Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[edwin_m]

It's more a question of won't answer questions (simple or otherwise).

If he does answer a question it's likely to be a lie anyway, so if he won't answer then we're probably better off.

 

[Senex]

How far is he protected in the Commons (really the only place he seems now to be available to be challenged) by a weak Speaker and by conventions of the House (on "unparliamentary language") that go back to more honourable times about not directly calling people liars and their statements lies, so that even Hansard can't record at appropriate moments, "The answer just given was a lie"?

 

[tbtc]

Many put this down to the "student vote", but if students dominated this vote in 2017, most of them weren't there to do the same in 2019, and the Kent County Council Labour gains in the area earlier this year happened while most students won't have been in the area.

Canterbury, like Cambridge and Oxford has a large student population as well and in all 3 Labour have long enjoyed support which a couple of miles out of their cities they don't

We have a similar thing here with Sheffield Hallam (one of the richest constituencies in the UK but it has a Labour MP, and previously a LibDem one)

And I appreciate that Student numbers seem to be ever-growing, and Students are much more organised than in my day - so much easier to keep in touch and remind people to vote etc

But Labour should have been analysing/ focussing on their handful of wins under Corbyn (especially the 2017 wins that they managed to hold in 2019 when up against a much tougher opponent) - e.g. is it worth pacts with other parties to squeeze the vote or does a strong LibDem candidate do more damage to the Tory vote count? What can Canterbury teach us about how to win in other non-traditional areas?

Instead the hierarchy seemed almost embarrassed about Duffield, presumably because she wasn't their type of Labour MP, so no lessons learned

Labour has been in favour of every single restriction on public life

Fair enough - I don't want to drag this thread off topic, and I'm not going down the rabbit hole of the Covid subforum, so I'll give up on this one here

Seems to me Canterbury is a bit like Chesham & Amersham, the sort of place where Johnson's policies and general demeanour go down like a lead balloon. With an electorate prepared to vote tactically, it was Labour rather than the LibDems who won in this case.

I do wonder whether (in light of the LibDem council win in Raab's neck of the woods) whether Johnson's schtick is starting to lose value - he managed to keep enough people on board with his Get Brexit Done mantra, then he managed to appear Presidential at the start of Covid (nobody senior wanted to be seen to be criticising him if it could be portrayed as Talking The NHS Down etc) - he's tried to squeeze every ounce of kudos out of the Vaccine success (even though that seems to be something Hancock deserves more credit for - if he hadn't watched Contagion then who knows what'd have happened...) but he's running out of goodwill - you can kid some people (and maybe he'll get a short term post-Euro 2020 bounce if England win) but the "affable joker" stuff will come unstuck - better suggest another unrealistic infrastructure project to distract people!

 

[brad465]

I do wonder whether (in light of the LibDem council win in Raab's neck of the woods) whether Johnson's schtick is starting to lose value - he managed to keep enough people on board with his Get Brexit Done mantra, then he managed to appear Presidential at the start of Covid (nobody senior wanted to be seen to be criticising him if it could be portrayed as Talking The NHS Down etc) - he's tried to squeeze every ounce of kudos out of the Vaccine success (even though that seems to be something Hancock deserves more credit for - if he hadn't watched Contagion then who knows what'd have happened...) but he's running out of goodwill - you can kid some people (and maybe he'll get a short term post-Euro 2020 bounce if England win) but the "affable joker" stuff will come unstuck - better suggest another unrealistic infrastructure project to distract people!

Or send the Royal Navy with "gunboats" to the channel islands again I wonder if the Nissan bribe investment announcement was deliberately made yesterday to boost hopes in the by-election, if so it didn't achieve a seat win.

 

[birchesgreen]

I do wonder whether (in light of the LibDem council win in Raab's neck of the woods) whether Johnson's schtick is starting to lose value - he managed to keep enough people on board with his Get Brexit Done mantra, then he managed to appear Presidential at the start of Covid (nobody senior wanted to be seen to be criticising him if it could be portrayed as Talking The NHS Down etc) - he's tried to squeeze every ounce of kudos out of the Vaccine success (even though that seems to be something Hancock deserves more credit for - if he hadn't watched Contagion then who knows what'd have happened...) but he's running out of goodwill - you can kid some people (and maybe he'll get a short term post-Euro 2020 bounce if England win) but the "affable joker" stuff will come unstuck - better suggest another unrealistic infrastructure project to distract people!

