Keir Starmer Labour Leader

[BobbyManc]

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.

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.

Unfortunately, most of my mates are either Tories or have little interest in politics. I can usually have a decent discussion on here, even if I mostly feel like I'm screaming into a void. And there are some posters who provoke me to think about something in a new light.

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?

And, sorry, if I have misunderstood your quoting the guy's tweet.

With respect mate if you want to see my views just click on the previous page. I appreciate the apology.

 

[Untied]

Do you really think so? What's the reasoning here?

I think @Dobba ‘s point is that people argue the black lives matter slogan is confusing because it (in their mind) implies white lives don’t matter. Hence “all lives matter”.

And so expressing confusion that “defund the police” doesn’t = abolish the police is a similar argument

ridiculous tweet.

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?

That isn’t the question he was asked.

Dan Walker said something like “there has been a growing argument over the political aims of the movement. One of those is to defund the police, does that concern you?”

I think he’d be pretty happy with the Farage endorsement as they are probably going after the mythical election winning Labour -> UKIP -> Conservative voters.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

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.

It is not about backing "defund the police". No one has said Starmer should have done that.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

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.

Exactly. Why some posters are being confused by this is strange. It is either a massive blindspot for them or just willful derailing from the point.

NB. I didn't envisage agreeing this much with a City fan when I joined Redcafe. I might go and purge myself in the Pep thread.

 

[RedChip]

With respect mate if you want to see my views just click on the previous page.

I suspect it will be a waste of my time.

 

[BobbyManc]

Exactly. Why some posters are being confused by this is strange. It is either a massive blindspot for them or just willful derailing from the point.

NB. I didn't envisage agreeing this much with a City fan when I joined Redcafe. I might go and purge myself in the Pep thread.

Well, it’s rather telling I’d suggest that rather than debate the substance of what has been said they’re concocting a completely contrary position to argue against.

Funny you should say that, I post so little on the main forum now that I completely forget this place is even a United forum. People’s views on Tony Blair is the litmus test now, it used to be whether they think Pep is a Pep Guardiola is my idol.

 

[Mockney]

It’d be a lot easier to take the argument that “all the the actual specific nuances of ‘defund the police’ aren’t important for Keir to know cos the name doesn’t play well” if the party itself, and a lot of it’s broadsheet proponents hadn’t spent a lot of the last week arguing (rightly) why the specifics of Maxine Peak’s seemingly innocuous article and all the nuances of modern antisemitism were incredibly important to learn about.

 

[Kentonio]

Can anyone who supports Starmer justify this without referring to Corbyn?

Sure assuming he was referring to the U.K. Defunding the police is an American issue based on institutionally racist police forces that never had or accepted the need for the kind of reforms that followed the McPherson report and with powerful police unions that are resisting change. That’s not to say there isn’t lots of work still to do, but talking about defunding the police in a U.K. context is nonsense.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

It’d be a lot easier to take the argument that “all the the actual specific nuances of ‘defund the police’ aren’t important for Keir to know cos the name doesn’t play well” if the party itself, and a lot of it’s broadsheet proponents hadn’t spent a lot of the last week arguing (rightly) why the specifics of Maxine Peak’s seemingly innocuous article and all the nuances of modern antisemitism were incredibly important to learn about.

Quite.

 

[Mockney]

It’s also about signalling what does and doesn’t require serious thought or valuation... his tone was dismissive, about both defund and BLM, and you’d like to think that some of those in here who spent 4 years correctly insisting that Labour needed to be more understanding and sensitive to the anxieties of the Jewish community over the general atmosphere of antisemitism, wouldn’t just casually and arrogantly dismiss the nuanced and many faceted concerns of a community who feel they are being targeted by the police and ACTUALLY DEPORTED BY THE GOVERNMENT because it doesn’t sound very sensible at first glance!?... it also shows a worrying continuing trend of taking the youth vote that actually did vote Labour for granted (if not outright ridiculing it) despite having seemingly no interest in engaging with the issues that they’re passionate about. It can be lost - like it was in 2010, but hey, maybe winning back Frances Barber and suntzu will be worth it?

