Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Keir Starmer's time is up

Not denying the background, but I've never actually seen any hard and fast evidence that Starmer snr did own a factory. Is this nailed down anywhere?

Should add for transparency, that one of the Brogdalettes did a bit of volunteering at the little local theatre in Oxted, and Josephine & Rod were elder patrons of the theatre. Maybe not what you might ordinarily expect from "a toolmaker who worked on the shop floor"? I dunno?

Companies house have no records of it, and there's a requirement to register any limited company... Sole trader or very small business with bad paperwork is the most likely reason for that, though I've no idea what the regulatory environment was like back then.
 
Also went down a rabbit hole and, in the August 2014 edition of the Oxted Barn theatre newsletter Rodney does indeed say '6 months [of a gap year] were spent in my factory operating a production machine...DEAD
BORING.....Keir!!'. You can download a PDF.
 
Also went down a rabbit hole and, in the August 2014 edition of the Oxted Barn theatre newsletter Rodney does indeed say '6 months [of a gap year] were spent in my factory operating a production machine...DEAD
BORING.....Keir!!'. You can download a PDF.
Yeah, I've previously seen long social media debates about what, exactly "my factory" might mean.
 
Last edited:
Companies house have no records of it, and there's a requirement to register any limited company... Sole trader or very small business with bad paperwork is the most likely reason for that, though I've no idea what the regulatory environment was like back then.

having tried to track down a few companies for purposes of historic research, i'm fairly sure the current online records don't include companies that ceased trading before a certain date. you can sometimes track older companies down (if you have the company name) via the london gazette
 
Yeah, I've previously seen long social debates about what, exactly "my factory" might mean.

The world of small businesses in the 60s-90s must have had loads of informal labour arrangements, networks of skilled traders passing work around, hiring each other etc. Could be anything really.

Or maybe as Puddy_Tat says above it just got lost somewhere. I suppose not really important, just another weird brick in the Starmer wall.
 
The world of small businesses in the 60s-90s must have had loads of informal labour arrangements, networks of skilled traders passing work around, hiring each other etc. Could be anything really.

Or maybe as Puddy_Tat says above it just got lost somewhere. I suppose not really important, just another weird brick in the Starmer wall.
Yep; it's only import derives from Starmer's use of it as a class marker. I suppose that's why we pick at it?
 
Within its first 100 days, a Labour government will also introduce a “take back control” bill, legislation that will require combined authorities and councils to have a plan to meet local housing need

This is the sort of proposal, drawn from the private sector, that is explicitly designed to not do anything, since it only requires that you have a plan. I mean even if it happens anyway.
 
Come you ingrates, he finally comes up with a COSTED PLAN that he's not going to renege on and all you do is complain :mad:
 
All I'm hearing from much younger people than me is they are sick of the fucking u turns and willingness to throw trans people under a bus


Starmers made it very clear he doesn't actually like Labour members and activists
Conversely, all I'm hearing from long-term lefty women of a similar-ish age to me, 40-50s, is they are sick of women being thrown under a bus.

Notwithstanding Starmer's recent comment that a woman is an adult female and his apparent backtracking/U-turn on gender self-ID...

"The Labour leader said he did not believe the policy of self-identification was “the right way forward”, and that he believed that “the principle of safe spaces is very important for women”."


(Is there any Labour Party policy that Starmer actually genuinely believes in and supports wholeheartedly? Is he possibly the most inconsistent and flip-floppy leader of any major political party? I can't recall any other party political leader with a track record like his.)

Anyway, back to women of a certain age and an observation I've made with the usual cautions about anecdata.

I'd say my Facebook friends list includes several different cohorts, I'm guessing it's the same for many others, ie longstanding friends of many years, some more recent friends, former colleagues/friends from several jobs over the years, friends from living in different places current or former neighbours and housemates and squatmates etc, people from shared interest groups like sewing and gardening, people from professional or personal interest workshops/courses I've done over the years, people of a similar political persuasion eg from housing campaign groups and disability rights activists and anti-war and environmental rights activists etc, friends-of-friends who I might've met irl or friends-of-friends who've become online acquaintances, all of whom might or might not be part of overlapping groups in a sort of complicated Venn diagram.

I'd say that out of all of those there are three unlinked groups of gender critical feminists.

Of the local longstanding lefty women I know, some are vocal GC feminists. Including a former neighbour of mine has been reported in the media as losing her job due to being a gender critical feminist.

(Conversely, other women I know are vocal trans rights activists and speak up for trans rights and share articles and information about protests and so on.)

