Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[WelshBluebird]

standing in silence with head bowed is an obvious one that comes to my mind

So you think an anti racism gesture should be even less visible than taking a knee? There's a meme going around that is fairly apt - people say protest peacefully when there's violent protest, but when they do protest peacefully people still complain about that. Its almost like a section of society don't want any kind of protest that they can't easily ignore or pretend that it isn't happening.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So you think an anti racism gesture should be even less visible than taking a knee?

That's totally missing the point. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with how visible the gesture is - it's entirely to do with the difference between something that signifies opposition to racism (almost no-one in mainstream politics would disagree with opposition to racism), and something that appears to signify support for the BLM movement - which is a lot more controversial because BLM appears to stand for many things that go beyond merely fighting racism and which many people would disagree with. I'm pretty sure that is the point that Boris Johnson, Priti Patel and other senior Tories have been making.

 

[Butts]

Possibly we have to go back to when Robert Maxwell was elected Labour MP for Buckingham in 1964 and 1966 and stood unsuccessfully in both 1974 Elections.

Good old Jan might have won the MC during the War but his business dealings were somewhat circumspect.

Imagine if he had succeeded in buying The News of the World in 1970, with his socialist and business bent things could have been very different. Unfortunately for Labour the owners didn't want to sell to a "Czech Peasant"

At least he was a character, most people on here probably can't remember him in his bombastic prime.

With the NOW in Labour hands there would have been no stopping them

 

[Purple Orange]

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.

That to me seems strange and despite the England players having explained why they take the knee, you can’t see beyond a political ideology that is quite frankly not very well understood at all by most who oppose BLM.

‘Marxism’ in this country is used by the right wing in the same way the right wing in the US use the word ‘socialism’ - what many in the US who rile against ‘socialism’ would also describe the UK as a ‘socialist’ state.

 

[Gloster]

At least he was a character...

I doubt that the Mirror pensioners would agree with you.

 

[DarloRich]

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.

The players have made quite clear why they are kneeling. Several times. It is odd you and others think you know better than them or feel comfortable telling them why they are wrong to do so. Perhaps thicko footballers cant think for themselves and need your help.

If you want to make common cause with hypocrites and wrong uns like johnson, patel, farage and fox be my guest. I know which side I am on. It isnt that one.

It is clear you and others would prefer a less visible statement in this regard. Why is that? What are you worried about?

EDIT: You are also on the side of the clown like tory mp who got in such a state over this he refused to watch the games and instead unpacked boxes or that other tory nincompoop who told tyrone mings ( a black footballer complaining about racism!) to ,essentially, know his place when he called out patel and her hypocrisy!

 

[Busaholic]

I doubt that the Mirror pensioners would agree with you.

He was a truly appalling man who only used the Labour Party to help further his own interests.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The players have made quite clear why they are kneeling. Several times. It is odd you and others think you know better than them or feel comfortable telling them why they are wrong to do so. Perhaps thicko footballers cant think for themselves and need your help.

If you want to make common cause with hypocrites and wrong uns like johnson, patel, farage and fox be my guest. I know which side I am on. It isnt that one.

It is clear you and others would prefer a less visible statement in this regard. Why is that? What are you worried about?

EDIT: You are also on the side of the clown like tory mp who got in such a state over this he refused to watch the games and instead unpacked boxes or that other tory nincompoop who told tyrone mings ( a black footballer complaining about racism!) to ,essentially, know his place when he called out patel and her hypocrisy!

Sadly, much of this post is not worth replying to because it consists of putting words in my mouth that I haven't actually said. I've made it clear several times what my motivation is. If you prefer to ignore what I've said and instead make up stuff that I haven't said - as you've done here - then I guess that's up to you. It's a free country

 

[DarloRich]

Sadly, much of this post is not worth replying to because it consists of putting words in my mouth that I haven't actually said. I've made it clear several times what my motivation is. If you prefer to ignore what I've said and instead make up stuff that I haven't said - as you've done here - then I guess that's up to you. It's a free country

No problem. It is clear that although the players have explained why they are taking the action they are you and others have chosen to reject that explanation and iterpret thier actions in another way.

 

[Butts]

He was a truly appalling man who only used the Labour Party to help further his own interests.

Is that an unusual attribute for a Labour MP ?