If you think the leader of the Labour Party should be saying things that can be enthusiastically praised by the leader of UKIP to win over middle England arseholes then fine... but then if you think Labour should be doing their utmost to understand and sympathise with the concerns of a racial minority - even when they’re somewhat opaque and require thoughtful examination - rather than needlessly antagonising them, you should probably work out which one it is... if only so you know which one to inevitably blame the loony left for caring about/not caring about.

 

[Vernon Philander]

Sorry just have to post this hilariously bad work that seems to pass as "journalism"

They're using something from 1987 to justify a U-Turn...

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Wait until you find out the Met's budget *



We have exactly the same questions here though about the cuts to social services, mental health services, etc. and whether funds allocated to the police could be better allocated to achieve a restorative system of justice.



I think some of the money spent on police in this country could probably be better directed into other services. We spend an awful lot more per capita on policing than Scandinavian countries. It's certainly not 'nonsense' to question why.

No he's not. He's either demonstrating that he doesn't understand what 'defund the police means' or that he is wilfully misrepresenting it to appeal to his intended voter demographic: 'but don't all lives matter?'.

* £3.4 billion

You haven’t got a clue mate.

First up, NYC is half the size of London and has a budget of $6.4 billion. Yes the populations are roughly the same, but area matters when talking of policing.

You are taking messages from another country and applying them here, then criticising a sound bite from the opposition leader kn morning tv.

Get a hobby. Or get a clue.

If you keep criticising flat bat responses from the opposition leader, you’ll waste a term. The Conservatives are clearly going to float or even pursue trials without juries pretty soon.

If something like that manifests you could have 40,000 Mary Poppins as Police Officers, and still see minority ethnic communities further pushed down. The slogan ‘Defund the Police’ is of no value or consequence in England.

And finally.... if you think Starmer doesn’t care about this stuff, you’ve only got to look back to the last few PMQ’s. He’s quoted, while holding, the governments own reviews into various issues touching race or inequality. That’s how he works. He’s urged them to be implemented and asked when they will be.

He’s simply not going to blather away in support of something that can’t be contained within an already existing frame. There’s no upside to a misstep.

There will come a time when he has to ‘Say something’. To write some policy proposals. But that time sure as shit isn’t now. He’s got 4 years. Don’t rush it.

 

[That'sHernandez]

The defuned answer is basically what every Labour leader would say(Although calling it nonsense is stupid). The awful part is this

"Black Lives Matter is about reflecting on what happened dreadfully in America just a few weeks ago … I support it as a movement, a moment but it’s a shame it’s getting tangled up with these organisational issues.”

Which is basically telling black lives matter and their concerns to feck off.

But again giving Starmer background and history of course he has this view.

Fair point. I’m not sold on him yet to be honest, it’s entirely superficial but I think he always looks like he’s shat himself whenever he’s in front of a camera.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

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...

What do you want from Labour?

How big is the gap?

 

[Mogget]

ridiculous tweet.

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?

The Tories, for the past 10 years. Oh wait, it's fine for them to do so as long as they call it "austerity"

 

[Compton22]

ridiculous tweet.

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?

Yeah, I can't see why many have an issue and are of the opinion that he is now distancing himself from BLM. Can someone not support a movement in general while disputing some of it's opinions? Defunding the police, I mean come on.

 

[711]

The Tories, for the past 10 years. Oh wait, it's fine for them to do so as long as they call it "austerity"

Correct. The self-styled 'party of law and order' were the opposite, as usual. Labour should be hammering that home, pointing to increase in crime, and making sure the electorate knows what they did.

