In response to Jonathan Freedland’s article, a reader offers a different perspective on the analogy between Arsenal’s success and Keir Starmer’s political trajectory. While congratulating Arsenal on their Premier League victory, the writer suggests Freedland’s piece, titled “Arsenal’s title win should be studied by politicians everywhere – and especially Keir Starmer. Here’s why” (May 22), presents a flawed comparison due to the author’s potential bias.
The reader argues that Keir Starmer has already demonstrated significant success by leading the Labour party to a landslide victory in the 2024 general election, following a prolonged period of political obscurity. The analogy is further drawn by suggesting both achieved success through a perceived lack of flair: Starmer by eschewing radical policies and Arsenal by adopting a defensive playing style focused on set-piece goals.
Furthermore, the writer points out that both Starmer and Arteta benefited from the weaknesses of their primary adversaries. The Conservative party was in a state of disarray, mirroring the underperformance of Manchester City and Liverpool, who accumulated fewer points than anticipated during the season. The comparison extends to structural advantages: Labour capitalized on the “first past the post” electoral system, while Arsenal allegedly profited from lenient refereeing of fouls during corner kicks.
(Letter from Peter Breitenbach, London)
