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/…
... Here's the end point: (step 3) he wants to show that gender critical feminists are in the same camp as people who criticize female athletes for looking 'insufficiently feminine.'
OK, so I'll indulge in a Friday thread here, on a couple of papers that have come out in a new journal, and Open Access, because I think they show something important ...
... there are three contributions: first a paper from Hamilton, Pitsiladis, second a critical letter from @TLexercise. @ChrisKirk_ASP @BrowngaGreg @MaryOConnorMD and Noel Pollock, and third, a response from H,P, et al. ...
... here's the response, the third stage, and you can click through from that to the letter and the original paper. degruyter.com/document/doi/1…