Sorry seems to be the hardest word

The "pens" at Sandhills railway station.
(Photo: Morgan Sindell Infrastructure)

Apologies for channelling Elton John, but sorry really does seem to be the hardest word.

At least it does if you are either Councillors Richard Kemp, Pat Moloney or Carl Cashman.

For those not aware of the furore that has broken out in Liverpool, the Liverpool Echo has reported that former Lord Mayor Richard Kemp and Councillor Pat Moloney have made strongly worded criticisms of Labour's transport policy and in particular the conditions around Sandhills railway station near Everton's football ground.

The Echo provides background, including the Lib Dem councillors' feelings that the railway station has not been appropriately developed despite knowing that there would be a new stadium in that area of Liverpool. It also explains that current Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram introduced "pens", which have made the matchday experience unpleasant for supporters to put it mildly. 

Such criticisms are fine and may well be justified. These criticisms in themselves are not particularly controversial; what has made them so is the unhelpful and insensitive rhetoric that was used to express the councillors' frustrations.

Cllr Kemp is reported to have said, during a debate in planning committee on Tuesday, “Last year you introduced something which the Mayor (Steve Rotheram) announced as pens, which to me were like the greeting area for Auschwitz. Absolutely disgraceful." At the same meeting, Cllr Moloney is reported to have stated that "this is like something out of a horrific death camp in Nazi Germany."

The first thing to say is that the language used is, frankly, awful. Ironically, given the Lib Dem councillors were expressing concerns about the "dehumanising" language around "pens" and "sterile zones", it defies belief that anyone should make a comparison with the Shoah.

Why would anyone think this is a reasonable and proportionate thing to say? Surely there were better ways of making the point? I cannot understand why anyone would think this was a sensible response, let alone two Lib Dem councillors in the same meeting within minutes of each other.

What would those same Lib Dem councillors have said if Reform or Conservative councillors had made similar remarks?

I find it impossible to disagree with Mayor Rotheram and Liverpool Labour group leader Cllr Liam Robinson when they say "there is no meaningful comparison between their suffering and football supporters travelling home from a match. The fact that two members of the same planning committee appear to have made such remarks during the same discussion raises concerns that go beyond an isolated lapse of judgement by a single individual."

Ultimately, this was a stupid choice of language from people who really should know better.

It could of course have ended there, and probably should have ended there. But, as I have said already, sorry seems to be the hardest word.

Councillors, like all of us, say stupid things when passionately making points. Most of us realise when we have said stupid things and apologise immediately, seeking to remedy any misunderstandings. Again, most of us understand that an apology can go a long way towards reassuring people about our motives.

The councillors concerned should have apologised and done it immediately. No ifs, no buts. It would have helped to clear the air and restore credibility. An apology would also have shown a bit of remorse towards people who were offended (there is a sizeable Jewish community in Liverpool), acknowledged the potential hurt caused and taken responsibility. It might also have stopped the backlash.

Cllr Moloney has issued something that resembles a partial apology. He said: “If you remember the discussion, Richard Kemp talked in similar terms and I was following on from that and I stand by that. The language used was about corralling, the whole concept seemed to be humanising (sic).

“I’m surprised they haven’t apologised for the way they talked about people. I’m disappointed they haven’t taken the point on board.

“I would say perhaps if I’ve gone too far and if I’ve offended anyone I apologise for that but the language and the attitude of it, I stand by that.”

That's totally tone-deaf and doesn't seem to grasp how inappropriate it is to invoke Godwin's Law and make outrageous comparisons with extermination camps. It also contains a fair bit of "whataboutery". But at least there was some acknowledgement that he may have caused offence.

Not so Cllr Kemp, who initially stated: "The way they (Merseyrail officials) are talking about Evertonians and fans is absolutely disgraceful and therefore the description I made is apt. They (Mr Rotheram and Cllr Robinson) are trying to cover their own incompetence.”

The Labour leadership may be incompetent but that does not make them Nazis. The language used by Merseyrail officials around the facilities at Sandhills station may be dehumanising and demeaning, but that does not make the comparison with Auschwitz "apt". It is grotesquely disproportionate, historically illiterate and trivialises the Holocaust. Comparing a undignified football queues with industrialised persecution and murder reduces Auschwitz to a generic synonym for “something unpleasant involving fences.” It also sabotages and undermines their legitimate arguments.

Experienced public representatives should understand this. After initially refusing to apologise - or in the case of Cllr Moloney, offering half an apology - the two councillors did finally back down, but not before they had become the story. 

They eventually issued the following statement: "As councillors, we have given decades of service to this city, and both have a long record of standing alongside Liverpool’s Jewish community and speaking out against antisemitism whenever it has reared its head here.

“Neither of us would ever knowingly cause hurt to that community, and if the specific language used on Tuesday, in the heat of a debate about the treatment of football supporters, has caused genuine offence, we are both sorry for that, and say so without qualification.”

It's still not good enough. It's still framed conditionally. It's also too defensive to be effective and prefixing the word offence with "genuine", implying that some expressions of offence might be false, exaggerated or politically manufactured. It suggests reluctance rather than accountability. One would also imagine anyone with such an impressive record of standing with the Jewish community wouldn't have needed widespread expressions of disgust to bring them to their senses and help them understand that it's just not a good idea to make comparisons with Auschwitz. How could they not know that their comments would inevitably cause hurt to the Jewish community? 

The foolish comments, compounded by an initial unwillingness to apologise, have created an embarrassing situation that could have been easily avoided.

It could also have been managed better by Lib Dem group leader Carl Cashman.

Yes. Carl Cashman could have handled it substantially better. His initial response was that he “probably wouldn’t have used” the same language but understood “where the emotion has come from,” while immediately confirming that neither councillor would lose the whip. That was weak leadership and played into Labour's hands. It also treated an Auschwitz comparison as merely an unfortunate choice of words rather than recognising why it was fundamentally unacceptable. 

This response from the leader is every bit as irresponsible and damaging as the language used by Cllrs Kemp and Moloney. I cannot comprehend why the Liverpool Liberal Democrat leadership seems unable to grasp a what should be obvious to anyone exercising even the most basic judgement: an inadequate football queueing system is not remotely comparable to Auschwitz. That two senior councillors made the comparison was indefensible; that their leader initially struggled to condemn it unequivocally raises serious questions about the judgement of the entire group.

A better response would have been to condemn the comparisons clearly, without defending or contextualising them. I do not think the leader should have necessarily gone so far as to immediately suspend the councillors, but he should not have ruled out consequences either. He should have urged them to withdraw the remarks and make direct and unequivocal apologies. He should also have contacted local Jewish representatives to listen to their concerns. What he should not have done is defend his councillors and ruling out disciplinary action before assessing the harm caused.

Most importantly, the leader needed to separate the two issues, acknowledging legitimate criticism of Sandhills while making clear that it does not excuse Holocaust analogies. He failed to do this. 

All this made the eventual apology appear reactive rather than principled. 

Earlier apologies could have gone a long way towards limiting the hurt caused and demonstrating the sound judgement their original remarks so conspicuously lacked. Instead, the eventual apology seems insincere, the Lib Dem group risks being seen as out of touch and incapable of recognising a serious error until political pressure leaves it no alternative, and decades of positive work with the city's Jewish community have been undermined. 

A lesson I learned when nine years old is that it’s better to say sorry sincerely and immediately than be forced to reluctantly apologise when left with nowhere else to go. Being of Jewish heritage I also learned at a young age that it's not sensible to make comparisons to the Third Reich or concentration camps. I am stunned that senior councillors in Liverpool failed to grasp such basic lessons in judgement, historical sensitivity and personal responsibility.