Yeah I know it means in theory that but in reality they want social services to see increased funding, and when you press them on it they want the police to get better training and pay as well.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Classical Mechanic
Full Member
It’s dumb because to most people it communicates almost the opposite of what it’s trying to communicate. Slogans are not supposed to require detailed explaining by the ‘right’ people.Who’s been explaining it to you? Defund the police is a very straightforward concept. Defund the police means defund the police i.e. divert resources elsewhere so tackling mental health, social services, youth centres, housing.
Fingeredmouse
Full Member
It's not tone deaf. He knows exactly what he's doing and who he's appealing to. As I've been saying, if he wants to win this is probably the right tactic. Leaves Labour an unpalatable prospect for those of us who are of the left...Starmer’s comments should be condemned by anyone who claims to stand in solidarity against racism. It’s painfully tone-deaf and outright insulting. If a Labour leader’s stance on a movement like BLM is able to be exploited by someone as beyond the pale as Farage (however cynically that may be), that should make anyone who claims to support the party uncomfortable.
What’s contradictory there? A smaller, better trained police force could be better paid as part of a broader defunding strategy.Yeah I know it means in theory that but in reality they want social services to see increased funding, and when you press them on it they want the police to get better training and pay as well.
I really don’t get how you think it is communicating the opposite of the message. They are saying defund the police. It means taking money away from the police system and investing it elsewhere. If a parent says to a kid I am going to defund your pocket money and put it into books for school instead I think they’d grasp the concept.It’s dumb because to most people it communicates almost the opposite of what it’s trying to communicate. Slogans are not supposed to require detailed explaining by the ‘right’ people.
Classical Mechanic
Full Member
People think it means defund the police so no more police because that’s what it says. Your analogy doesn‘t work. If a parent said to a kid ‘I’m going to defund your pocket money’, they’d be like ‘wtf?’ which is exactly what people think when they hear ‘defund the police’.I really don’t get how you think it is communicating the opposite of the message. They are saying defund the police. It means taking money away from the police system and investing it elsewhere. If a parent says to a kid I am going to defund your pocket money and put it into books for school instead I think they’d grasp the concept.
It doesn’t say no more police. It says defund. The analogy works because the kid doesn’t have to agree with it, likewise no one is saying you have to agree with defunding, but it’s not a difficult concept and the kid would understand if you said ‘I’m defunding your allowance fromPeople think it means defund the police so no more police because that’s what it says. Your analogy doesn‘t work. If a parent said to a kid ‘I’m going to defund your pocket money’, they’d be like ‘wtf?’ which is exactly what people think when they hear ‘defund the police’.
£5 to £3 and putting the £2 towards books’. Defund is really not a difficult concept, this confusion seems rather confected to me. It seems identical to those who pretend Black Lives Matter means White Lives don’t.
EwanI Ted
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2018
- Messages
- 1,755
No labour leader wanting to win an election should go anywhere near the phrase “defund the police”.
I’ve not seen anyone claim that he should?No labour leader wanting to win an election should go anywhere near the phrase “defund the police”.
Fingeredmouse
Full Member
You're right. That's not the problem with the interview.No labour leader wanting to win an election should go anywhere near the phrase “defund the police”.
Classical Mechanic
Full Member
I completely disagree. It doesn’t communicate in any clear sense what it wants to.It doesn’t say no more police. It says defund. The analogy works because the kid doesn’t have to agree with it, likewise no one is saying you have to agree with defunding, but it’s not a difficult concept and the kid would understand if you said ‘I’m defunding your allowance from
£5 to £3 and putting the £2 towards books’. Defund is really not a difficult concept, this confusion seems rather confected to me. It seems identical to those who pretend Black Lives Matter means White Lives don’t.
’Im defunding your pocket money’ wouldn’t translates into an idea that the money will then be distributed into some other positive channels in the mind of any child. The word defund has negative connotations.
In the UK at least, the police would welcome with open arms some of the burden being lifted from them by bringing in other services that can deal with more trivial matters and mental health etc. Most police want to solve serious crime. The police already have been defunded in the past decade in the UK. I, like many people, have noticed first hand the increase in crime and lack of police presence. This dynamic makes the slogan all the more baffling to UK ears.
Fingeredmouse
Full Member
The almost complete collapse of the social work and community care network has put a massive burden on the Police.I completely disagree. It doesn’t communicate in any clear sense what it wants to.
