A photograph of Prime Minister Keir Starmer celebrating an Arsenal goal has catalysed a fierce debate in the Guardian's letters pages about the nature of political discourse and the rise of abusive football-style chants directed at public figures.
The Spark: A Prime Ministerial Celebration
The discussion was triggered by an image from August 2024, showing the Labour leader cheering as his team, Arsenal, secured a 2-0 victory over Wolves at the Emirates Stadium in London. This seemingly innocuous moment of fandom was referenced in a subsequent opinion piece by journalist Jonathan Liew, published on 13 January. Liew controversially argued that the crude terrace chants now aimed at Starmer, including calling him a "wanker," are partly the Prime Minister's own fault for his political choices.
A Clash of Perspectives in the Letters
The publication of Liew's article prompted a robust response from readers, revealing deep divisions over the appropriateness of such personal attacks. Dr Colin J Smith from West Kirby drew a direct parallel between Starmer and a football manager, noting that abuse comes with the territory when results disappoint. "No matter that he saved his side from relegation and gained promotion last season," Smith wrote, suggesting the PM needs to improve his "rapport with his often impatient supporters."
In stark contrast, Desmond Hewitt from Marlborough launched a fierce critique of Liew's stance, labelling it "both obtuse and crass." Hewitt argued that while Starmer's potential downfall would be due to policy failures, society should be better than "far-right, coke-snorting lager louts" who shout abuse. He pointedly reminded readers of Starmer's steady leadership after the Southport violence, questioning the ethics of condoning "verbal thuggery."
Broader Sentiments and Societal Reflections
Other correspondents weighed in with varied viewpoints. Robert Dimmick from Caversham dismissed the chants as propaganda from the government's opponents, having found Starmer "approachable and a good listener" during a recent meeting. Colin Jones from Birmingham characterised the Prime Minister as a "decent human being" and an "uncharismatic technocrat," whose very decency and grown-up demeanour attract hatred from both the populist right and some on the left.
The letters also provided anecdotal evidence of Starmer's unpopularity in some quarters. Ralph Jones reported seeing printed anti-Starmer posters in a prosperous Kent village, which locals had not removed, suggesting a broad agreement with their offensive sentiment. Meanwhile, Gethyn Edmunds expressed disappointment that Liew's piece equated the "inane judgments of inebriated sports fans" with serious political analysis.
The collective response underscores a national conversation about the boundaries of political criticism, the coarsening of public debate, and the unique lens through which a football-loving Prime Minister's actions are interpreted.
