Bring Back The Old Songs

There are a number of reasons why I've never been a fan of the song Good Old Arsenal, such as the use of the bumptious Rule, Britannia! tune and the fact that Jimmy Hill wrote the lyrics. But the main reason is that it sounds so anxious: "while we sing this song we'll win the game". I'd prefer a song in which victory wasn't dependent on the fans ruining their vocal chords. The most anxious football fans are not those who follow teams at the top or bottom of the table. Despite the best efforts of the media to make the final day of the season a festival of jeopardy and uncertainty, the end results were largely predictable. Manchester City held off Liverpool, as they have done for months, while the relegation of Burnley, along with the already-relegated Watford and Norwich, was long foretold. Leeds managed enough of a bounce after sacking Marcelo Bielsa to reach safety, in no small part because their small squad has some talented, young players, while the Clarets's decision to ditch Sean Dyche couldn't arrest their decline simply because they remained his team: obdurate and ugly but ageing and lacking quality. No, the most anxious fans are those in between because their teams tends to flirt with either ascension into the upper strata or collapse into the lower depths. If your team manages to do both in the same season, then you may need medical support. 

It's fair to say that Arsenal's season has been a curate's egg. From bottom of the table after a calamitous opening run of three defeats to peaking at 2 points behind Chelsea in third in April. That we were pipped to fourth and Champions League qualification by Spurs was down to many factors during the run-in - injuries to key players, a lack of depth, the naivety of a young squad - but really it all came down to the month of April, which served as a microcosm of the season. Three defeats in a row against Crystal Palace, Brighton and Southampton suggested mid-table obscurity, but then a superb counter-attacking win at Stamford Bridge and a battering of Manchester United at home suggested a bright future. Had we turned one of those three defeats into a victory, we would (mutatis, mutandis) have finished fourth, a point ahead of Tottenham. We might even have been sufficiently confident that Arteta could have played a more defensive game at White Hart Lane and come away with a draw, or even nicked a win, instead of going toe-to-toe and coming up short.

Broken down into thirds (games 1-12, 13-25 and 26-38), the season record is a bell curve: 20 points, then 28 and finally 21. Despite that purple patch in the middle, Arsenal only rose from fifth to the giddy heights of fourth, though it also saw their goal difference improve from -4 to 12. This points to a wider story of mediocrity among the chasing pack, with Manchester United, Spurs and West Ham also culpable. It's worth remembering that after 12 games Chelsea were top by 3 points. By game 25 they were third and 16 points behind City (albeit the eventual champions had played 2 more games by then). The overall tale of the season then is obviously one of two elite teams, City and Liverpool, racing ahead of the pack. The final gap between second and third was 18 points, the gap from first to third 19. In contrast, 19 points down from third takes you to between West Ham United in 7th and Leciester City in 8th. 

What this means for Arsenal is that a realistic target is third. Having moved from a final position of 8th in 2021 to 5th now, that's certainly achievable, but it will require a significant improvement not only in the playing staff but in game management. As the youngest squad in the league, with the youngest manager, there's every reason to believe that we can advance on both fronts, and there is a palpable sense of support for "the process" both among the club hierarchy and a fanbase hitherto known for being particularly grumpy and fractious. This new harmony is perhaps best reflected in the adoption of Louis Dunford's The Angel as a terrace anthem. The lyrics aren't much better than Jimmy Hill's ("North London foreva, whateva the wevva"), but at least they're optimistic. While the voluble support and engagement of the fans has obviously owed something to the lifting of the pandemic restrictions, it's also clear that we've passed a watershed in the post-Wenger transition phase. The underperformers and mood-hoovers that Arteta inherited have been moved on, even if this has stymied us short-term by depleting numbers. The incoming players have been of variable quality, but White and Tomiyasu are likely to be mainstays in future while Lokonga will probably improve, particularly if he gets to play in the Europa League. Whether the chaos-agent that is Nuno Tavares can improve is another matter.

The eruption of youth has caught the eye, but what's particularly promising is how mature those younger players are, both on and off the pitch. It is the older players, like Xhaka and Cedric, who have at times proved hot-headed and panicky, not the likes of Saka, Smith-Rowe or Ødegaard (deservedly wearing the captain's armband of late). Not for the first time, Arsenal's tally of 4 red cards (only beaten by Everton's 6) owed much to some dubious refereeing decisions, notably against Gabriel Martinelli in the away game at Molineux. The tally of 60 yellows was eighth lowest - respectably mid-table. The one exception to the image of level-headed youth is Aaron Ramsdale, who seemed to get more jittery as the season advanced (perhaps recalling his previous relegation with Sheffield United), however this is probably part and parcel of a personality that has proved popular with the fans and should be indulged to a degree. I'm firmly of the old school belief that great goalkeepers are essentially odd-balls. I also suspect he's still pinching himself over how much progress he has made since signing for Arsenal: first-choice and an England cap. 