 

[ainsworth74]

At the point at which the Spectator is arguing that the Tories have made a mistake with their approach to this taking the knee issue is it perhaps time to accept that it isn't the England football team that are the problem here?

...

[Steve] Baker has put his finger on a problem that his party has. It was perhaps one thing for Tory MPs to be uncomfortable about the genesis of the gesture of taking the knee, given it comes from the US where racism is manifestly different to that in the UK (this is different to saying that the UK doesn't have a problem with racism, by the way), or indeed to be worried about some of the demands of organisations linked to taking the knee. As Baker says, it is reasonable to want to avoid being associated with calls to defund the police. But it is still possible to decouple those concerns from the wider significance of the gesture, which is seen by a much wider group as taking a stand against racism. It just so happens that this wider group contains the England football team, which has largely managed to avoid the mistakes of many of its past members to the extent that it was possible for the Queen to write last week of her 'hope that history will record not only your success but also the spirit, commitment, and pride with which you have conducted yourselves'. The way the team explained its decision to take the knee at the start of games underlined that the footballers saw it as being a simple way of saying they stood against racism, rather than as part of any political movement.

It was also a strange fight for MPs like Lee Anderson, who quite obviously has rather less authority on what it's like to be a young black man in Britain today than, say, Marcus Rashford or Bukayo Saka, to pick. These footballers enjoy far more popularity than even the savviest and most likeable politicians in this country: why bother having a spat with them over their choice of symbol?

Tory MPs understand the importance of symbols as much as anyone. It's not just the current wars over whether or not to protect statues, but longstanding commitments to, for instance, wear a symbol that commemorates those who have died serving their country in wars. Most give short shrift to those who argue that the poppy has been co-opted by 'warmongers' on the grounds that for the majority of the people who wear the poppy, it is a mark of respect. It could be dismissed as mere 'gesture politics', which is the phrase that Priti Patel used when asked about taking the knee, because it only amounts to the gesture of wearing a badge (arguably less effort). But humans have always used gestures to show their respect for one another. It's nothing new. What is new is that the Conservative party has stopped appreciating the importance of these gestures in its rush to pick unnecessary fights.

...

How did the Tories get taking the knee so wrong?

Steve Baker’s warning to his colleagues about the way they respond to footballers taking the knee has shaken like a snow globe the debate about the Conservative party and racism. Sir Keir Starmer chose to focus on the matter at Prime Minister’s Questions, mentioning Baker’s message to fellow...

www.spectator.co.uk

Is that an unusual attribute for a Labour MP ?

Or any MP really. Personally I'd argue that Tory MPs have been much worse of late (see all the shenanigans with the various contracts handed to friends, donors, family members, etc of Tory MPs during the pandemic).

 

[AlterEgo]

At the point at which the Spectator is arguing that the Tories have made a mistake with their approach to this taking the knee issue is it perhaps time to accept that it isn't the England football team that are the problem here?

For all of the furore about the knee-taking and all its baggage, indeed, the England team aren't the problem.

The England team's conduct during the tournament was excellent. While I personally wouldn't take the knee myself, I thought their explanation was fair and reasonable. Southgate's letter was pretty good. While the tournament was on, I found the needless political commentary from both sides infuriating, using the team as a blank slate upon which to project their political ideas: "hurr, wow, England's team is so DIVERSE for once this is why they win games" (eh? It's been diverse for all the 35 years I've been on earth!) "Southgate's a conservative really, see his tactics which show great prudence zzzzz".

Nonetheless, the main difference this time was the team not only performing well but being excellent representatives of the country. They were fair minded, positive and open without ever slapping on the cringe too much. This had the delicious result of purging idiots on what I call the misery horseshoe of supporting England.

On the left, the sad little English people who hate England and who cheer against England all the time, usually victims of FBPE-brain or self-loathing, who suddenly found they had boxed themselves into a corner. They found themselves unable to support a team which had senior players retweeting, for example, a non-binary person who said they felt very welcome and safe at the football match, and which had a whole squad of players willing to say no to racial abuse. These people found themselves cheering for Italy in the final, a nation with a much deeper issue of racism, corruption and organised violent thuggery within its football culture. Those people found themselves celebrating the equaliser, scored by Bonucci, who said his own Juventus team-mate Moise Kean was 50-50 to blame for being racially abused with monkey chants and verbal abuse from the stands. And who was the professional footballer quickest to call out Bonucci for this? Raheem Sterling.

