I've got a few things to do today so this reply might not be as coherent or detailed as I'd like (not that I set the bar particularly high with my other posts) but there are just a few things I'd like to comment on.
Firstly, for those who have commented but haven't seen the clip I'm talking about,
here it is (linking to twitter because the BBC website clip cuts the last 20 seconds off).
One thing I didn't mention before was him referring to BLM as a 'moment', which was what caused a lot of the backlash - he has since said he regretted it but it was a pretty poor choice of words imo, if he genuinely wasn't trying to downplay it as a flash in the pan that we all now need to move on from.
I can't find the full interview so if he does talk about other things in more detail then I don't know, if anyone does manage to find it I'd really like to see if because it might be reassuring if he actually goes on to expand about some issues he thinks should be addressed.
I did wonder if he was trying to distance himself from the 'organisation' (as at the end of the clip) because of some things that have been said about Israel. But I don't think that justifies just completely distancing himself from the whole thing.
A few specific points:
Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:55 pm
I wasn't commenting on what Starmer said. I haven't seen the interview. I was just suggesting that in terms of public perceptions the first few months are an important period.
My point was that he is already being criticised by the right wing press for discriminating against women/minorities within the Labour party. Perhaps not a particularly vicious attack but if that is the angle the press has taken to date then he's not doing himself loads of favours by dismissing it further.
AMS wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:37 pm
Sure, I'm not arguing on that point, but was wondering if he was focussed more on shutting down an easy attack line for Cummings/Johnson, rather than getting involved in a more detailed discussion that could easily be spun.
It is really disappointing that the automatic reaction to a challenging issue is that the best thing to do is to go on the defensive rather than work out how it can be used as an opportunity to improve the lives of the country's citizens and other people who live here, and from a political perspective, to point out the failings of the government in power.
AMS wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:37 pm
Also would he have really made David Lammy his shadow justice secretary if he wasn't in favour of implementing the recommendations of the Lammy report? I'm sure Starmer is very well aware of what's in it.
Yes he is. On 10 June David Lammy tweeted
this (sorry twitter again, I just googled 'Keir Starmer Lammy Review' and that was the first meaningful result). That was nearly a month ago though. If he chose to appoint David Lammy as shadow justice secretary, knowing full well what his priorities and concerns are - and to be quite honest, knowing that a lot of people actively dislike (to put it mildly) Lammy for daring to speak out about racism in the UK - why didn't he use this as an opportunity to promote Lammy's objectives? If he's in support, why not help to keep the momentum going?
AMS wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:08 pm
The things they call for (eg mental health services, better housing, jobs) are core Labour bread and butter stuff, but politically Labour cannot touch that slogan with a bargepole.
Right! The crux of it does appear to be the perception of BLM as the organisation rather than the movement. So why not divert the discussion back to Labour's policy issues rather than just act completely dismissively? And not only dismiss it - which he could probably have done quite briefly - but perhaps more importantly, spend half the answer talking about how many people you've brought to court when the issue is precisely that the justice system is systematically racist?
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:21 pm
In my experience of activists, they do tend to have opinions very far from the political mainstream. I would expect people who devote a lot of their time to campaigning or disseminating information to have strong opinions and be vocal about them. I'm not sure if that adds to their legitimacy.
I was listening a podcast interview with some American 'progressive' poll analyst/campaigner person, who on the whole I didn't particularly warm to tbh but he made the point that shifting public perceptions is the job of activists and movements and it is then for politicians to work with that shift in perception to get elected, rather than the politicians to be the ones driving the change. I can see that argument but if it's valid then the question becomes at what point do politicians become involved. In that sense you could say it's too early for Starmer to be 'getting involved' while the situation is still in flux, but on the other hand - apart from him calling it a 'moment' - there is also seizing the opportunity while you have the chance, getting an issue on the agenda and then keeping it there, rather than waiting for the dust to settle.
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:21 pm
I'm really in two minds about the politicisation of the movement (the recent domination of debate by specific policy goals and candidates - obviously it's always been a political movement more generally).
It's obviously helpful if people from across the political spectrum feel comfortable acknowledging that black lives do indeed matter. On the other hand, it's very likely that any meaningful, sustainable attempt to defend black lives' mattering is going to involve some (probably most, given that we're all complicit in upholding these structures) people's position on the political spectrum having to change, or their position being overpowered in some way. How else does change happen? The loudest voices need to be the most radical and most ambitious, as change almost always involves compromise and we'll inevitably end up somewhere between the status quo and the movement's demands. Attention is the most precious resource in the internet age. And so on.
I'm confused and uncomfortable all the time at the moment. I don't know who I agree with. I do know I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who seems certain they know what we should or shouldn't do to fix society. There's this huge tangled knot of competing tensions and it's going to be a pain in the arse to untangle.
Yeah I pretty much agree with this too at the moment.
What I'm just a bit sad and disappointed about though, is the automatic reactions of 'well they have a bad slogan' 'we mustn't upset the right wing press' - they might be valid criticisms but it strikes me as a reactive decision to distance ourselves from what this is fundamentally about, i.e. racism. As if it's 'their' problem to sort out and rather than look at how we can contribute to this (which tom p started a thread about) we just go 'oh well, they need to communicate better and the leader of the opposition is quite right to avoid the issue until they do'. There are real people affected by this every day. I can't claim even for a second to be the authority on this issue or to really even understand it fully, or to claim that I haven't f.cked up repeatedly (in my last two jobs for example I certainly found myself in situations that in retrospect I really could have handled better, had I been properly switched on to what was going on from the outset rather than realising too late), but there just seems to be an underlying lack of compassion running through this discussion in that people don't seem to be that interested in ensuring senior political figures are held to account - even if there is some disagreement about how that can best be achieved - just because those politicians are generally seen to be on 'our' side.
OK that last para in particular is probably not expressed very well, I am trying not to be too combative in this post so if it's rubbed anyone up the wrong way then I am sorry, but it would be nice if people could respond in kind if they disagree. Or if you think I'm just talking out of my arse as well and have completely misunderstood everyone. It's quite possible.