 

[EwanI Ted]

It’s also about signalling what does and doesn’t require serious thought or valuation... his tone was dismissive, about both defund and BLM, and you’d like to think that some of those in here who spent 4 years correctly insisting that Labour needed to be more understanding and sensitive to the anxieties of the Jewish community over the general atmosphere of antisemitism, wouldn’t just casually and arrogantly dismiss the nuanced and many faceted concerns of a community who feel they are being targeted by the police and ACTUALLY DEPORTED BY THE GOVERNMENT because it doesn’t sound very sensible at first glance!?... it also shows a worrying continuing trend of taking the youth vote that actually did vote Labour for granted (if not outright ridiculing it) despite having seemingly no interest in engaging with the issues that they’re passionate about. It can be lost - like it was in 2010, but hey, maybe winning back Frances Barber and suntzu will be worth it?

To be fair, last week we had people claiming that considering Peake's comments as anti-semitic required all sorts of mental gymnastics. Its indicative of what's become a kind of Corbyn vs Starmer grouping among Labour supporters, with people applying different thresholds for criticism from one than the other.

Without wishing to walk onto overly hazardous ground, broadly speaking I'd put the comments by Starmer on BLM at about the same level of offensiveness as Corbyn's comments about the antisemitic mural - somewhere between bone headed and offensive, but probably the former. If someone loudly criticised Corbyn for what he did there but thinks there's no issue here with what Starmer said here, or vice versa, there's a fair chance they're just judging them each differently. The key thing for me is that it demonstrates that any hope Starmer had of automatically taking the left of Labour with him has gone, if it was ever there at all. There wasn't much goodwill there in the first place and its certainly now been used up now. I think that has ramifications for the future of the party.

On your comment about the youth vote, I dont think its possible to take all the youth vote with you while you go for older groups, just as its not possible to keep all the city vote as you go for towns/rural areas. The question is whether he can take most of that vote. His comments yesterday are obviously crappy so not a good example, but more generally he will be trying to change the demographic of Labour's vote and that will cause regular tensions with existing supporters. I don't think he should be dissuaded from doing that, he just needs to do it better than he did yesterday.

 

[Drifter]

At least he as a friend in Farage.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VP89]

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.

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.

If to ask for equality is seen as "politicising" an event then that also is part of the wider problem.

Watch the whole interview - he's asked specifically on whether he thinks we should defund the police. He answered the question.

It's like some over-sensitive folk getting angry if someone says "we need to make sure we aren't rioting against innocent people" and someone else arguing "how can you say that, it's like you don't acknowledge there's a problem of racism".

Of course they acknowledge the latter, they are just making the point that there are more sensible ways to go about dealing with a systemic issue.

 

[Shamwow]

Yeah, I can't see why many have an issue and are of the opinion that he is now distancing himself from BLM. Can someone not support a movement in general while disputing some of it's opinions? Defunding the police, I mean come on.

Be quite deliberately called it a moment rather than a movement which is the main issue with that interview.

 

[Sweet Square]

Fair point. I’m not sold on him yet to be honest, it’s entirely superficial but I think he always looks like he’s shat himself whenever he’s in front of a camera.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

At least he as a friend in Farage.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

he didn’t condemn the movement, just said the idea of defunding the police was ridiculous- which obviously it is.

 

[Untied]

Watch the whole interview - he's asked specifically on whether he thinks we should defund the police. He answered the question.

It's like some over-sensitive folk getting angry if someone says "we need to make sure we aren't rioting against innocent people" and someone else arguing "how can you say that, it's like you don't acknowledge there's a problem of racism".

Of course they acknowledge the latter, they are just making the point that there are more sensible ways to go about dealing with a systemic issue.

This is a lie

 

[VP89]

This is a lie

Can you share the interview? If I'm wrong I'm happy to state it, but I don't see where he was asked about his view on the broader problem of racism in law & order for him to need to acknowledge anything in the first place.

Again, I could be wrong, but I had Starmer down as a supporter for BLM, but just against this notion of "defunding the police" as a viable solution.

 

[Untied]

You haven’t got a clue mate.

First up, NYC is half the size of London and has a budget of $6.4 billion. Yes the populations are roughly the same, but area matters when talking of policing.

You are taking messages from another country and applying them here, then criticising a sound bite from the opposition leader kn morning tv.

Get a hobby. Or get a clue.