On the right, the knee-haters said they'd boycott the England games and boo the team. None of them thought England would get to the final, and watching those people gradually back down from booing our national team was equally delicious. They totally lost their heads and looked utterly ridiculous.

The culture war stuff is important, but people should be very careful which hills to choose to die on, because there were quite a lot of corpses on several hills after the Euros.

 

[brad465]

Starmer appears to have started his summer campaign, planned in the wake of the local election results to try and understand party issues in the eyes of former voters and come up with related policies, with a visit to a hustings in Blackpool yesterday:

I will sweat blood to win voters' respect, says Sir Keir Starmer

The Labour leader tells the BBC his party has a "trust issue", after talking to some of its ex-voters.

www.bbc.co.uk

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has vowed to "sweat blood over months and years to earn respect" from voters.

Speaking to the BBC after taking questions from ex-Labour voters in Blackpool, Sir Keir admitted "there is a trust issue" for his party.
He also said he had been "utterly frustrated" the pandemic had stopped him meeting voters around the country.
Sir Keir took over from Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in April 2020, vowing to lead the party into "a new era".
After initially enjoying high approval ratings, Sir Keir has had a bruising 2021, with the loss of a traditional stronghold, Hartlepool, to the Conservatives in a by-election, and Boris Johnson's party opening up a large lead in the opinion polls.

He launched a policy review, and a reshuffle of his top team, after the Hartlepool defeat, and the party managed to hang on to Batley and Spen, in West Yorkshire, in another by-election.

'Utterly frustrating'​

But Sir Keir is under pressure from many of his own MPs to turn Labour's fortunes around and set out what he stands for.
He has embarked on a summer tour of Britain, to listen to voters' concerns and sell Labour's message.
At the first event, in Blackpool, which has two Conservative MPs, he was grilled about the benefits system, trust in politicians, employment and education, among other subjects.

 

[Typhoon]

At the point at which the Spectator is arguing that the Tories have made a mistake with their approach to this taking the knee issue is it perhaps time to accept that it isn't the England football team that are the problem here?

A slight disagreement with Isabel Hardman (that author of the article) "What is new is that many in the Conservative party has stopped appreciating the importance of these gestures in its rush to pick unnecessary fights" (emboldened - my addition.) There is a core of Conservative Party members and MPs who put their traditional Conservative values first, rather than oppose everything deemed as 'wokery' (which I still don't understand) and that Labour supports. What hasn't helped the anti-knee campaign one bit is that some of the England team would be largely unknown to the average viewer - Rice, Phillips, Shaw, Bellingham, even Walker, Mount, Stones and Trippier would be difficult to pick out in a team line up so the 'overpaid and under talented' is more difficult to pin on them (even though they are overpaid), they were underdogs and they overachieved. That's what we Brits like. The 'taking the knee' takes second or third place. Lee Anderson's immature actions have ensured that he shouldn't ever figure on the Treasury benches; he will be (rightly) slaughtered (verbally).

Edit: Rather ironic that the article appeared in The Spectator (last edit but one - A.B.Johnson).

The culture war stuff is important, but people should be very careful which hills to choose to die on, because there were quite a lot of corpses on several hills after the Euros.

Quite right, few Generals are ever undefeated, the more battles you fight, the less likely that is to happen. And in some cases the battle you lose is decisive.

Or any MP really. Personally I'd argue that Tory MPs have been much worse of late (see all the shenanigans with the various contracts handed to friends, donors, family members, etc of Tory MPs during the pandemic).

Absolutely, they have developed it into an art form. If Dido Harding becomes Chief Executive of NHS England, we will know that they know no shame.

 

[A0wen]

He was a truly appalling man who only used the Labour Party to help further his own interests.

A claim which could legitimately be made about a good many socialists - Viscount Stansgate aka Anthony Wedgewood Benn being one, Derek Hatton another and Jon Lannsmann another.

 

[wandacat]

Of all the issues that are top of Ex Labour voters beliefs in red wall seats, I doubt that taking the knee is in the top 10.