So the future looks bright. Attention now switches to the all-important work of Mikel Arteta and Edu Gaspar, the Technical Director, in acquiring the right new players to either give us greater depth in key positions or to fill some obviously gaping holes. The former is largely about greater resilience in defence. Assuming William Saliba makes his long-awaited debut and someone like Aaron Hickey comes in, we should be stronger, though I suspect Arteta may want further cover if Cedric leaves. In midfield, the question is whether to hope that Partey stays fit and Lokonga matures or to invest in another player. This will ultimately come down to whether Xhaka stays or goes. As ever, it's impossible to predict which way he will jump, though the crowd on the final day against Everton certainly gave him plenty of appreciation. Up-front, we remain blessed with exciting wingers and support strikers but have a massive hole where Aubameyang used to be. Pepé looks like he's in the departure lounge, along with Alexandre Lacazette, though I doubt we'll recover more than a fraction of his club record fee.

What's not clear at this stage is what Arteta wants in a forward, given the various names we've been linked with, or whether he hopes to keep Nketiah in the squad. If Eddie leaves on a free transfer, we'll need two strikers and that will be difficult given the likely cost. My guess is that Nketiah will re-sign and we'll go all-in on a proven goal-scorer who can play a similar poaching role. That would point to someone like Gabriel Jesus, rather than a more traditional spearhead like Dominic Calvert-Lewin (whose "audition" on Sunday at the Emirates Stadium proved that he has learnt a lot from Duncan Ferguson, though not all of it technically qualifies as football). An outside bet would be Olly Watkins, who looks like a player on an upward trajectory. That he is a Gooner is nice, but such sentiment will have little bearing on the decision. Jesus is the younger player and arguably moving into the peak years of his career (he's only just turned 25), as well as being someone Arteta and Edu both know well from their time at City and Brazil respectively. Anyway, it would certainly prompt hilarity when Ramsdale gets a straight red from Michael Oliver for farting and the new boy has to go in goal.

In summary, it has been a season of both promise and disappointment, though the latter is largely a consequence of the former. My prediction after that horrendous opening was that we would recover and steadily march towards sixth. What I didn't predict, but perhaps should have, was that our course would be more erratic than steady. What I'm really hoping for next season is not only a further improvement on our league position, and perhaps some better runs in the cups, now that we've got three to compete for, but a calmer, more reliable progress. I've enjoyed the highs - the home defeat of Spurs, the away win at Chelsea, the victory over Machester United - but the lows have been pretty horrible. I can put up with games we lose but compete in, such as the undeserved home defeat to a very fortunate Manchester City, but our continuing tendency to screw up in away games against very modest and umabitious opponents is maddening (in the loss to Southampton, we had 76% possession and managed 23 shots - only 6 on target). It's a tired cliché (because there's no smoke without fire, you know) but what we really need is consistency. The real mark of progress will be when opposing fans start singing "Boring, boring Arsenal" again.

On Notice

While Keir Starmer's promise to resign if he is fined by Durham Police may actually be a covert admission that he wants out of the job as Leader of the Labour Party, the media reaction has seen it as either an out-of-character gamble or a cunning ploy that will heap greater pressure on a shameless Prime Minister. Both interpretations focus on personality, which seems to have become the entire domain of British politics in recent months as the Conservatives run out of ideas and Labour seems unable to get beyond defining itself solely in terms of "Not Corbyn". The local election results have likewise been interpreted in these terms: the Conservatives going backwards due to disgust at Boris Johnson's behaviour and Labour struggling to advance in its target Red Wall seats (Scotland and Wales have received less coverage than Northern Ireland). But this imposition of national political narratives on hyper-local contests is unhelpful. For example, Labour's advance in Cumbria, its huge reversal in Tower Hamlets and its long-predicted victories in Wandsworth and Westminster all spring from different sources.

If there are broader lessons to be drawn from the results they amount to little more than the traditional observation that incumbents tend to be vulnerable and that the Liberal Democrats remain a repository for disappointed Conservatives in rural and suburban areas. This hasn't stopped the usual suspects cherry-picking to suit their priors, thus the Blue Labour contingent at The Guardian insist that more must be done to bridge the gap between the graduate elite and the white working class (a term that Julian Coman delicately avoids using by instead regaling us with anecdotes about football fans). Predictably, Labour's victory in Barnet has been cast wholly in terms of moving out of the shadow of you-know-who (the Jewish Chronicle has decided to stop naming him, preferring euphemisms such as "toxic brand"). In contrast, the media coverage of Labour's setback in Croydon, which it won in both 2014 and 2018, has tended to ignore the corruption and incompetence that contributed to it declaring bankruptcy in 2020.

Insofar as last Thursday was a judgment on national politics, the message appears to be one of frustration at the government's failure to address the growing cost-of-living crisis, but equal frustration at Labour's inability to offer more than limited amelioration. That the press has been full of nonsense about cake, beer and curry for weeks isn't simply down to partisan bickering and a preference for the theatre of moral squalor. It reflects a lack of substance in our politics, both in terms of the Tories' legislative programme and Labour's alternative. Today's Queen's Speech was a grab-bag of administrative tinkering, reactionary gestures and empty rhetoric. And while many commentators have strained to cast Labour's policy proposals as progressive and serious, few can remember what they are, beyond a hazy Green New Deal. The terms of debate may well have shifted as a result of the pandemic, making government intervention and spending respectable again, but the reluctance to pursue this vigorously - consider the swift decline of levelling-up and Labour's timidity over tax -  suggests that we remain trapped in the discourse of austerity that emerged after the 2008 banking crisis.