The Tories are remarkably ill-disciplined which will cost them when Labour finally gets it's act together.

I see Gove is the latest to head to the divorce court, i hope Hancock isn't involved there too.

 

[507021]

It's more a question of won't answer questions (simple or otherwise).

Same difference.

Either way, to say Johnson is a capable debater and articulate is completely wrong.

 

[Typhoon]

Same difference.

Either way, to say Johnson is a capable debater and articulate is completely wrong.

I beg to differ. 'Can't answer' implies he doesn't know the answer or can't work it out; 'won't answer' implies an arrogance, answering the question is beneath him, or, I suppose, may be incriminating (although it might be disguising 'can't answer'). He does even attempt to answer questions. It is that that I find offensive. He may be finds it amusing that he can ignore the question and just quote something that is in his portfolio, but to me he is being disrespectful, firstly to MPs (including, sometimes, those on his own side) but also to voters that sent them there to represent them.

I completely agree about articulate, how he is held out to be a good orator defeats me. Capable debater, no idea, he doesn't debate, he just makes speeches; he appears to have 'prepared' his answer before the opposition has even started. Much of the time he doesn't even get his facts right. I can't think of any previous prime minister who has acted in this way.

'prepared' in this case means 'has got a few ideas that came into his head on the way to the chamber'.

 

[edwin_m]

I beg to differ. 'Can't answer' implies he doesn't know the answer or can't work it out; 'won't answer' implies an arrogance, answering the question is beneath him, or, I suppose, may be incriminating (although it might be disguising 'can't answer'). He does even attempt to answer questions. It is that that I find offensive. He may be finds it amusing that he can ignore the question and just quote something that is in his portfolio, but to me he is being disrespectful, firstly to MPs (including, sometimes, those on his own side) but also to voters that sent them there to represent them.

I completely agree about articulate, how he is held out to be a good orator defeats me. Capable debater, no idea, he doesn't debate, he just makes speeches; he appears to have 'prepared' his answer before the opposition has even started. Much of the time he doesn't even get his facts right. I can't think of any previous prime minister who has acted in this way.

'prepared' in this case means 'has got a few ideas that came into his head on the way to the chamber'.

He also tries his utmost to avoid situations where difficult questions might show him up. See for example selectiveness of TV appearances during the 2019 campaign, and the attempt to appoint a "spokesperson" for regular press conferences.

 

[317 forever]

Another reason why it is a relief that Labour have held Batley & Spen is that it is a rare example of somewhere that voted Tory in 1992, Leave in 2016 and is now Labour.

 

[A0wen]

Another reason why it is a relief that Labour have held Batley & Spen is that it is a rare example of somewhere that voted Tory in 1992, Leave in 2016 and is now Labour.

Not a true comparison - the boundaries changed after the '92 election and again before 2010:

1983–1997: The Metropolitan Borough of Kirklees wards of Batley East, Batley West, Birstall and Birkenshaw, Cleckheaton, Heckmondwike, and Spen.

1997–2010: The Metropolitan Borough of Kirklees wards of Batley East, Batley West, Birstall and Birkenshaw, Cleckheaton, and Spen.

2010–present: The Metropolitan Borough of Kirklees wards of Batley East, Batley West, Birstall and Birkenshaw, Cleckheaton, Heckmondwike, and Liversedge and Gomersal.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batley_and_Spen_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

 

[RuralRambler]

I beg to differ. 'Can't answer' implies he doesn't know the answer or can't work it out; 'won't answer' implies an arrogance, answering the question is beneath him, or, I suppose, may be incriminating (although it might be disguising 'can't answer'). He does even attempt to answer questions. It is that that I find offensive. He may be finds it amusing that he can ignore the question and just quote something that is in his portfolio, but to me he is being disrespectful, firstly to MPs (including, sometimes, those on his own side) but also to voters that sent them there to represent them.

I completely agree about articulate, how he is held out to be a good orator defeats me. Capable debater, no idea, he doesn't debate, he just makes speeches; he appears to have 'prepared' his answer before the opposition has even started. Much of the time he doesn't even get his facts right. I can't think of any previous prime minister who has acted in this way.

'prepared' in this case means 'has got a few ideas that came into his head on the way to the chamber'.

Boris and Sunak both do exactly that to deflect criticism against them re the 3 million excluded self employed. It's always the same "stock" answer of how they've spent £x billion on furlough, SEISS, BBL, etc., but they never answer the real question as to the millions who've not been eligible for the support schemes, often due to arbitrary/illogical/unfair "rules" that they imposed.

