What Starmer should have said: "I support flag waving when done by genuine patriots. The people vandalising public property and storming hotels are not patriots. They are disrespecting our flag and country to spread hate & division. They do not represent true British values of tolerance & respect."
He wasn't as strong as that but on flags his words were, "I think they’re a great symbol of our nation. I don’t think they should be devalued and belittled. And I think sometimes when they’re used purely for divisive purposes, it actually devalues the flag. I don’t want to see that. "
What he said was absolutely fine, he really can't win. I'm sure we've all got a different way to say basically the same thing, some swear, some are nuanced, some are blunt, bottom line he said what he thought in his own words. Should he consult us all before he speaks.
That’s a fair point. I shouldn’t comment without hearing everything he said.
Yes, isn’t hard is it to be decent.
i'd have liked some recognition that symbols have context. a swastika is a symbol of prosperity in some parts of asia. likewise a st. george's flag can mean 'come on england' at a world cup, or 'deport the brown people' on a roundabout. 'i support flags' is reductive, simplistic and disingenuous
There's no electoral reward for Starmer being polite about people vandalising public property or storming shopping centres and hotels. Those thugs will never vote Labour. They probably won't even vote Reform UK. They'll vote for one of the more overtly fascist splinter parties, if they vote at all.
Fortivery few of them can read, so they are unlikely to recognise a Polling Station if it poked them in the eye with a flag on a pole.
I think a good number of them will vote Reform
But I agree there's no reward for Starmer for this bizarre appeasement act
The (fully deserved) reward will be losing more core voters to the LD/Greens
They will stand in front of polling booths to stop people voting…