Simon Wren-Lewis made this explicit in a recent blog post entitled, 'How Austerity created Brexit, and the economic and political decline of the UK'. The common thread he espies is a refusal to listen to experts, which is obviously special pleading but does have some plausibility: "In this sense austerity was the first central policy move that ignored the wisdom of experts. Brexit was the second, and government actions throughout the pandemic have been the third. But the links between austerity and Brexit may be rather more causal than that. This is the thesis of an AER paper by Warwick economist Theimo Fetzer ... What Fetzer suggests and shows is that the impact of austerity was strongest on those with few qualifications, and as a result support for UKIP grew. In other words support for UKIP started to grow in areas with significant exposure to specific benefit cuts. It was the threat from UKIP that led Cameron to promise a future referendum. More importantly, as support for UKIP is closely correlated with support for the Leave side in the referendum, then Fetzer uses his estimates of the impact of austerity to suggest Remain would have won in the absence of austerity."

But what is the mechanism here? Why would specific benefit cuts lead to growing support for UKIP and indirectly Brexit, rather than say growing support for Labour? Let us return to Wren-Lewis: "What this does not show is why cuts in welfare and other support led the less skilled to vote for UKIP, rather than some other opposition party. However that gap is not hard to sketch in. First, in many voters’ minds, Labour were at least equally to blame for austerity as the Coalition government, in large part because of the highly successful (and largely uncontested) lie put out by the Coalition government and their press that the Coalition were clearing up the mess that the Labour government had left. Second, the Coalition and its press used immigration as a scapegoat for much of the impact austerity was having, yet the Coalition also failed to bring immigration under control. For many, therefore, UKIP was an obvious choice."

I don't find this entirely convincing, given how much UKIP's support was driven by older voters, many of whom were protected from the worst effects of austerity by the introduction of the pensions triple-lock in 2010. And the "lie" about Labour's responsibility for the crash was effective both because there was an element of truth in it - i.e. the failure to adequately regulate the banks - and because the narrative of public debt being bad was well-established long before 2010. Labour were elected in 1997 on a promise of "prudence" and matching Tory spending limits. However, I think it is more persuasive to argue that a stronger anti-austerity line by Labour in 2015, and perhaps even a challenge to the anti-immigration rhetoric of the time (those infamous mugs), might have prevented an outright Conservative victory and thus the EU referendum (though whether this could be put off indefinitely is another matter). 

Of course this is a counterfactual, so unknowable, but it does highlight an important point which is that the electorate has not been offered a clear choice in a general election this century with the exception of 2017 (and that was more mood than substance). You can argue that 2019 was a clear choice, in terms of manifesto commitments, but the election was obviously decided on the singular arguments of "Get Brexit done" for most voters and "Keep Corbyn out" for those liberals determined to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe of 2016. It is this lack of a clear choice that has marked our politics for decades now. Even the generational change offered in 1997 was more about form than substance, with the famously clear choice of 1983 ("the longest suicide note in history") being held up as a warning for Labour to not diverge too far from the economic and social settlement established by Margaret Thatcher. 

Is it any wonder that politics has descended into a contest over virtue? Just as in the early 1990s, the convergence of the leading parties (e.g. Labour insisting that Brexit is a done deal and we must move on) has caused the political space to be filled with tales of sleaze and bad behaviour, from breaking lockdown rules to watching porn on the job. The difference between then and now, which the Blairites have repeatedly emphasised during their recent 25th anniversary celebrations, is that Labour's current leader cannot represent youthful hope. At best he is "Mr Rules": the embodiment of integrity and probity, and thus a massive turn-off for most voters. But to focus on Starmer's personality void, and to imagine that a fresh face like Wes Streeting would make all the difference, is to repeat the error of assuming that what the electorate is crying out for is more tone (if not more Tony), rather than more public spending or help with rising prices. 

Labour is going nowhere fast because at a time when the government is bereft of compelling ideas, and apparently powerless in the face of the country's economic distress, it is incapable of "taking back control" of the political narrative, to coin a phrase. The sight of Starmer putting himself on notice is a bathetic example of his limited room for manoeuvre in a landscape devoid of any serious debate over economic policy. The lesson of 1997 was that at a time of relative economic security for most voters, the electorate was prepared to give a hearing to the novel and different. Labour isn't offering any novelty now, either in Starmer's attempts to channel Hugh Gaitskell or Rachel Reeves's attempts to resuscitate New Labour, but more pertinently it isn't offering any clear route to that economic security beyond pabulum about being on the side of business and aspirational, hard-working families. Most voters are worried that they'll soon be unable to afford a takeaway curry, not that the leader of the opposition might have had a cheeky korma.