We need and deserve a strong opposition to continue pressing them and calling them out when they won't answer re the failures of the support schemes. Trouble is that Starmer and Reeves havn't taken the time to properly understand the covid support schemes, and they don't even properly understand the nuances of self employment (i.e. sole trader versus limited company etc)., so they can't properly challenge the government - it's clear they've just been handed a question to ask by an advisor, and are incapable of following it up as they don't understand what they've just asked! It's been some back benchers (on both sides) who've grasped the nettle and done the proper research as to the failings who have been the real challengers, but as back benchers, they've largely been ignored by the rest of the House. Reeves, as Shadow Chancellor needs to massively up her game if she wants to be taken seriously.

 

[birchesgreen]

I got to be honest with you, i'd forgotton Reeves was shadow chancellor as i haven't heard anything about her since she was appointed

 

[RuralRambler]

I got to be honest with you, i'd forgotton Reeves was shadow chancellor as i haven't heard anything about her since she was appointed

We're getting too many senior ministerial appts (and shadows) who simply aren't up to the job and are only in "power" because they look good in the media. Rishi Sunak is a classic example. There've only been a couple of Chancellors who've really tried to understand their job. First we had Alistair Darling (Labour) who took over from Gordon Brown, and then we had "Spreadsheet Phil" Hammond. Hammond was basically laughed at because he tried to understand the detail, hence the nickname. Presumably the senior Treasury mandarins don't like having a minister who wants to know things and prefer the ones who don't ask questions or challenge them!

 

[Typhoon]

Boris and Sunak both do exactly that to deflect criticism against them re the 3 million excluded self employed. It's always the same "stock" answer of how they've spent £x billion on furlough, SEISS, BBL, etc., but they never answer the real question as to the millions who've not been eligible for the support schemes, often due to arbitrary/illogical/unfair "rules" that they imposed.

We need and deserve a strong opposition to continue pressing them and calling them out when they won't answer re the failures of the support schemes. Trouble is that Starmer and Reeves havn't taken the time to properly understand the covid support schemes, and they don't even properly understand the nuances of self employment (i.e. sole trader versus limited company etc)., so they can't properly challenge the government - it's clear they've just been handed a question to ask by an advisor, and are incapable of following it up as they don't understand what they've just asked! It's been some back benchers (on both sides) who've grasped the nettle and done the proper research as to the failings who have been the real challengers, but as back benchers, they've largely been ignored by the rest of the House. Reeves, as Shadow Chancellor needs to massively up her game if she wants to be taken seriously.

I got to be honest with you, i'd forgotton Reeves was shadow chancellor as i haven't heard anything about her since she was appointed

Its not just Reeves, its about half the shadow cabinet. @RuralRambler rightly makes the point about the furlough scheme. It comes up from time to time on radio programmes I listen to with some interviewers (who clearly have got their heads around it) discussing it with those affected and I feel shocked by what I hear, they conclude with 'we asked for the Department to put forward a spokesperson but nobody was available' (they never are) it then it drifts into the background when I hear of other things that irritate me. It shouldn't be down to Starmer, he can't get on top of everything, there is a Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (and, now, one for the Future of Work and one for Employment Rights and Protections). They need to be pushing the radio and TV stations (there are enough of them), find people affected that can be interviewed. But it is up to Starmer to sort out who will take centre stage, even offer to be interviewed together; when the technical stuff comes up 'I'll pass that over to Jonathan (or whoever), who is on top of the details', that's what Johnson would do.
What about Nick Thomas-Symonds (I had to look him up)? Kate Green, Jo Stevens, Luke Pollard, Steve Reed. I was (and still am) hoping for more from Lucy Powell. About the only ones that are out there are Jonathan Ashworth, Ed Milliband, David Lammy, (to some extent) Rosena Allin-Khan, Angela Rayner (not necessarily in a good way) and, very recently, Anneliese Dodds. I take an interest in politics and struggled with most of these, goodness knows what the average member of the public would come up with. I know you can't force someone to interview you, but make yourself available, have the facts at your fingertips, be detailed, be interesting, even amusing, and answer the questions. If you make their programme interesting, they are more likely to be invited back!

Apparently, Reeves was on Marr yesterday talking about buying British!