If you keep criticising flat bat responses from the opposition leader, you’ll waste a term. The Conservatives are clearly going to float or even pursue trials without juries pretty soon.

If something like that manifests you could have 40,000 Mary Poppins as Police Officers, and still see minority ethnic communities further pushed down. The slogan ‘Defund the Police’ is of no value or consequence in England.

And finally.... if you think Starmer doesn’t care about this stuff, you’ve only got to look back to the last few PMQ’s. He’s quoted, while holding, the governments own reviews into various issues touching race or inequality. That’s how he works. He’s urged them to be implemented and asked when they will be.

He’s simply not going to blather away in support of something that can’t be contained within an already existing frame. There’s no upside to a misstep.

There will come a time when he has to ‘Say something’. To write some policy proposals. But that time sure as shit isn’t now. He’s got 4 years. Don’t rush it.

Do I think or expect Starmer to say "we should defund the police" — No. We have to be honest about the politics of this country. Advocating a return of the death penalty would be more popular than 'defund the police'.

But it's not nonsense. It's a key part of the BLM movement, and you probably shouldn't kneel and publicly support the movement if you aren't at least willing to engage with that issue. Especially to stand there and state that it's ridiculous, nonsense, and that aims like that shouldn't be entangled with the movement. Essentially telling BLM what they should be standing for/do stand for.

As an analogy, this is like posting in support of a climate change protest and then when tackled on whether you support the organisation's (hypothetical) aim of banning all fossil fuel vehicles by 2025 you say that 'it's nonsense, and you have no truck with that, and that you don't think the movement should be entangled with organisational issues'

 

[sun_tzu]

Can you share the interview? If I'm wrong I'm happy to state it, but I don't see where he was asked about his view on the broader problem of racism in law & order for him to need to acknowledge anything in the first place.

Again, I could be wrong, but I had Starmer down as a supporter for BLM, but just against this notion of "defunding the police" as a viable solution.

the only clips ive seen start with starmer saying

"That's nonsense and nobody should be saying anything about de-funding the police"

certainly that implies the sentence before involved somebody saying something about de-funding the police but as I say that seems to be cut off on the clips thats being retweeted so @United and @VP89 do either of you know where the full clip or interview transcript is available - I looked briefly and just found the same clip everywhere

 

[VP89]

the only clips ive seen start with starmer saying "That's nonsense and nobody should be saying anything about de-funding the police"
certainly that implies the sentence before involved somebody saying something about de-funding the police but as I say that seems to be cut off on the clips thats being retweeted so @United and @VP89 do either of you know where the full clip or interview transcript is available - I looked briefly and just found the same clip everywhere

This article says " The Labour leader was asked about the defunding the police, the process whereby funds are diverted from law enforcement into other areas such as social care and rehabilitation."

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/kier-starmer-black-lives-matter_uk_5efa0069c5b6ca970912eda2

So in other words, take money out of investing into law and order. Doesn't sound like the smartest move if we are trying to improve that aspect. And that's what Starmer referred to as a "nonsense" suggestion.

From DM, they have quoted BLM London, who seem to have come out with anger, saying " he has no right 'to tell us what our demands should be'" after he claimed the campaign's message was getting 'tangled up'."

I am genuinely curious as to what drives the logic of defunding law and order. BLM itself references a commitment to "dismantle capitalism" as part of a wider goal. How does this help? Racism is a big problem and Kier Starmer would agree with BLM on that. But they just have different ideas on how to solve the problem.

I for one really want to understand why the police should be defunded - I would have thought we should spend more in training, educating and creating an infrastructure built to treat citizens fairly. Taking money out of our Law & Order is just asking for all sorts of trouble.

 

[Maticmaker]

The "Unicorn" Brexit policy to me was never, to my mind, fanciful or fantastical but pragmatic albeit it doomed in this polarised political environment. Which, given Starmer was its primary architect is unsurprising.

Yes got him the top Labour job though, once Jezza was pulverized at the GE. He's a crafty/scheming bas***d is Starmer, but he will need to be to take on Boris (and Dom)!