Another cohort is women who work in the media. Some of whom write about their own gender critical views or write about other GC women, amongst other things. Some of whom have GC views in a personal capacity but don't write about them publicly in the media, but do occasionally post and comment about the subject on Facebook.

And there's an outlier of someone else I know in a different part of the country, who started out as an online friend but who I've since met irl at a festival.

I'm mentioning this to illustrate that they are disparate groups, otherwise unconnected.

Some of those from the first group and also the outlier became actively involved in Labour Party politics during the Corbyn era, some just joining the party as members, some becoming active members in terms of canvassing and campaigning and holding office in their local CLPs.

Since then, the very vast majority of them have left the party. Some having expressed disillusionment more generally at an anti-war and/or anti-poverty/anti-austerity leader like Corbyn being ousted.

Some, however, have specifically commented about feeling politically homeless due to Labour's stance on gender self-ID and how they felt that Labour was throwing women under the bus and how they didn't feel represented by any political party. Some commented along the lines that not even the Women's Equality Party was a safe place for women.

So I've been thinking for a while now about how the Labour Party seemed unaware and/or didn't care about how it was alienating so many women on and of the left.

And I'm aware that some are trying to associate/write-off gender critical feminists with being right-wing, but those in those three groups I mentioned are nothing of the sort, although many hadn't previously been involved in left-wing party politics before Corbyn (and some didn't get involved in party politics at all), many were involved in left-wing politics in terms of single-issues, through campaigning and activism and even direct action.

And I don't just mean armchair activists, I mean lefty women with principles and strong convictions who've been arrestables/arrested for anti-war/anti-nuclear weapons protests, environmental/climate change protests, animal rights protests, like proper hardcore lefties. Not Starmer-style flip-flopping opinions according to focus groups lefty.

These women were saying that they were not going to be voting Labour. (Many saying they wouldn't be voting at all as they felt politically homeless.)

So these aren't women who've suddenly become right-wingers. If anything, they remained staunchly to the left of the Labour Party that had moved leftwards towards them during Corbyn's leadership campaign and during his tenure, only to become more centrist and even 'Tory lite' under austerity and two child cap supporting Starmer.

Bearing in mind that women make up half the population and the Labour Party under Starmer has been alienating so many of them, I figured a while ago that Labour's in real trouble in the next election, not from the risk of lefty women switching their vote to another political party, but the risk of them not voting.

I figured that if what I was observing in three disparate unconnected loose groups of women (ie not formal groups, just groups in the sense of being randomly either women I knew locally or who worked in the media like I used to) was being replicated around the country, then Starmer had no idea as to how many votes he/the Labour Party stood to lose.

Although his recent comment suggests the Labour Party or their consultants/strategists might've run some focus groups and belatedly realised how they've been sailing like the Titanic towards an iceberg where the visible part has been the trans rights activists and they've not been paying heed to the many women concerned about women's rights and women's safety who've become increasingly alienated and vocal about planning to not vote for Labour after decades of doing so, like the 9/10ths of an iceberg below the surface.

It remains to be seen whether those women will trust Starmer who increasingly has a reputation for just saying whatever's politically expedient at any given moment in time and being totally untrustworthy.
 
Last edited:
Some, however, have specifically commented about feeling politically homeless due to Labour's stance on gender self-ID
. ..
These women were saying that they were not going to be voting Labour. (Many saying they wouldn't be voting at all as.) ... these aren't women who've suddenly become right-wingers. I figured a while ago that Labour's in real trouble in the next election, not from the risk of lefty women switching their vote to another political party, but the risk of them not voting.
...
I figured that if what I was observing in three disparate unconnected loose groups of women (ie not formal groups, just groups in the sense of being randomly either women I knew locally or who worked in the media like I used to) was being replicated around the country, then Starmer had no idea as to how many votes he/the Labour Party stood to lose.
People complain all the time about being politically homeless, or muse whether they'll actually bother voting because they feel they're not being listened to, all the way from the most ultra pro-trans people through to economic leftists who nevertheless feel deportations to Rwanda might not be the worst idea ever.

The only question Starmer cares about is which tranche is largest, best placed and most likely to act on its complaints. In this case, given his most recent comments, he's clearly decided he'll lose less by pandering to the "gender critical" set. So they win, and he'll happily be throwing trans people under the bus until the maths changes.

(Edit: As a side note, for such people who believe in voting I'd say being willing to put their X in favour of Labour's stances on trade unionism, migration, welfare, protest rights, the environment, tax, nationalisation etc, then drawing the line at it being too wobbly on self-ID, not that it's pro but that it's not anti enough, is pretty damning).
 
Last edited:
People complain all the time about being politically homeless, or muse whether they'll actually bother voting because they feel they're not being listened to, all the way from the most ultra pro-trans people through to economic leftists who nevertheless feel deportations to Rwanda might not be the worst idea ever.

The only question Starmer cares about is which tranche is largest, best placed and most likely to act on its complaints. In this case, given his most recent comments, he's clearly decided he'll lose less by pandering to the "gender critical" set. So they win, and he'll happily be throwing trans people under the bus until the maths changes.

Yeah this. And he's not doing it to appeal to the 'traditional lefty women' end of that is he, he's pitching it more at the Daily Mail reader end. Vote for him on that basis and you get the Mail reader shit in other areas too.
 
The only question Starmer cares about is which tranche is largest, best placed and most likely to act on its complaints. In this case, given his most recent comments, he's clearly decided he'll lose less by pandering to the "gender critical" set. So they win, and he'll happily be throwing trans people under the bus until the maths changes.
My guess is the only votes he'll lose from the pro-trans side he's likely already lost and isn't bothered about anyway because they are mostly in metropolitan safe Labour seats - and more importantly unlike some GCs they would never vote Tory. A few hundred people voting Green in Hackney, or even a few thousand in Brighton doesn't really matter that much from a cynical electioneering pov.

The Gender Critical movement isn't that big and punches above it's weight largely due to demographics - it has a lot of professional middle class people with influence in the media and a lot of seasoned and well connected campaigners from both the left and right. But they couldn't put more than 100 people on the streets until the far right turned up to swell the numbers and even then turn out is pitiful in contrast to the tens of thousands who have come out for Trans Pride marches all over the UK. If Labour was losing women due to support for trans people it doesn't seem to be showing up in the polls and all the research I've seen suggests trans issues in either direction are not even on the radar when it comes to most voter's priorities.

I think it's more about sending a nebulous anti-woke message particularly to the right wing press and the wider establishment. He's showing Murdoch and co he's a safe pair of hands and has no plans to rock the boat. He wants a Sun Backs Blair moment.
 
People complain all the time about being politically homeless, or muse whether they'll actually bother voting because they feel they're not being listened to, all the way from the most ultra pro-trans people through to economic leftists who nevertheless feel deportations to Rwanda might not be the worst idea ever.

The only question Starmer cares about is which tranche is largest, best placed and most likely to act on its complaints. In this case, given his most recent comments, he's clearly decided he'll lose less by pandering to the "gender critical" set. So they win, and he'll happily be throwing trans people under the bus until the maths changes.

(Edit: As a side note, for such people who believe in voting I'd say being willing to put their X in favour of Labour's stances on trade unionism, migration, welfare, protest rights, the environment, tax, nationalisation etc, then drawing the line at it being too wobbly on self-ID, not that it's pro but that it's not anti enough, is pretty damning).

I think this is largely right but I think the thinking is slightly different. Starmer is trying to neutralise potential attack lines from the Tories + Daily Mail etc. so they can't rally their forces to keep Labour out. So I think the strategy isn't to win one set of people over over the other but to starve the Tories of votes. I think this is how it works in general with his strategy on all issues. A lot of potential Labour voters are going to be dissatisfied with the Labour Party for one reason or another, but that doesn't matter at least for the next general election. So gender critical/anti-trans rhetoric is an attack line, so Starmer duly moves to neutralise it throwing, as you say, trans people under the bus.

Fwiw, most of the people I know are right wingers who are nevertheless upset at the government for being generally shit and letting the utilities gouge us all and also for dumping Boris, pandering to the woke agenda and letting the asylum seekers in (yes I know). If Labour can just get these guys to not vote they'll sail in and that's all they need to do.

As I keep pointing out Starmer is not an especially unpopular leader according to the polls. Disaffected lefties like most on here and indeed me are a minority without much voting power and most disaffected Labourish voters will just generally vote tactically (ie. usually Labour) anyway.
 
I tell a bit of a lie about most people I know. Most people I know and most people you probably know as well don't think about politics and don't say much about it. It's just we notice the people who are vocal about it. Starmer/Labour are probably doing alright with this massive cohort.
 
I tell a bit of a lie about most people I know. Most people I know and most people you probably know as well don't think about politics and don't say much about it. It's just we notice the people who are vocal about it. Starmer/Labour are probably doing alright with this massive cohort.
True, no one really knows about the purges and the pledge breaking, they just think Bland. Onwards to victory....
 
That Starmer llama drama was just a really fucking bizarre episode. Exactly who the fuck did he think he was appealing to by taking such a stance? Does po-faced animal destruction focus test well or something?
 
Back
Top Bottom