 

[Domh245]

We're getting too many senior ministerial appts (and shadows) who simply aren't up to the job and are only in "power" because they look good in the media. Rishi Sunak is a classic example. There've only been a couple of Chancellors who've really tried to understand their job. First we had Alistair Darling (Labour) who took over from Gordon Brown, and then we had "Spreadsheet Phil" Hammond. Hammond was basically laughed at because he tried to understand the detail, hence the nickname. Presumably the senior Treasury mandarins don't like having a minister who wants to know things and prefer the ones who don't ask questions or challenge them!

I don't get this obsession with having 'specialised' ministers. By the time you get to ministerial positions, you really want someone who'd good at: managing large departments, and being able to learn quickly. The day-to-day running of the country should be left to the career specialists in the civil service - the minister is there to give 'big-vision' guidance, and press conferences. A chancellor who tries to understand the detail too much would quickly get hung up on whether the personal allowance should be £12,570 or £12,550 and lose track of other things within their remit.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I don't get this obsession with having 'specialised' ministers. By the time you get to ministerial positions, you really want someone who'd good at: managing large departments, and being able to learn quickly. The day-to-day running of the country should be left to the career specialists in the civil service - the minister is there to give 'big-vision' guidance, and press conferences. A chancellor who tries to understand the detail too much would quickly get hung up on whether the personal allowance should be £12,570 or £12,550 and lose track of other things within their remit.

I think there is a happy medium though.
Aka you don't want someone who has led a company to bankruptcy running the treasury, and you don't want a anti-vax / anti modern healthcare lunatic as health secretary.
But yeah I think people put too much emphasis on that idea when in reality the bigger problem is the merry go around of incompetence you see (where a minister who is sacked can basically just wait a few months and then get offered another position instead).

 

[edwin_m]

I do think it would be helpful for ministers to have an understanding of the basic principles of the academic subjects most relevant to their departments, such as science, geography or economics (as the case may be).

 

[Typhoon]

I do think it would be helpful for ministers to have an understanding of the basic principles of the academic subjects most relevant to their departments, such as science, geography or economics (as the case may be).

Either academic (or technical if relevant) subjects or through their own experience. I would say that a minister needs to know the basics, enough to avoid talking absolute bilge, needs to know when they are getting out of their depth, and needs to be able to ask intelligent questions of the civil servants. We have seen too many examples where departmental decisions have caused unintended hardship for others; we need ministers to have the ability to be able to pick out the occasional potential banana skin - to keep civil servants on their toes. Not all, just enough for the civil servants to realise the minister is actually paying attention. We also need SpAds who are at least fairly special, and civil servants with the time to do the job properly, but that's a different matter.

We should be trying to avoid situations like:-

James Duddridge attended the funeral of Kenneth Kaunda in Zambia's capital city of Lusaka last Friday and spoke on behalf of the British Government.

He said: 'Today the United Kingdom mourns Dr Kaunda's passing alongside his family, his friends and the people of Zimbabwe and indeed the wider world.

Duddridge is the Minister for Africa. He should have a passing knowledge of African geography, and know that these two are not to be confused. Johnson might be able to get away with it, this gentleman can't.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/a...confuses-Zambia-Zimbabwe-funeral-speech.html

 

[Pit_buzzer]

Going back to the original question, where did it all go wrong, I'd say today's statements about continuing the wearing of face masks shows a major disconnect with the views of the people

 

[brad465]

If identity politics is holding Labour back, then after a revelation like this it will either hold the Tories back as well, or expose double standards:

Conservative MP Steve Baker urges party to back players taking the knee

Steve Baker says Conservatives face a "wake-up call" over their attitude towards anti-racism protest.

www.bbc.co.uk

Conservative MPs need to change their attitude and support footballers who take the knee, a senior figure on the right of the party has said.

Steve Baker told the BBC players were not calling to "defund the police" or being "anti-capitalist" - they were saying "we suffer racism".
Last month, Home Secretary Priti Patel dismissed taking the knee as "gesture politics".
Other Tories have criticised players for making the protest before games.