’Im defunding your pocket money’ wouldn’t translates into an idea that the money will then be distributed into some other positive channels in the mind of any child. The word defund has negative connotations.
In the UK at least, the police would welcome with open arms some of the burden being lifted from them by bringing in other services that can deal with more trivial matters and mental health etc. Most police want to solve serious crime. The police already have been defunded in the past decade in the UK. I, like many people, have noticed first hand the increase in crime and lack of police presence. This dynamic makes the slogan all the more baffling to a UK ears.
Dobba
Full Member
Exactly the same 'defence' offered up by the White/All Lives Matter folks for why they're using that slogan.I completely disagree. It doesn’t communicate in any clear sense what it wants to.
Classical Mechanic
Full Member
I‘m not using or defending any other slogan.Exactly the same 'defence' offered up by the White/All Lives Matter folks for why they're using that slogan.
Fingeredmouse
Full Member
Do you really think so? What's the reasoning here?Exactly the same 'defence' offered up by the White/All Lives Matter folks for why they're using that slogan.
Fluctuation0161
Full Member
He didn't acknowledge it! Which was exactly my point. He labelled the whole idea nonsense with no sense of looking further into the issue.Of course he would acknolwedge it, but the answer isn't to "de-fund the police", is it?
The campaign to "defund the police", which is a terrible name for the campaign imo, as I understand it, is more about reallocation of resources, funding, and responsibilities into other initiatives to improve public safety. But I'm no expert, if you are genuinely interested in understanding then look into it. This was not the part that I was commenting on.
The only thing "lazy" was Starmer not acknowledging those problems in "law and order". Then saying the BLM movement is focused on one man, one event in America. That may have started this latest round of protests but it is the tip of an extremely large iceberg.Everyone would be in agreement that it's a problem, and I don't think Starmer is even remotely suggesting that there isn't a racism problem among Law and Order. The way I interpreted it is that he felt lazy parallels were being drawn from what was a heinous crime in USA and it was politicized here in the UK when the solution to make things better isn't just "defund the police".
If to ask for equality is seen as "politicising" an event then that also is part of the wider problem.
Fluctuation0161
Full Member
Great endorsement, what strong leadership.Is being retweeted approvingly by a far right politician still proof that you're a massive racist, or did that go when Sir Keir took over?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Edit: My only caveat (understanding how biased the bbc can be against Labour) is that I'd like to see the full exchange and question asked for wider context. Wouldn't put it past the bbc to put out this edit to hurt Labour.
Last edited:
What slogan would you think better captures the objective of defunding the police and allocating money elsewhere? Also worth remembering a slogan can be provocative, the whole point is it challenges your worldview and forces you to think about issues you previously never gave a second thought to. Indeed, in the US it looks like BLM’s campaigning with such a slogan is completely shifting the parameter of debate and achieving tangible results in some states.I completely disagree. It doesn’t communicate in any clear sense what it wants to.
’Im defunding your pocket money’ wouldn’t translates into an idea that the money will then be distributed into some other positive channels in the mind of any child. The word defund has negative connotations.
In the UK at least, the police would welcome with open arms some of the burden being lifted from them by bringing in other services that can deal with more trivial matters and mental health etc. Most police want to solve serious crime. The police already have been defunded in the past decade in the UK. I, like many people, have noticed first hand the increase in crime and lack of police presence. This dynamic makes the slogan all the more baffling to UK ears.
The increase in crime is not due to a lack of police though, so more police is not the solution in itself. And if you funded the areas properly like you say you want, you’d almost certainly see less need for the police and hence, you guessed it, could defund them. It is not baffling at all, there exists a vast body of academic research behind claims such as ‘defund the police’.
Dobba
Full Member
The Burnley banner guy justified his shit it by saying it 'was important that people realise white lives matter too'.Do you really think so? What's the reasoning here?
EwanI Ted
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2018
- Messages
- 1,755
Defund can definitely mean total cessation of funding, thats not open to debate. It isnt intended to from those making the original claim, but it will 100% be interpreted that way by lots of people, maybe most people. My dictionary say it means "to dispossess of funding". In normal usage you would say "lower" or "reduce" if that's what you meant, albeit the slogan wouldn't be as neat.I completely disagree. It doesn’t communicate in any clear sense what it wants to.
’Im defunding your pocket money’ wouldn’t translates into an idea that the money will then be distributed into some other positive channels in the mind of any child. The word defund has negative connotations.
