Labour: The Keir Starmer years

Sir Keir's won - are you happy with this outcome?


  • Total voters
    40
I...see why people are miffed, though? It's a flag associated with a country on their official kit (or one of the variants available for an extortionate amount of money, at least). If you change the colours, it's not the flag it's supposed to be anymore.

If Nike came out and said, "We're going to put the Pride rainbow flag on a new T-shirt that retails for £125, but we're going to change the colours to six different shades of grey," then why even bother? There's some historical precedent for the colours relating to 1966, but if people don't immediately see the connection and it needs to be explained, then it's just a silly design choice. Moreover, it's leading the usual suspects to cry "woke", so once again, minority groups are being blamed for something they have no involvement in whatsoever.

However, yes, the fact that THIS is the thing Kier Starmer was straight out of the traps to criticise speaks volumes.

But its been done many, many times over and no one gave a shit. There are countless variations of coloured crosses on past kits, but now were a country of noisy bigots its suddenly offensive.
 
[

Emily Thornberry weighs in. She does FAMOUSLY have quite a bit of experience identifying the England flag :nononono:
 
It’s obviously faux outrage about an emblem, but that is essentially the definition of the culture wars as the press perceive it. Political leaders will be asked their view on it as a matter of course… it’s OBVIOUSLY meaningless, but no detriment to Labour to act the fool on it.

Anyway, the thing that annoys me about it, purely pedantically, is that it’s a depiction of the Cross of St George … not the cross as it appears on the England flag. Uneducated cretins.
 
I...see why people are miffed, though? It's a flag associated with a country on their official kit (or one of the variants available for an extortionate amount of money, at least). If you change the colours, it's not the flag it's supposed to be anymore.

If Nike came out and said, "We're going to put the Pride rainbow flag on a new T-shirt that retails for £125, but we're going to change the colours to six different shades of grey," then why even bother? There's some historical precedent for the colours relating to 1966, but if people don't immediately see the connection and it needs to be explained, then it's just a silly design choice. Moreover, it's leading the usual suspects to cry "woke", so once again, minority groups are being blamed for something they have no involvement in whatsoever.

However, yes, the fact that THIS is the thing Kier Starmer was straight out of the traps to criticise speaks volumes.
then don't buy the fucking shirt if the flag means that much to you. save the planet, wear an old one!
 
for what it's worth I think the shirt design is GORGEOUS

So do I! I'm not sure I'd ever feel compelled to a) own a football shirt or b) pay £125 for one, but it's about as close as I've ever come to being tempted.
 
I think people just quite enjoy BEING MAD, because otherwise why BOTHER GIVING A SHIT over something SO MEANINGLESS?

The thing that annoys me about stuff like this is that obviously the people writing the articles about it don't REALLY care, it's just cynical clickbait. So why are Sunak and Starmer even dignifying it with a response? Stuff like this really should be beneath the Prime Minister.
 
they're just trying to tap into the culture. all football news demands a response because it signifies some connection to reality
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom