Could it be that Arsène’s men aren’t eating enough chilli?

What is wrong with Arsenal? Should Arsène go? I bring you exclusively the results of an intensive, spot-on, world-class survey conducted among Gooners that is sure to be a big talking point among fans who talk about talking points.

Though I'm a Spurs fan, I've been going to watch Arsenal for decades. Not to hate them, nor to cheer them - just to observe and enjoy their enjoyment when they win. If they don't, well, what do I care?

For many years, I had half a season ticket, when the son of a friend was away at college, but our local streets seem to be full of Arsenal fans, so there's always someone who has a spare.

Such as my friend Tony the judge, with whom I went on 23 September to Arsenal's game against Bolton. The gaps were noticeable, especially in the seats in front of the boxes. So many of the corporate owners never turn up, and their guests, mostly business contacts or lowly serfs, are more interested in stuffing their faces than in watching football.

The first half was rubbish: two struggling, bottom-of-the-table sides. To my surprise, I could hear Theo Walcott, once the darling of the faithful, being booed. "We've lost it," Gooners around me were saying at half-time. "What are we going to do?"

Football fans employ the royal "we" much as the Queen does. They talk in the plural, for they consider themselves part of an institution to which they have belonged since birth, or earlier, and on whose behalf they feel entitled to pronounce.

Arsenal fans have always been particularly possessive. Think of those chants from a decade ago, when they really were a good team. "We've got Dennis Bergkamp," they shouted, followed by the Patrick Vieira chant: "He comes from Senny-gal/He plays for Arsy-nal!"

One thing new this season is the Arsenal badge. Peer carefully at the telly and you can see that, on their shirts, the gun carriage symbol is surrounded by laurel leaves. A crazy conviction that the team will be crowned champions some day soon? Or a wreath in memoriam? No one around me seemed to know the reason. Perhaps it's to mark that it's 125 years since they were founded? More likely it was a marketing wheeze to sell more shirts.

Waiting game

In the second half, things perked up and Bolton's ten men were beaten 3-0, so when the fans trooped out, half were quite happy - such as the under-tens, who are easily pleased, and the elderly, who have seen it all before. The middling-aged bulk were still moaning.

This is when I decided to ask a random sample those two questions. I asked Tony first, as he was sitting next to me. "Not much is wrong," he replied, "though I wish that Arsène had sold Cesc Fàbregas earlier in the summer. It would have given us more time to get better replacements. Alex Song and Gervinho both acted like idiots early in the season, which gave us a bad start. I think that the crowd doesn't give enough support.
“Since the move to the Emirates, half the season ticket holders don't have the same loyalty. But no, I don't think Arsène should go."

I turned to a long-haired man who was on my other side. "Arsène has been obsessed with building up his own young players. He needs to buy established players who will be leaders. Should he go? I don't know. OK, then, no."

Next I spoke to Alan, a publisher. "Theo is quite useless and I am sad to say I realised that as soon as he joined the club. A highlights player and the diametric opposite of Wayne Rooney, who has the brain of a football genius. My thoughts about Arsène? These days, they are very negative. Regretfully, I think he should go."

I then asked nine-year-old Bells, who plays for Arsenal Ladies under-11s. "Maybe the players aren't eating enough chilli - they're not fired up enough! Arsène Wenger, he is a bit old, even older than my dad. But I think we should definitely wait until the end of the season."

So, based on this enormous survey, despite everything, three out of four Gooners think that Arsène should stay. You read it here first.

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 03 October 2011 issue of the New Statesman, Which Tories is it ok to love?

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What's to be done about racial inequality?

David Cameron's words on equal opportunities are to be welcomed - now for some action, says Sunder Katwala.

David Cameron made the strongest, clearest and most high profile statement about ethnic inequalities and the need to tackle discrimination ever yet offered by a British Prime Minister in his leader’s speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.
“Picture this. You’ve graduated with a good degree. You send out your CV far and wide. But you get rejection after rejection. What’s wrong? It’s not the qualifications or the previous experience. It’s just two words at the top: first name, surname. Do you know that in our country today: even if they have exactly the same qualifications, people with white-sounding names are nearly twice as likely to get call backs for jobs than people with ethnic-sounding names? … That, in 21st century Britain, is disgraceful. We can talk all we want about opportunity, but it’s meaningless unless people are really judged equally”, said Cameron.
While the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, this was a powerfully argued Prime Ministerial intervention – and a particularly well-timed one, for three reasons.

Firstly, the Prime Minister was able to root his case in an all-but-universally accepted appeal for equal opportunities. It will always prove more difficult in practice to put political energy and resources behind efforts to remedy discrimination against a minority of the population unless a convincing fairness case is made that values cherished across our whole society are at stake. Cameron’s argument, that any party which tells itself that it is the party of the ‘fair chance’ and ‘the equal shot’ must have a response when there is such clear evidence of discrimination, should prove persuasive to a Conservative Party that has not seen race inequalities as its natural territory. Cameron argued that the same principles should animate responses to discrimination when it comes to race, gender and social class. Put like that, wanting job interviews to be fair – by eradicating conscious and unconscious patterns of bias wherever possible – would strike most Britons as offering as clear a case of the values of fair play as wanting the best baker to win the Great British Bake-Off on television.
Secondly, Cameron’s intervention comes at a potential "tipping point" moment for fair opportunities across ethnic groups. Traditionally, ethnic discrimination has been discussed primarily through the lens of its impact on the most marginalised. Certainly, persistent gaps in the criminal justice system, mental health provision and unemployment rates remain stark for some minority groups. What has been less noticed is the emergence of a much more complex pattern of opportunity and disadvantage – not least as a consequence of significant ethnic minority progress.