In the UK at least, the police would welcome with open arms some of the burden being lifted from them by bringing in other services that can deal with more trivial matters and mental health etc. Most police want to solve serious crime. The police already have been defunded in the past decade in the UK. I, like many people, have noticed first hand the increase in crime and lack of police presence. This dynamic makes the slogan all the more baffling to UK ears.
Besides, the thing about diverting money to community or social services endeavours is kind of red herring anyway in my opinion. Are those on the left really saying that in order to fund those things we have to make cuts elsewhere? We've spent 10 years contesting that zero sum thinking, I dont think its a serious argument being made now. If we need funding for community work, mental health services or other frontline work, then lets fund it from taxation or whatever. The question about how much funding the police needs is its own topic.
Fully Fledged
Full Member
But we don't need to take more money from the police to fund the other 2. You need to fund all 3 branches adequately. All 3 are being underfunded along with schools and the NHS.The almost complete collapse of the social work and community care network has put a massive burden on the Police.
Fingeredmouse
Full Member
I agree.But we don't need to take more money from the police to fund the other 2. You need to fund all 3 branches adequately. All 3 are being underfunded along with schools and the NHS.
Are you sure you are not letting your disdain for him colour your judgement? As a black person who has been involved race equality issues for the best part of 30 years, I am struggling to see what's he said there that's so egregious.Who’s been explaining it to you? Defund the police is a very straightforward concept. Defund the police means defund the police i.e. divert resources elsewhere so tackling mental health, social services, youth centres, housing.
Starmer’s comments should be condemned by anyone who claims to stand in solidarity against racism. It’s painfully tone-deaf and outright insulting. If a Labour leader’s stance on a movement like BLM is able to be exploited by someone as beyond the pale as Farage (however cynically that may be), that should make anyone who claims to support the party uncomfortable.
Classical Mechanic
Full Member
The majority of people find academic research baffling. We’re talking about communicating with the average person on the street with a slogan that’s clear and concise.What slogan would you think better captures the objective of defunding the police and allocating money elsewhere? Also worth remembering a slogan can be provocative, the whole point is it challenges your worldview and forces you to think about issues you previously never gave a second thought to. Indeed, in the US it looks like BLM’s campaigning with such a slogan is completely shifting the parameter of debate and achieving tangible results in some states.
The increase in crime is not due to a lack of police though, so more police is not the solution in itself. And if you funded the areas properly like you say you want, you’d almost certainly see less need for the police and hence, you guessed it, could defund them. It is not baffling at all, there exists a vast body of academic research behind claims such as ‘defund the police’.
Firstly, the majority of people don’t see the police as the bad guys and value their work; secondly, in the UK, the majority of people feel that the police have been defunded over the past 10 years to negative consequences. This is why promoting an idea of ‘defunding’ them at this time is absurd. It’s transplanted from a completely different law and order culture.
Claiming that having less police officers won’t result in more crime is also absurd. Of course there are other factors at play but it’s the same as the Tories claiming that cuts to services like the NHS don’t result in more people dying.
I agree with the idea that an increase in services across the board will unburden the police and I know that many police officers agree with that idea and would welcome it. I’m sceptical of your assertion that there’s still too many police in the UK. Only a tiny fraction of crimes actually get solved.
They don't want a smaller police force though. They just want better public services and I hate the argument that we have to take funding from the police to achieve that.What’s contradictory there? A smaller, better trained police force could be better paid as part of a broader defunding strategy.
Fingeredmouse
Full Member
Sure and he was a racist cnut. I get the "All Lives Matter" coded shit. That's transparent.The Burnley banner guy justified his shit it by saying it 'was important that people realise white lives matter too'.
Defund the Police though is a different thing partly because it related directly to the exorbitant spending and militarised nature of US policing specifically and partly because, in the UK, the Police are underfunded although not as severely as many other sectors (notably Social Work and Community Care as well as, I'd argue, the entire benefits system). In the UK it's about education to change culture and investment in key services. I'm aware that people mean that taking funding from the Police to give to other areas is what they mean by "defund" the Police. I don't know the numbers but it seems to me the issue in the UK is more "educate and invest in central services" not just to combat institutionalised racism and culturally embedded disadvantages and prejudices but in general to improve the lot for all in society.
nickm
Full Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2001
- Messages
- 9,173
I don't think starmer has anything to learn on communications strategy from the people who just gave us that election result.