On the eve of the Euro 2020 tournament, education minister Gillian Keegan said the Black Lives Matter campaign "is really about defunding the police and the overthrow of capitalism" - and taking the knee was "creating division".
Asked in June if she would criticise fans who booed England players taking the knee Priti Patel said: "That's a choice for them, quite frankly."
Boris Johnson has said he wants fans to cheer their team, but has not explicitly condemned fans who booed, prompting criticism from Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If identity politics is holding Labour back, then after a revelation like this it will either hold the Tories back as well, or expose double standards:

Conservative MP Steve Baker urges party to back players taking the knee

Steve Baker says Conservatives face a "wake-up call" over their attitude towards anti-racism protest.

www.bbc.co.uk

I see no double standards here. By taking the knee, the England players were making a gesture that is almost exclusively associated with a political movement that many people very legitimately disagree with. The players may well feel that they are opposing racism by doing that, but in reality they are also politicising their game by associating it with the BLM movement. There's absolutely no conflict between - on the one hand - condemning the awful abuse that some of the England players suffered, and on the other hand believing that the England team shouldn't be making divisive and controversial political gestures in their matches. I don't particularly care for either Priti Patel or Boris Johnson, but on this occasion I'd say they are both completely in the right. I'm slightly surprised to see Steve Baker speaking against his own party here, but I think he's mistaken.

I'd also say that (getting back onto the thread topic ) Labour's apparent inability to understand that being against racism does NOT necessarily mean supporting the BLM movement shows once again how badly Labour has got mired in identity politics - which is a big part of Labour's problems.

 

[Typhoon]

If identity politics is holding Labour back, then after a revelation like this it will either hold the Tories back as well, or expose double standards:

Conservative MP Steve Baker urges party to back players taking the knee

Steve Baker says Conservatives face a "wake-up call" over their attitude towards anti-racism protest.

www.bbc.co.uk

There are a lot of what Steve Baker (and others like him, such as David Davis) say that I disagree with but I am sure that they sincerely believe what they do say, which is a plus in my book*. While political parties have the likes of him there is always the chance that they will be scrutinised by their own side in an attempt to keep them honest. He did turn down a job in Johnson's government.

Calling Gillian Keegan an education minister is rather puffing up her position, she is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Apprenticeships and Skills. Unfortunately for her, the length of your job title does not indicate the importance of your job. The 11th Duke of Devonshire said "No one who hasn't been a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has any conception of how unimportant a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is" - he was one!

* - at least you know where they stand. Labour could do with rather more of them - who aren't on the extreme left of the party. We've got Momentum trying to overthrow capitalism but those moderates in Labour need to speak up for the mixed economy (as well as what the likes of Blair got right), instead of muttering incoherences.

 

[birchesgreen]

I see no double standards here. By taking the knee, the England players were making a gesture that is almost exclusively associated with a political movement that many people very legitimately disagree with.

Not in this country.

 

[tbtc]

Going back to the original question, where did it all go wrong, I'd say today's statements about continuing the wearing of face masks shows a major disconnect with the views of the people

...with the views of some people, you mean?

I think that a lot of people spend so much time in social media bubbles that they forget how disconnected they are with overall public opinion - I don't think that Labour's position on masks is that far from public opinion (e.g. whilst there are some very loud anti-mask voices around, the majority of people seem more cautious when it comes to things like continuing to wear them on public transport)

I see no double standards here. By taking the knee, the England players were making a gesture that is almost exclusively associated with a political movement that many people very legitimately disagree with

It's only "exclusively associated" in the eyes of the anti-anti-racists, who can only justify their disdain for the gesture by pretending that it's somehow "Marxist" - if they really believe that helping fund meals is "Marxist" then they really don't understand the political spectrum very well

I think that most people in the UK understand why they are protesting, I've read Southgate's open letter that explains the situation and the reason behind it - if people think that Southgate is "Marxist" then I really despair

Certain people complained when anti-racists protested, saying that they should stick to non-violent actions instead... the same people then complain about anti-racists taking the knee or using a clenched fist to protest... certain people are always going to complain about anti-racists protesting about racism.

Certain people who want to keep politics out of football seem absolutely fine with poppies on shirts or footballers doing other things (e.g. there's one Tory MP who was lauding Sol Campbell for getting involved in Vote Leave but also complaining about other footballers daring to express their political opinions)

When did we decide that the anti-anti-racists are the people who should tell the victims of racism how they should and shouldn't protest about racism?

 

[Purple Orange]

...with the views of some people, you mean?