 

[VP89]

Do I think or expect Starmer to say "we should defund the police" — No. We have to be honest about the politics of this country. Advocating a return of the death penalty would be more popular than 'defund the police'.

But it's not nonsense. It's a key part of the BLM movement, and you probably shouldn't kneel and publicly support the movement if you aren't at least willing to engage with that issue. Especially to stand there and state that it's ridiculous, nonsense, and that aims like that shouldn't be entangled with the movement. Essentially telling BLM what they should be standing for/do stand for.

As an analogy, this is like posting in support of a climate change protest and then when tackled on whether you support the organisation's (hypothetical) aim of banning all fossil fuel vehicles by 2025 you say that 'it's nonsense, and you have no truck with that, and that you don't think the movement should be entangled with organisational issues'

Many people take the knee because they agree there is a systemic issue of racism and it needs to be fixed. I don't think defunding the police is the way to go on solving the problem - so by your logic I shouldn't bother taking the knee?

No thanks, I'd stand in solidarity with all races and taking the knee reflects that. It doesn't mean you therefore have to have a fundamental agreement in every chapter of what BLM is suggesting. It just means you acknowledge there is a big problem of racism and it needs fixing
..

 

[Untied]

Can you share the interview? If I'm wrong I'm happy to state it, but I don't see where he was asked about his view on the broader problem of racism in law & order for him to need to acknowledge anything in the first place.

Again, I could be wrong, but I had Starmer down as a supporter for BLM, but just against this notion of "defunding the police" as a viable solution.

I have too much time on my hands (should be writing a dissertation) so I looked it up on iPlayer for BBC breakfast yesterday.

@sun_tzu

Roughly, Dan Walker said: “You’ve been very supportive of the black lives matter movement.“ Then they showed the photo of him kneeling. And Walker said something like “In fact here’s the photo of you taking the knee”.

And then the question was something like “there’s being a growing row about the political aims of the movement which include defunding the police. Are you concerned about that?”

It’s a very soft question and he could have answered it very differently to stating that ‘defund the police is nonsense’.

i.e I understand that many people are concerned when they hear the slogan ‘defund the police’ and that is not something I support. Labour wants to put more money into policing.

But the slogan raises important questions about whether services that compliment the police are also adequately funded, and whether putting more money into the police is the best or only way to reduce crime and improve people’s well-being, and this is a conversation we should be having.

 

[VP89]

I have too much time on my hands (should be writing a dissertation) so I looked it up on iPlayer for BBC breakfast yesterday.

Roughly, Dan Walker said: “You’ve been very supportive of the black lives matter movement.“ Then they showed the photo of him kneeling. And Walker said something like “In fact here’s the photo of you taking the knee”.

And then the question was something like “there’s being a growing row about the political aims of the movement which include defunding the police. Are you concerned about that?”

It’s a very soft question and he could have answered it very differently to stating that ‘defund the police is nonsense’.

i.e I understand that many people are concerned when they hear the slogan ‘defund the police’ and that is not something I support. Labour wants to put more money into policing.

But the slogan raises important questions about whether services that compliment the police are also adequately funded, and whether putting more money into the police is the best or only way to reduce crime and improve people’s well-being, and this is a conversation we should be having.

So your qualm is that he was too stern? Yeah, I agree he was very stern. But it still sounds nonsense to me, especially when "dismantling capitalism" is part of their goal.

How does either of these things solve the problem? I'm still waiting for someone to explain this to me. It's very easy to go have a sign saying "defund the police" and then look-down on others who disagree with the approach, but can anyone actually provide the explanation as to how this helps? Until someone from BLM starts explaining how this makes a tangible difference, they will be called out as nonsense and not taken seriously.

They aren't asking for reasonable or rational change here. They can say they demand a far better infastructure than what we're getting and everyone can get behind it. Instead they have "defund the police" and "dismantle capitalism" as part of the goal to end racism. I don't see how this helps.

 

[BobbyManc]

I for one really want to understand why the police should be defunded - I would have thought we should spend more in training, educating and creating an infrastructure built to treat citizens fairly. Taking money out of our Law & Order is just asking for all sorts of trouble.