In fact Keir Starmer needs to be careful. Implying that people who don’t agree with taking the knee (myself included) are racist just alienates a lot of the people he needs to win back (Myself included)

His tactics could have the opposite effect.

 

[Butts]

A claim which could legitimately be made about a good many socialists - Viscount Stansgate aka Anthony Wedgewood Benn being one, Derek Hatton another and Jon Lannsmann another.

Even more interesting Benn's Son Stephen reclaimed the Title he gave up and became 3rd Viscount Stansgate a few years back.

 

[Purple Orange]

Are people still getting upset about taking the knee? Seriously, get over it. Or is it that people are getting upset about racism being called out and it makes them feel uncomfortable?

 

[Gloster]

A claim which could legitimately be made about a good many socialists - Viscount Stansgate aka Anthony Wedgewood Benn being one, Derek Hatton another and Jon Lannsmann another.

I think that Old Whirling Eyes (Benn) did genuinely believe that what he was doing was the best for people and any ambition was to be in position to carry out the policies he wanted. However, despite the attempts to be at ease with the workers (tea in mugs, etc.), what I particularly disliked about him was that he had the same arrogant attitude as many other upper-class that they knew best as to what the workers wanted or needed.

Even more interesting Benn's Son Stephen reclaimed the Title he gave up and became 3rd Viscount Stansgate a few years back.

I think that in the last week or so he has become one of the ninety-two elected peers.

 

[tbtc]

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

Okay, the players have explained several times why they are taking the knee, Southgate wrote a rather eloquent letter explaining why they are taking the knee, the reaction of some pondlife after the tournament will no doubt strengthen their resolve to keep taking the knee - and they've all repeatedly explained that this is a respectful gesture and nothing to do with Gramsci/ Marx/ public ownership of the means of production... but other people still claim that they are supporting and endorsing all of the "controversial" things that you claim...

...so, since I can't convince you that they are using a long established gesture (that people were doing decades before some edge lord activists tried to claim it as their own), let's look at it another way...

...whilst the (far) left keep trying to seek traitors and demonise those who only agree with 95% of the same things as them, the (far) right have a much cleverer approach, of trying to assimilate popular things as evidence that people support them.

So, we have the likes of Britain First co-opting the (British Legion's) Poppy and trying to make that a touchstone for their own campaigns... in the US there's the Trump-supporting "Proud Boys" who dress in Fred Perry/ New Balance and claim that as their "uniform", so that anyone who wears Fred Perry/ New Balance is one of theirs and subscribes to their beliefs (even though large numbers of people were wearing those brands for many years before, and many of other people aspired to those brands regardless of politics). They do the same about the "okay" gesture (where you form a circle of thumb and finger, with the other fingers pointing up).

I'm probably the kind of milquetoast beta-male person that the Proud Boys would hate, but I continue to wear New Balance (have been to the Factory in Flimby a couple of times, great to have manufacturing in the UK rather than buying imported shoes from other companies) - I've bought the occasional Fred Perry top in local charity shops - they both seem good quality brands that are a cut above the "norm" (so it's a clever move, because it conflates "brands that people like" with "supporting the Proud Boys").

Now, if I see someone wearing both of those, I don't automatically think they are Proud Boys supporters, even though that's the "uniform" of such people - I don't assume that they are implying support for a controversial movement (just like I don't think that someone wearing a Poppy is a Britain First fan)

The world is full of campaigns where opponents can find a rogue 1% on the opposite side and paint that as somehow representing everyone - e.g.many people will have nuanced views of Israel/ Palestine, but it's easy for someone to find one example of activists on one side (who sent a tweet saying how much they wanting to "crush" the other side) and suggest that they represent everyone.

There are a number of causes I could get behind where (some of) the activists who generate the most noise are deliberately provocative/ antagonistic/ more focussed on annoying opponents to keep the hardcore energised than actually winning support from "neutrals" - look how the likes of PETA behave

I don't assume that the England players support every war that the British Empire carried out just because they sing a song praising the Monarch at the start of each match - I don't assume that the England players support all religious wars just because they sing a song praising God at the start of each match - I don't assume that the England players are warmongers just because they wear poppies during matches in October/ November - but a lot of people seem happy to conflate kneeling with the entire agenda of some radical Americans.

But, if people don't listen to the players/ manager repeatedly explaining that "kneeling" =/= "backing Marxism" then I guess there's nothing I can say that'll change their minds either

At the point at which the Spectator is arguing that the Tories have made a mistake with their approach to this taking the knee issue is it perhaps time to accept that it isn't the England football team that are the problem here?

It's funny - they've "won" lots of culture war stuff, but seem to be coming unstuck on a number of things like face masks and taking the knee... quick, whip up a store about Gypsies or pretend that "Brussels wants to ban our sausages"!

Starmer appears to have started his summer campaign, planned in the wake of the local election results to try and understand party issues in the eyes of former voters and come up with related policies, with a visit to a hustings in Blackpool yesterday:

He's making the right sounds here - it's a bit "hair shirt" but he's showing that he understands that Labour lost and wants to learn why Labour lost - whereas Corbyn arrogantly kept on with the same approach after his 2019 defeat

I think that a number on the Canary/Novara wing of the party are unhappy with the idea of listening to the people that didn't vote for Labour since Blair stood down

But you need to listen to the people who stopped voting Labour to find out what you need to do to try to win them back

 

[Purple Orange]

Okay, the players have explained several times why they are taking the knee, Southgate wrote a rather eloquent letter explaining why they are taking the knee, the reaction of some pondlife after the tournament will no doubt strengthen their resolve to keep taking the knee - and they've all repeatedly explained that this is a respectful gesture and nothing to do with Gramsci/ Marx/ public ownership of the means of production... but other people still claim that they are supporting and endorsing all of the "controversial" things that you claim...

...so, since I can't convince you that they are using a long established gesture (that people were doing decades before some edge lord activists tried to claim it as their own), let's look at it another way...

...whilst the (far) left keep trying to seek traitors and demonise those who only agree with 95% of the same things as them, the (far) right have a much cleverer approach, of trying to assimilate popular things as evidence that people support them.

So, we have the likes of Britain First co-opting the (British Legion's) Poppy and trying to make that a touchstone for their own campaigns... in the US there's the Trump-supporting "Proud Boys" who dress in Fred Perry/ New Balance and claim that as their "uniform", so that anyone who wears Fred Perry/ New Balance is one of theirs and subscribes to their beliefs (even though large numbers of people were wearing those brands for many years before, and many of other people aspired to those brands regardless of politics). They do the same about the "okay" gesture (where you form a circle of thumb and finger, with the other fingers pointing up).

I'm probably the kind of milquetoast beta-male person that the Proud Boys would hate, but I continue to wear New Balance (have been to the Factory in Flimby a couple of times, great to have manufacturing in the UK rather than buying imported shoes from other companies) - I've bought the occasional Fred Perry top in local charity shops - they both seem good quality brands that are a cut above the "norm" (so it's a clever move, because it conflates "brands that people like" with "supporting the Proud Boys").

Now, if I see someone wearing both of those, I don't automatically think they are Proud Boys supporters, even though that's the "uniform" of such people - I don't assume that they are implying support for a controversial movement (just like I don't think that someone wearing a Poppy is a Britain First fan)

The world is full of campaigns where opponents can find a rogue 1% on the opposite side and paint that as somehow representing everyone - e.g.many people will have nuanced views of Israel/ Palestine, but it's easy for someone to find one example of activists on one side (who sent a tweet saying how much they wanting to "crush" the other side) and suggest that they represent everyone.

There are a number of causes I could get behind where (some of) the activists who generate the most noise are deliberately provocative/ antagonistic/ more focussed on annoying opponents to keep the hardcore energised than actually winning support from "neutrals" - look how the likes of PETA behave

I don't assume that the England players support every war that the British Empire carried out just because they sing a song praising the Monarch at the start of each match - I don't assume that the England players support all religious wars just because they sing a song praising God at the start of each match - I don't assume that the England players are warmongers just because they wear poppies during matches in October/ November - but a lot of people seem happy to conflate kneeling with the entire agenda of some radical Americans.

But, if people don't listen to the players/ manager repeatedly explaining that "kneeling" =/= "backing Marxism" then I guess there's nothing I can say that'll change their minds either



It's funny - they've "won" lots of culture war stuff, but seem to be coming unstuck on a number of things like face masks and taking the knee... quick, whip up a store about Gypsies or pretend that "Brussels wants to ban our sausages"!



