Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Re: Corbyn and trains, this nails it for me. It's a stupid idea, but the reaction to it has also been stupid.
Quote:
The women's-only carriages idea is logistically, politically and morally unsound. But considering it and saying you want to consult women over it is hardly worthy of the hysterical responses we've seen this morning. This is the punishment for politicians who dare to express opinions clearly. This is what has helped create the current generation of political pygmies in Westminster.
Hmm, well, "hysteria" would seem a little strong, personally I'd go with "utter incredulity" (certainly as far as any of his detractors' comments here, and elsewhere that I've personally read, though I can't speak for the Daily Mail brigade).
Speaking for myself, as I said to Mimi earlier, I think it's entirely right that we should criticise him for floating what almost everyone agrees, including here (and the article you quote), is a totally stupid idea, howsoever caveated re. "consulting women's groups" or whatever. Fundamentally, if an idea is stupid and unworkable in any practical terms, it shouldn't even get past the first hurdle, let alone put out there in the public domain as this has been, and proposed for further consultation.
Quote:
It's why families who help their loved-ones with assisted dying must do so while technically breaking the law because we have politicians without the bravery to discuss the issue. It's why politicians speak in a way which constantly hedges their bets, without ever saying anything of value. It's why we have a prime minister who can make whole speeches without a single identifiable meaningful political statement in them. It's why Corbyn is facing three candidates who are seemingly incapable of expressing what it is they actually want to do with power.
Our instinctive response to people expressing political opinions especially, but not exclusively, in the world of gender, race and sexuality is the witch hunt and collective craziness. Merely considering a consultation on something is now considered offensive and unacceptable.
And then, when everyone calms down, they will watch Newsnight and complain that politicians all sound the same. What happened to all the politicians with character, they will ask? Well we killed them all off, by losing our minds at the slightest provocation.
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/08 ... -shows-whyOh, I agree with that sentiment entirely, though you should note, of course, that no single political party has done more to promote the PR-managed/obsessed drone than Labour, from the Blair/Campbell era onwards, "sofa government" and all the rest, with the vast rump of their parliamentary party treated with contempt. That they now find themselves so desperate for an ideology - any ideology - and political identity/soul, after decades of this kind of vapid pursuit of power for its own sake (as I've been saying for years), is precisely why they are listening with such rapt attention and adulation to some 32-year served backbencher who's been overlooked in all of that time, doubtless with good reason - now belming cheerfully away, with half-arsed, unthinking, simplistic crap like this.
The women-only carriage thing may well be as mad as a box of frogs for sure, but not half as bad as some of the other stuff he's saying re. the economy, QE for the people, taxation, defence etc. etc. But, Corbyn at least DOES have a coherent, earnest, identifiable ideology (even if it is swivel-eyed), and that distinguishes him from the other three (who don't). In this near-perfect vacuum where the bar is surely so, so low, this alone lends him an air of authenticity that the others don't have, at least in the eyes of their collective, long-suffering electorate.
The point about just speaking plainly is that this is very, very risky - great men and women of politics, far greater than any of this sorry shower of would-be Labour leaders - have come a cropper over the years doing just that. It's HARD; so much easier just to trot out the same old platitudes, cliches, the dodged answers to questions, the inoffensive party line that someone's told you to say and sticking rigidly to it for dear life. So whilst New Labour was very much all about controlling what people in the parliamentary party said and no-one could be "off message", actually there are very few, if any within the Labour Party who have/had the requisite belief, conviction, properly formed ideology and intellectual horsepower to have done any different, even if they were allowed to and/or had the inclination to do it anyway.
_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...
Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but
interestingly wrong