What you have just described is defunding. Focusing investment on training, education and infrastructure to tackle inequality and the socioeconomic drivers of crime. Unless you meant something else by ‘treat citizens fairly’?

You would severely reduce the need for “Law and Order” if you have less crime, so the logic is it’s better to invest in areas that will reduce crime rather than police. That’s basically what defunding is about. How often are police called to deal with things that they should not be needed for? Think people in poverty stealing, drugs, mental health issues etc.

As for the dismantle capitalism aspect of BLM’s view, that’s a debate for another thread, but basically their view is racism is an inescapable product of capitalist systems, based on an analysis of the origins of racism as we conceive of it today, and as part of the concept of class conflict that capitalism inherently causes. That’s my understanding of it, anyway.

 

[VP89]

What you have just described is defunding. Focusing investment on training, education and infrastructure to tackle inequality and the socioeconomic drivers of crime. Unless you meant something else by ‘treat citizens fairly’?

You would severely reduce the need for “Law and Order” if you have less crime, so the logic is it’s better to invest in areas that will reduce crime rather than police. That’s basically what defunding is about. How often are police called to deal with things that they should not be needed for? Think people in poverty stealing, drugs, mental health issues etc.

As for the dismantle capitalism aspect of BLM’s view, that’s a debate for another thread, but basically their view is racism is an inescapable product of capitalist systems, based on an analysis of the origins of racism as we conceive of it today, and as part of the concept of class conflict that capitalism inherently causes. That’s my understanding of it, anyway.

Thanks, this is a very sensible thought but investment into education, into the community etc. should not come at an opportunity cost of law and order. I think Law & Order, health and infastructure are vital. What we should be doing is spending more from other avenues. This concept of defunding the police like they are over invested is new to me. I can see first hand in London how stretched the Police are and if anything they need more training on how to handle situations better, they need more men on the street.

You can invest in police and invest in the community/education. But BLM are suggesting you defund the police almost as some sort of punishment rather than anything else.

And yeah the view on capitalism needing dismantling is seriously flawed too. That's why I think it will always be seen as "nonsense" unless more rational demands are portrayed.

 

[BobbyManc]

Thanks, this is a very sensible thought but investment into education, into the community etc. should not come at an opportunity cost of law and order. I think Law & Order, health and infastructure are vital. What we should be doing is spending more from other avenues. This concept of defunding the police like they are over invested is new to me. I can see first hand in London how stretched the Police are and if anything they need more training on how to handle situations better, they need more men on the street.

You can invest in police and invest in the community/education. But BLM are suggesting you defund the police almost as some sort of punishment rather than anything else.

And yeah the view on capitalism needing dismantling is seriously flawed too. That's why I think it will always be seen as "nonsense" unless more rational demands are portrayed.

But the point is you seem to be conceiving of law and order in a narrow authoritarian ‘boots on the ground’ manner. Police are stretched in London mostly because there is severe socioeconomic deprivation in many areas, exacerbated by huge cuts in other areas like social services, community centres. Yes, in that context underfunding the police is a problem too. But in a world where you properly fund the other areas and reduce inequality, it only makes sense that the need for the police as we conceive of them today becomes more and more redundant. One study I’ve seen says only 4% of police time is spent tackling violent crime. It’s also telling people speak of the need for law and order, but never in regard to white-collar crime that takes billions every year.

BLM’s demand is not a punishment but of course there will be an impulse of revenge there. It’s backed by vast bodies of academic research, too. A lot of the calls for defunding comes from professional studies completely distinct and separate to movements like BLM.

Well I think the view on capitalism has a lot of merit. It’s entirely rational, even if you completely disagree. Again, I think it’s an issue of people instinctively recoiling at these calls because they do not conform to the consciously contrived parameters of mainstream debate, whereas if you take a step back and look into them, you may disagree but I guarantee you’d find them a lot more rational and reasonable than you assume.

 

[Drifter]

he didn’t condemn the movement, just said the idea of defunding the police was ridiculous- which obviously it is.