I think that a lot of people spend so much time in social media bubbles that they forget how disconnected they are with overall public opinion - I don't think that Labour's position on masks is that far from public opinion (e.g. whilst there are some very loud anti-mask voices around, the majority of people seem more cautious when it comes to things like continuing to wear them on public transport)



It's only "exclusively associated" in the eyes of the anti-anti-racists, who can only justify their disdain for the gesture by pretending that it's somehow "Marxist" - if they really believe that helping fund meals is "Marxist" then they really don't understand the political spectrum very well

I think that most people in the UK understand why they are protesting, I've read Southgate's open letter that explains the situation and the reason behind it - if people think that Southgate is "Marxist" then I really despair

Certain people complained when anti-racists protested, saying that they should stick to non-violent actions instead... the same people then complain about anti-racists taking the knee or using a clenched fist to protest... certain people are always going to complain about anti-racists protesting about racism.

Certain people who want to keep politics out of football seem absolutely fine with poppies on shirts or footballers doing other things (e.g. there's one Tory MP who was lauding Sol Campbell for getting involved in Vote Leave but also complaining about other footballers daring to express their political opinions)

When did we decide that the anti-anti-racists are the people who should tell the victims of racism how they should and shouldn't protest about racism?

Can’t say I disagree with any of that. I’m of the opinion that if someone can’t see what footballers are doing by taking the knee by now, then they never will - principally because they don’t want to. How many times does it need explaining? It’s not about Marxism.

 

[Gloster]

I will just chip in to say that, purely based on observation, the great majority of people agree with masks. They may not like them and may be slipshod in how they wear them, but accept it as a small inconvenience that does a little bit to help defeat COVID. What I believe to be a small minority of anti-maskers make a disproportionate amount of noise and get a lot more publicity than their numbers really justify.

As far as taking the knee is concerned, I think that most people in this country see it as a purely anti-racist gesture; they don’t associate it with some of the more extreme aims to be seen in other countries and would not give their, usually passive, support if they did. Of course there will be individuals amongst those involved who have a more extreme agenda, but they are small in number. However, there are those who are, quite simply, making completely false claims about the movement in order to discredit it. Which, to my mind, raises questions about their aims and beliefs.

 

[Senex]

I see no double standards here. By taking the knee, the England players were making a gesture that is almost exclusively associated with a political movement that many people very legitimately disagree with. The players may well feel that they are opposing racism by doing that, but in reality they are also politicising their game by associating it with the BLM movement. There's absolutely no conflict between - on the one hand - condemning the awful abuse that some of the England players suffered, and on the other hand believing that the England team shouldn't be making divisive and controversial political gestures in their matches. I don't particularly care for either Priti Patel or Boris Johnson, but on this occasion I'd say they are both completely in the right. I'm slightly surprised to see Steve Baker speaking against his own party here, but I think he's mistaken.

I'd also say that (getting back onto the thread topic ) Labour's apparent inability to understand that being against racism does NOT necessarily mean supporting the BLM movement shows once again how badly Labour has got mired in identity politics - which is a big part of Labour's problems.

I agree with you. "Taking the knee" is a USA term for a gesture inspired by conditions in that country which are not the same as conditions here. And although the kneeling—which is all that it is—may have started almost as a gesture of prayer for change, it has become clearly associated with the extreme political elements of BLM, a movement that started with a simple and honourable point to make but soon turned into the standard rent-a-mob sort of operation we saw on show in Bristol and (to a slightly smaller extent) in London. Kneeling to shew support for people wanting a fairer society is one thing; to offer even a suggestion of shewing support for louts, vandals, and various assorted anarchistic political protesters is quite another.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's only "exclusively associated" in the eyes of the anti-anti-racists, who can only justify their disdain for the gesture by pretending that it's somehow "Marxist" - if they really believe that helping fund meals is "Marxist" then they really don't understand the political spectrum very well

With respect, I think you're making the same mistake that Labour keep making: Assuming their opponents believe things that their opponents don't actually believe. You'll note that I never said anything about Marxism in my post. For my part, I very much associate taking the knee with the BLM movement - and that's because the BLM movement have pretty much appropriated the gesture for themselves. I'm not sure what an anti-anti-racist is, but by the logic of your statement 'It's only "exclusively associated" in the eyes of the anti-anti-racists', I guess you're accusing me of being one.

I think that most people in the UK understand why they are protesting, I've read Southgate's open letter that explains the situation and the reason behind it - if people think that Southgate is "Marxist" then I really despair

Sure, I understand why they are protesting. Racism is awful and the way it's impacted some of their own players must really bring it home to them. I can well understand their strength of feeling. But the fact is, they've chosen to make their protest known by using a gesture that - to a large number of people - implies support for a controversial movement that many people (including btw myself) do not support.