Most strikingly of all, in educational outcomes, historic attainment gaps between ethnic minorities and their white British peers have disappeared over the last decade. In the aggregate, ethnic minorities get better GCSE results on average. Ethnic minority Britons are more likely, not less likely, to be university graduates than their fellow citizens. 

As a result of that progress, Cameron’s intervention comes at a moment of significant potential – but significant risk too. Britain’s ethnic minorities are the youngest and fastest-growing sections of British society. If that educational progress translates into economic success, it will make a significant contribution to the "Great British Take-Off" that the Prime Minister envisions. But if that does not happen, with educational convergence combined with current ‘ethnic penalties’ in employment and income persisting, then that potential could well curdle into frustration that the British promise of equal opportunities is not being kept.  Cameron also mirrored his own language in committing himself to both a ‘fight against extremism’ and a ‘fight against discrimination’: while those are distinct challenges and causes, actively pursuing both tracks simultaneously has the potential, at least, depolarise some debates about responses to extremism  - and so to help deepen the broad social coalitions we need for a more cohesive society too.

Thirdly, Cameron’s challenge could mark an important deepening in the political competition between the major parties on race issues. Many have been struck by the increase in political attention on the centre-right to race issues over the last five to ten years. The focus has been on the politics of representation. By increasing the number of non-white Conservative MPs from two to seventeen since 2005, Cameron has sent a powerful signal that Labour’s traditional claim to be ‘the party of ethnic minorities’ would now be contested. Cameron was again able to celebrate in Manchester several ways in which his Cabinet and Parliamentary benches demonstrate many successful journeys of migrant and minority integration in British society. That might perhaps help to ease the fears, about integration being impossible in an era of higher immigration, which the Home Secretary had articulated the previous day.

So symbolism can matter. But facial diversity is not enough. The politics of ethnic minority opportunity needs to be about more than visits to gurdwaras, diversity nights at the party conference fringes and unveiling statues of Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square. Jeremy Corbyn’s first speech as Labour leader did include one brief celebratory reference to Britain’s ethnic diversity – “as I travelled the country during the leadership campaign it was wonderful to see the diversity of all the people in our country” – and to Labour bringing in more black, Asian and ethnic minority members - but it did not include any substantial content on discrimination. Tim Farron acknowledged during his leadership campaign that the Liberal Democrats have struggled to get to the starting-line on race and diversity at all. The opposition parties too will no doubt now be challenged to match not just the Prime Minister’s rhetorical commitment to challenging inequalities but also to propose how it could be done in practice.

Non-white Britons expect substance, not just symbolism from all of the parties on race inequalites.  Survation’s large survey of ethnic minority voters for British Future showed the Conservatives winning more ethnic minority support than ever before – but just 29 per cent of non-white respondents were confident that the Conservatives are committed to treating people of every ethnic background equally, while 54 per cent said this of Labour. Respondents were twice as likely to say that the Conservatives needto do more to reach out – and the Prime Minister would seem to be committed to showing that he has got that message.  Moreover, there is evidence that ethnic inclusion could be important in broadening a party’s appeal to other younger, urban and more liberal white voters too – which is why it made sense for this issue to form part of a broader attempt by David Cameron to colonise the broad centre of British politics in his Manchester speech.

But the case for caution is that there has been limited policy attention to ethnic inequalities under the last two governments. Restaurateur Iqbal Wahhab decided to give up his role chairing an ethnic minority taskforce for successive governments, unconvinced there was a political commitment to do much more than convene a talking shop. Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone did push the CV discrimination issue – but many Conservatives were sceptical. Cameron’s new commitment may face similar challenges from those whose instinct is to worry that more attention to discrimination or bias in the jobs market will mean more red tape for business.

Labour had a separate race inequalities manifesto in 2015, outside of its main election manifesto, while the Conservative manifesto did not contain significant commitments to racial inequality. The mid-campaign launch in Croydon of a series of race equality pledges showed an increasing awareness of the growing importance of ethnic minority votes - though the fact that they all involved aiming for increases of 20 per cent by 2020 gave them a slightly back-of-the-envelope feel. 

Prime Ministerial commitments have an important agenda-setting function. A generation ago the Stephen Lawrence case opened the eyes of middle England to racist violence and police failures, particularly through the Daily Mail’s persistent challenging of those injustices. A Conservative Prime Minister’s words could similarly make a big difference in the mainstreaming of the issue of inequalities of opportunity. What action should follow words? Between now and next year’s party conference season, that must will now be the test for this Conservative government – and for their political opponents too. 

Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and former general secretary of the Fabian Society.