Is my view determined by my beliefs? Obviously. Whether you find what he said egregious or not, you should still be able to understand why others, including myself, have - the fact a racist like Farage felt able to endorse it should be illuminating in that regard Likewise, I can see why people may not think it’s a big deal or a fuss about nothing, I’d just happen to strongly disagree.Are you sure you are not letting your disdain for him colour your judgement? As a black person who has been involved race equality issues for the best part of 30 years, I am struggling to see what's he said there that's so egregious.
See for instance:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is another view that I hadn’t even given thought to. I think there’s plenty in that interview to take issue with.
Fingeredmouse
Full Member
"Black Lives Moment" is the bit that gets me. The motive is transparent.Is my view determined by my beliefs? Obviously. Whether you find what he said egregious or not, you should still be able to understand why others, including myself, have - the fact a racist like Farage felt able to endorse it should be illuminating in that regard Likewise, I can see why people may not think it’s a big deal or a fuss about nothing, I’d just happen to strongly disagree.
See for instance:Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is another view that I hadn’t even given thought to. I think there’s plenty in that interview to take issue with.
I don't think anyone has anything to learn from people that support the slogan 'defund the police'. If you had a competition to find the stupidest possible slogan that would lose the most votes then that one would be right up there with the winners.I don't think starmer has anything to learn on communications strategy from the people who just gave us that election result.
Last edited:
nickm
Full Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2001
- Messages
- 9,173
The defund the police slogan came from the US where their police forces have been gold plated with military hardware and given responsibilities that in this country might be picked up by other govt agencies. I don't see why that particular slogan needs to have the same resonance here. Whether starmer should back this phrasing is a silly Twitter activist issue IMO.
Starmer’s head of communications ran Owen Smith’s woefully lacklustre campaign effort to oust Corbyn. Damn, with powerhouses like that behind him I’ll shut my mouth.I don't think starmer has anything to learn on communications strategy from the people who just gave us that election result.
See, you make many fair and reasonable points (not that I agree with them, although I concur the Tory approach to defunding the police is obviously destructive but because it’s coincided with austerity in virtually every other area linked to crime) and they all tell me that what you take issue with is not ‘defund the police’ as a confusing slogan but that you actually perfectly understand the concept and disagree with it, or at least aspects of it. Which was my point. The slogan is straightforward, it’s not that people don’t understand it, they just dislike it.The majority of people find academic research baffling. We’re talking about communicating with the average person on the street with a slogan that’s clear and concise.
Firstly, the majority of people don’t see the police as the bad guys and value their work; secondly, in the UK, the majority of people feel that the police have been defunded over the past 10 years to negative consequences. This is why promoting an idea of ‘defunding’ them at this time is absurd. It’s transplanted from a completely different law and order culture.
Claiming that having less police officers won’t result in more crime is also absurd. Of course there are other factors at play but it’s the same as the Tories claiming that cuts to services like the NHS don’t result in more people dying.
I agree with the idea that an increase in services across the board will unburden the police and I know that many police officers agree with that idea and would welcome it. I’m sceptical of your assertion that there’s still too many police in the UK. Only a tiny fraction of crimes actually get solved.
Last edited:
nickm
Full Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2001
- Messages
- 9,173
Also it is good to see Starmer isn't so stupid as to fall into endless arguments about what is often a kind short term virtue signalling but don't actually improve Labour chances of winning.
Can we stop the strawman that anyone at all has said Starmer should endorse the slogan ‘defund the police’. No one has said that, no one expects that. Corbyn called for an increase in police officers too. The issue is the insensitive manner in which Starmer dismissed it as nonsense.
You haven't explained what you think is egregious about what he said. Instead you are implying because Farage endorsed it, and it offended a black person, it must be egregious.Is my view determined by my beliefs? Obviously. Whether you find what he said egregious or not, you should still be able to understand why others, including myself, have - the fact a racist like Farage felt able to endorse it should be illuminating in that regard Likewise, I can see why people may not think it’s a big deal or a fuss about nothing, I’d just happen to strongly disagree.
See for instance:Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is another view that I hadn’t even given thought to. I think there’s plenty in that interview to take issue with.
What he said is not what I would like him to say, ideally. But it is what most leaders of major political parties would say. For him to say he doesn't support the police, and any hint of sympathy for the sentiment of defunding the police would be political suicide.
I actually agree with him that so many others are piggybacking on the BLM movement with their own agendas. It detracts from the fight.