He's making the right sounds here - it's a bit "hair shirt" but he's showing that he understands that Labour lost and wants to learn why Labour lost - whereas Corbyn arrogantly kept on with the same approach after his 2019 defeat

I think that a number on the Canary/Novara wing of the party are unhappy with the idea of listening to the people that didn't vote for Labour since Blair stood down

But you need to listen to the people who stopped voting Labour to find out what you need to do to try to win them back

I wish there was a like button on here!

What I am interested to know is, why is Marxism used as a mascaraed by those who oppose people taking the knee? We all know that if the organisation BLM had no political affiliation, there would still be right wing opposition to England players highlighting there is a racism problem in our society.

 

[wireforever]

Must say that the local elections in May Labour were the only party who knocked on my door during the election period.Not had any information again during the campaign regarding PCC candidates so again did not bother sending back my ballot paper.Never had Lib Dems or Tories knock on the door in over 20+ years in either General Elections or local elections.I see Keir Starmer was at the Rugby League Final at Wembley yesterday

 

[Typhoon]

I wish there was a like button on here!

What I am interested to know is, why is Marxism used as a mascaraed by those who oppose people taking the knee? We all know that if the organisation BLM had no political affiliation, there would still be right wing opposition to England players highlighting there is a racism problem in our society.

In the eighteenth century, when my ancestors were toiling in the fields, the word 'Catholic' would have them erecting the barricades. We really haven't moved on much, the establishment declares groups of people to be bogeymen and we seem to want to fight for the status quo. I suppose the term 'Marxist' is used as a threat because it can be tied to the likes of Josef Stalin, who was a dictator, and the Kims, who are little more than an updated version of our medieval monarchies like the Plantagenets.

Rachel Johnson, on Broadcasting House (Radio 4), opined that part of the problem might be the use of 'take the knee' when 'kneel' would suffice - that describes the gesture while distancing the action from the American BLM movement, whose call for defunding of the police has scared moderates away. I notice that it is being used increasingly here to try to link BLM with anarchy, while no-one explains that in the US it is highly likely that the first responders to someone with autism wandering in the streets or having an epileptic episode is likely to be police officers armed with pepper spray, tasers and firearms rather than medics who are in a position to assess the patient (which is the reformers choice).

 

[NorthKent1989]

As a person of colour, I find the BLM movement utterly problematic, especially as it is an American movement, in my experience England isn’t a racist country, it has racist individuals, but to claim that England or the U.K. as a whole is a racist society is utterly ridiculous and beyond hyperbole

BLM doesn’t seek answers or ways to unite, its very divisive, whether they’re associated with Marxism or not, to blame a whole race of people for being racist is abhorrent.

BLM doesn’t speak for me or my values, I view them as being just as racist and bigoted as their white counterparts.

So you think an anti racism gesture should be even less visible than taking a knee? There's a meme going around that is fairly apt - people say protest peacefully when there's violent protest, but when they do protest peacefully people still complain about that. Its almost like a section of society don't want any kind of protest that they can't easily ignore or pretend that it isn't happening.

So what happened last year was peaceful was it? I don’t think so somehow, no one minds a protest but what people get annoyed with is when shops and businesses are smashed in, which was what happened.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Okay, the players have explained several times why they are taking the knee, Southgate wrote a rather eloquent letter explaining why they are taking the knee, the reaction of some pondlife after the tournament will no doubt strengthen their resolve to keep taking the knee - and they've all repeatedly explained that this is a respectful gesture and nothing to do with Gramsci/ Marx/ public ownership of the means of production... but other people still claim that they are supporting and endorsing all of the "controversial" things that you claim...

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Marxism, given that, as far as I can see, no-one on this thread who is arguing against taking the knee has brought it up as an argument.

In terms of Southgate's letter - I'm not sure if this is the document you're thinking of: https://www.theplayerstribune.com/posts/dear-england-gareth-southgate-euros-soccer? If that is the right letter, he doesn't mention Marxism either. The letter is actually not bad by itself, and there isn't really anything significant I disagree with in it. But the letter doesn't do anything to answer the concern that, by taking the knee, the England Team are not merely taking a stand against racism (a good thing) , but actually using their platform to specifically support the BLM movement: In the letter, as far as I can see, Southgate just completely ignores that question. However, not long ago the England team tweeted https://twitter.com/England/status/1268935615170531328?s=20, which looks like a pretty explicit indication of support for BLM. So if you want to argue that the England Team weren't intending support for anything controversial by taking the knee - I'd love to see what your evidence is!