Certain people complained when anti-racists protested, saying that they should stick to non-violent actions instead... the same people then complain about anti-racists taking the knee or using a clenched fist to protest... certain people are always going to complain about anti-racists protesting about racism.

Well yes. Some of the early protests last year did include violence. The above sentences read like you're trying to suggest that there's something wrong with condemning the violence and suggesting that demonstrators should stick to non-violent actions? Surely that's not what you mean?

Certain people who want to keep politics out of football seem absolutely fine with poppies on shirts or footballers doing other things (e.g. there's one Tory MP who was lauding Sol Campbell for getting involved in Vote Leave but also complaining about other footballers daring to express their political opinions)

There's a difference. The footballers doing other things weren't doing other things on the pitch. To take one example, I think Marcus Rashford's campaign on free school meals was amazing and I think very highly of what he achieved there. But he was doing it quite legitimately in his spare time. If (hypothetically) he'd done that campaigning on the pitch, so that people who'd paid to come and watch him play football had to first watch him campaigning for free school meals at the start of the game, then there would have been an issue, and it would've been very legitimate for people to complain about that. I would suggest that Boris Johnson and Priti Patel's previous comments show that they see taking the knee on the pitch in much the same light - as by the way do I. Wearing poppies is possibly different because until recently it was not remotely controversial: Realistically, virtually no-one in mainstream politics objects to raising money for veterans.

When did we decide that the anti-anti-racists are the people who should tell the victims of racism how they should and shouldn't protest about racism?

That's really not at all fair - it's a gratuitous misrepresentation of what other people say and believe, and - knowing that your posts are generally well-argued - I'd really have expected better of you than to post that. No matter how good a cause something is, there is always a potential issue if you are promoting that cause in a context that is supposed to be completely non-political.

 

[Purple Orange]

With respect, I think you're making the same mistake that Labour keep making: Assuming their opponents believe things that their opponents don't actually believe. You'll note that I never said anything about Marxism in my post. For my part, I very much associate taking the knee with the BLM movement - and that's because the BLM movement have pretty much appropriated the gesture for themselves. I'm not sure what an anti-anti-racist is, but by the logic of your statement 'It's only "exclusively associated" in the eyes of the anti-anti-racists', I guess you're accusing me of being one.



Sure, I understand why they are protesting. Racism is awful and the way it's impacted some of their own players must really bring it home to them. I can well understand their strength of feeling. But the fact is, they've chosen to make their protest known by using a gesture that - to a large number of people - implies support for a controversial movement that many people (including btw myself) do not support.



Well yes. Some of the early protests last year did include violence. The above sentences read like you're trying to suggest that there's something wrong with condemning the violence and suggesting that demonstrators should stick to non-violent actions? Surely that's not what you mean?



There's a difference. The footballers doing other things weren't doing other things on the pitch. To take one example, I think Marcus Rashford's campaign on free school meals was amazing and I think very highly of what he achieved there. But he was doing it quite legitimately in his spare time. If (hypothetically) he'd done that campaigning on the pitch, so that people who'd paid to come and watch him play football had to first watch him campaigning for free school meals at the start of the game, then there would have been an issue, and it would've been very legitimate for people to complain about that. I would suggest that Boris Johnson and Priti Patel's previous comments show that they see taking the knee on the pitch in much the same light - as by the way do I. Wearing poppies is possibly different because until recently it was not remotely controversial: Realistically, virtually no-one in mainstream politics objects to raising money for veterans.



That's really not at all fair - it's a gratuitous misrepresentation of what other people say and believe, and - knowing that your posts are generally well-argued - I'd really have expected better of you than to post that. No matter how good a cause something is, there is always a potential issue if you are promoting that cause in a context that is supposed to be completely non-political.

Would you have a problem with players making the very same point, but using a different gesture? Kneeling on both knees head bowed? Stood around the centre circle arms all linked? Hand on heart?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Would you have a problem with players making the very same point, but using a different gesture? Kneeling on both knees head bowed? Stood around the centre circle arms all linked? Hand on heart?

A good question. I think, no, I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was a different gesture that didn't have political overtones (standing in silence with head bowed is an obvious one that comes to my mind), and the publicity they put out to explain what they are doing made it clear that their actions were in principle to oppose racism/to support racial harmony/for all people to be treated equally irrespective of ethnicity/etc., and don't imply support for any particular political movement or campaigning group. In that case I'd probably support them.