Last edited:
Sweet Square
Full Member
As someone who wasted his time in here during the Corby years, you're in danger of making the same mistake. You'll waste the next 4 years doing this over and over again. Starmer could bring back hanging and people on here will defend it as wise political move. We've seen this with Biden and the democrats in the US, they'll drop any previous political "beliefs" in order to win. The Starmer "project" is no different, its simply about getting the guy with the red tie into number 10 at all cost.There is no policy goal or wider political project.Can we stop the strawman that anyone at all has said Starmer should endorse the slogan ‘defund the police’. No one has said that, no one expects that. Corbyn called for an increase in police officers too. The issue is the insensitive manner in which Starmer dismissed it as nonsense.
It's pointless to argue with them as they'll happily change their views within seconds because they really do believe in absolutely nothing(It's just a void between their ears).
I would suggest you find a better use of you're time(I've started collecting old soviet vinyl records). Because it's a dead end in here.
Yes I did, in my previous posts. Go and see on the previous page. I did not say because Farage endorsed it, it must be egregious. I said the fact Farage felt able to endorse it is illuminating in regards to why someone might feel it is egregious. Clearly, if the leader of the Labour party has said something which a figure as contemptible as Farage endorses, there's a good chance he's said something potentially egregious. It's also quite insulting to suggest that I quoted a Black person based only on their colour. He offered an insightful perspective of what Starmer said that never occurred to me and which I had not covered in my posts, that's why I shared it.You haven't explained what you think is egregious about what he said. Instead you implying because Farage endorsed it, and a black it offended a black person, it must be egregious.
What he said is not what I would like him to say, ideally. But it is what most leaders of major political parties would say. For him to say he doesn't support the police, and any hint of sympathy for the sentiment of defunding the police would be political suicide.
I actually agree with him that so many others are piggybacking on the BLM movement with their own agendas. It detracts from the fight.
Again, it is another strawman. Nobody is saying Starmer should come out and say he does not support the police and wants to defund them. This is tiresome. Literally not a single person on here has argued that. Yes, it would be politically detrimental, no one said otherwise.
Pogue Mahone
The caf's Camus.
That’s a bit strong.You haven't explained what you think is egregious about what he said. Instead you implying because Farage endorsed it, and a black it offended a black person, it must be egregious.
What he said is not what I would like him to say, ideally. But it is what most leaders of major political parties would say. For him to say he doesn't support the police, and any hint of sympathy for the sentiment of defunding the police would be political suicide.
I actually agree with him that so many others are piggybacking on the BLM movement with their own agendas. It detracts from the fight.
He could have expressed sympathy with the intent behind the phrase, while stressing that Labour is a party that wants to increase - not reduce - funding to the public sector. Dismissing it as “‘nonsense” was insensitive. So I can see why he’s being called out.
Obviously, our resident Corbynites will froth at the mouth if he makes even the tiniest misstep but, in the grand scheme of things, I can live with this as his biggest “gaffe” to date.
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg
Full Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2017
- Messages
- 13,122
ridiculous tweet.Is my view determined by my beliefs? Obviously. Whether you find what he said egregious or not, you should still be able to understand why others, including myself, have - the fact a racist like Farage felt able to endorse it should be illuminating in that regard Likewise, I can see why people may not think it’s a big deal or a fuss about nothing, I’d just happen to strongly disagree.
See for instance:Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is another view that I hadn’t even given thought to. I think there’s plenty in that interview to take issue with.
I watched the interview in the BBC this morning and was asked a straight question “would you support defunding the police” and he replied Absolutely not.
who is their right mind would want to defund the police in the UK?
Sorry, I was reading the last page, which included your posts. I replied to your post because I hadn't seen you explain clearly what had offended you so much about what Starmer had said. Maybe you could do me the favour of quoting yourself?Yes I did, in my previous posts. Go and see on the previous page. I did not say because Farage endorsed it, it must be egregious. I said the fact Farage felt able to endorse it is illuminating in regards to why someone might feel it is egregious. Clearly, if the leader of the Labour party has said something which a figure as contemptible as Farage endorses, there's a good chance he's said something potentially egregious. It's also quite insulting to suggest that I quoted a Black person based only on their colour. He offered an insightful perspective of what Starmer said that never occurred to me and which I had not covered in my posts, that's why I shared it.
Again, it is another strawman. Nobody is saying Starmer should come out and say he does not support the police and wants to defund them. This is tiresome. Literally not a single person on here has argued that. Yes, it would be politically detrimental, no one said otherwise.
And, sorry, if I have misunderstood your quoting the guy's tweet.
Yeah, probably. I have retracted...That’s a bit strong.