We all know that if the organisation BLM had no political affiliation, there would still be right wing opposition to England players highlighting there is a racism problem in our society.

No, as a matter of fact, you don't know that - it's just a supposition. And it's a supposition that doesn't seem to be supported by the facts: Basically no-one on the mainstream right is objecting in principle to anyone highlighting the problem of racism. The objection that many people on the right have expressed is specifically to the BLM movement[*]. It therefore seems pretty unlikely that most people on the right would object to England players merely highlighting racism.

[*] I see @NorthKent1989 has mentioned a few of the reasons for disagreeing with BLM and seeing it as a controversial/inappropriate movement to support in what's supposed to be a non-political context. I'm trying to avoid going more into that because I feel this is getting quite off-topic for a thread that's supposed to be about the Labour Party, but if the thread topic was more relevant, I could add quite a few other concerns to @NorthKent1989's list.

 

[Purple Orange]

No, as a matter of fact, you don't know that - it's just a supposition. And it's a supposition that doesn't seem to be supported by the facts: Basically no-one on the mainstream right is objecting in principle to anyone highlighting the problem of racism. The objection that many people on the right have expressed is specifically to the BLM movement[*]. It therefore seems pretty unlikely that most people on the right would object to England players merely highlighting racism.

[*] I see @NorthKent1989 has mentioned a few of the reasons for disagreeing with BLM and seeing it as a controversial/inappropriate movement to support in what's supposed to be a non-political context. I'm trying to avoid going more into that because I feel this is getting quite off-topic for a thread that's supposed to be about the Labour Party, but if the thread topic was more relevant, I could add quite a few other concerns to @NorthKent1989's list.

Sorry but this is nonsense. The England team explained why they are taking the knee. Taking the knee is a symbol of opposing racism and a symbol of the BLM movement first. To oppose the BLM movement (in the name of being against anything other than opposing police brutality and violence against Black people) is conflating it with the BLM organisation (the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation and are also against police brutality and violence against Black people), which is separate from the movement. While the BLM organisation also take the knee, it does not originate from them and they hold no more ‘ownership’ of it than anyone who chooses to take the knee in the name of the movement.

Furthermore, to oppose the BLM organisation, you have to then be specific about what policies you are against. But to specifically oppose the BLM movement is to simply be against opposition of police brutality and violence against Black people.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sorry but this is nonsense. The England team explained why they are taking the knee. Taking the knee is a symbol of opposing racism and the BLM movement first. To oppose the BLM movement (in the name of being against anything other than opposing police brutality and violence against Black people) is conflating it with the BLM organisation (the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation), which is a separate from the movement. While the BLM organisation also take the knee, it does not originate from them and they hold no more ‘ownership’ of it than anyone who chooses to take the knee in the name of the movement.

I think we are in danger of forgetting that public gestures take place in a shared realm of understanding. Nobody gets to police how other people interpret their gestures, and that includes the England team.

 

[Purple Orange]

I think we are in danger of forgetting that public gestures take place in a shared realm of understanding. Nobody gets to police how other people interpret their gestures, and that includes the England team.

People have to try to understand the messaging first. We can’t just ignorantly assume what a gesture means.

 

[yorksrob]

Where did it all go wrong for labour ?

COVID.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Where did it all go wrong for labour ?

COVID.

Can’t argue with this, Covid mixed with Starmer’s appalling leadership has sent Labour standing in a grave,

Labour could have been a credible opposition after Lockdown One, but they went along with every harmful restriction, the only time Starmer piped up was him saying “I would have done this two weeks earlier” they never once stood up for those who could be affected by the lockdowns and restrictions, individual members have spoken up but as a whole they’ve been pretty useless.

It took the Lib Dem leader; Ed Davey, using his platform and spoke out against domestic vaccine passports before Starmer half heartedly joined the party late.

What did it for me was how Starmer spoke to the pub landlord in Bath, in such a rude and condescending manner about the landlords concerns and voicing what half the population are thinking, he may as well been Jacob Rees Mogg in that moment.