Farage seems to think so and I have to agree. He also does not get what defunding the police actually means.

 

[VP89]

But the point is you seem to be conceiving of law and order in a narrow authoritarian ‘boots on the ground’ manner. Police are stretched in London mostly because there is severe socioeconomic deprivation in many areas, exacerbated by huge cuts in other areas like social services, community centres. Yes, in that context underfunding the police is a problem too. But in a world where you properly fund the other areas and reduce inequality, it only makes sense that the need for the police as we conceive of them today becomes more and more redundant. One study I’ve seen says only 4% of police time is spent tackling violent crime. It’s also telling people speak of the need for law and order, but never in regard to white-collar crime that takes billions every year.

BLM’s demand is not a punishment but of course there will be an impulse of revenge there. It’s backed by vast bodies of academic research, too. A lot of the calls for defunding comes from professional studies completely distinct and separate to movements like BLM.

Well I think the view on capitalism has a lot of merit. It’s entirely rational, even if you completely disagree. Again, I think it’s an issue of people instinctively recoiling at these calls because they do not conform to the consciously contrived parameters of mainstream debate, whereas if you take a step back and look into them, you may disagree but I guarantee you’d find them a lot more rational and reasonable than you assume.

Sure, lets park the capitalism debate, but what I'm asking is - why do we need to defund the police to fund other areas and reduce inequality. How is this mutually exclusive? From which angle do they think Law and Order is in any way overfunded?

 

[EwanI Ted]

Farage seems to think so and I have to agree. He also does not get what defunding the police actually means.

I wish people would stop referring to this Farage tweet. These right wing provocateurs love to wind up progressives by occasionally agreeing with something one of them says. Its just like when Farage backed Corbyn for leader of the Labour Party, or when Nick Griffin backed Corbyn on bombing Syria and on antisemitism, based on some spurious claim of commonality. They're just doing it to wind up progressives, the right response is to tell them to keep their beak out of it.

 

[BobbyManc]

Sure, lets park the capitalism debate, but what I'm asking is - why do we need to defund the police to fund other areas and reduce inequality. How is this mutually exclusive? From which angle do they think Law and Order is in any way overfunded?

On average in 2015, expenditure on 'public order and safety' amounted to €507 per inhabitant in the EU.

The EU Member States that spent above 500 euros per inhabitant were Luxembourg (with €899), the United Kingdom (€792), the Netherlands (€724), Belgium (€644), Ireland (€598), Sweden (€594), Germany (€581), Austria (€545), France (€535) and Italy (€506)

UK was the second biggest spender in EU as per this 2015 report. First article I found but I imagine it’s a similar scenario today.

The trouble with the defunding argument today is it’s taken place against a backdrop of austerity, so people have been told cuts are damaging and defunding suggests more of the same but that’s incorrect. Defunding is not about cuts (its proponents would all want greater state spending I bet) but a different perspective on where and how money should be spent to achieve law and order.

 

[MadMike]

The trouble with the defunding argument today is it’s taken place against a backdrop of austerity, so people have been told cuts are damaging and defunding suggests more of the same but that’s incorrect. Defunding is not about cuts (its proponents would all want greater state spending I bet) but a different perspective on where and how money should be spent to achieve law and order.

Frankly I just don't see it, it sounds bogus argumentation. If reducing financial inequality via investment in poor areas is their aim and reduction of crime would be a byproduct of it, then why is it that "defund the police" is the slogan repeated? And considering how long it would take for such programs to bear fruit and reduce crime, how would defunding the police now help the general society? It takes years to build things and seconds to dismantle them. You'd end up with even more stretched police forces and probably higher criminality until those programs begin to work. And I'm sure the state (especially with a Tory govt) would love to gradually reduce the police budget once there's less work for them to do, but until that happens why is police force the first area of directed cuts to fund investments elsewhere? Why can't funds be raised via taxation for example?

Sounds like purely vindictive action, with some vague justification applied on top that doesn't stand the test of logic. Enlighten me, please.