Jeremy Corbyn: Likes, Dislikes, Indifferences and Ambivalences: His Clothing

Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, an unacceptable force in British politics.  … It is also true that not everything he says is or will be bad or wrong… See full intro here

One indifference is Jeremy Corbyn’s clothing:

• He doesn’t wearing matching tops and bottoms
• He doesn’t always wear a tie
• Sometimes he looks ‘scruffy’
• He doesn’t conform to what might be expected of hi,

Quite frankly, I like the old English university professor look.  It could even converge into a ‘like’ in an aesthetic sense.

As for a tie?  I only wear ties on two occasions: If I am meeting someone an IT Board Director level or above or on Rosh Hashana/Yom Kippur (Jewish Days of Awe).

Look, there are occasions which call for dressing up and I cannot imagine a sensible reason to conform on those occasions. 

Nevertheless, ultimately, who cares?  It is the content and impact of his views that are of relevance.  And disagreeing about petty things takes away the force of the arguments against the potentially dangerous views he holds

Wittgenstein, Bridge and Sport

There is a Judicial Review underway around whether Bridge should be classified as a sport or not.

My initial thought – as I’m sure would be the initial thought of anyone reading the article – is what would Wittgenstein say?

Sport England, taking its lead from the Council of Europe, defines a sport as an "activity aimed at improving physical fitness and well-being, forming social relations and gaining results in competition".

The later Wittgenstein wouldn’t countenance that any definition or analysis of the word “sport” (indeed, any word, meaning or function) that would act as a ‘rule’ that would satisfactorily cover all eventualities – classifying an activity in or out. 

Even if such rules were theoretically possible (which they aren’t), an ‘imposed’ definition such as the one from Sports England would not do justice in many cases as to how we actually use the term – what we do or do not in fact use “sport” in relation to. 

It makes sense to call Snooker a sport, but am not sure how much it is “aimed at improving physical fitness” or successful at doing so, in comparison to SAS training, which would not generally be thought of a sport

There is no “right” answer but nonetheless how we use the term (according to Wittgenstein) forms a ‘grammar’ of the term.  The grammar does firstly, mean that someone would look at you weirdly if you said “Pencil is a sport” – you would know that they cannot mean the same thing as you or that they are talking nonsense.  Secondly, it establishes some things as more representative of “sport” with others bearing more or less family resemblance to it.  Third, it will establish associations and disassociations with other concepts such as “hobby”, “leisure activity” and “game” 

Sports England argue: 

It has argued that bridge is no more of a sporting activity than "sitting at home, reading a book".

First thing, why couldn’t reading a book at home be a sport?  One could certainly come up with a scenario (e.g. multiple people reading the same book as fast as they can against the clock, and then answering 20 questions about it) where it might more plausibly thought of as so.

As such, Wittgenstein says there is no reason why one couldn’t call Book-Reading a sport.  Yet, they are probably right that the family resemblance is more like a second cousin-twice removed than an identical twin. Comparing bridge to book reading is a good rhetorical point, therefore, but probably a disservice (Bridge does at least have competition, for example)

My thoughts, in brief, then are:

1. If you were going to call Bridge a sport, first you would have to admit that it is not an archetypal sport; and second, go on to explain its family resemblance
2. Ultimately, if you were discussing it in the pub, people would “know what you mean” but someone else might be “you must be kidding, mate”.  Ultimately though, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other
3. Bridge players are therefore entitled to call it a sport but not sure they can simply do so because they want some funding from Sport England if they didn’t already.
4. Judges are entitled to decide whether there is any legal reason why it is somehow wrong to deny them funding (but seems dubious if on the basis that they are the right people to “define” the word(even if that were possible)
5. Sports England are too entitled to define who gets funding based on their mission and mandate, however defined, and this can well exclude bridge.  This though would not seem to depend on the meaning of a word.

If you were to press me though, Bridge isn’t a sport

Jeremy Corbyn: Likes, Dislikes, Ambivalences and Indifferences: PMQs

Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, an unacceptable force in British politics.  Being friends with dictators, fascists, anti-Semites, murderers and terrorists is something that  should disqualify him immediately.…  It is also true that not everything he says is or will be bad or wrong… See full intro here

To start with an ambivalence….  Prime Minister’s Question Time

Jeremy Corbyn introduced the “new politics” by creating a very civil question time, asking questions from the general public and without any of the bickering or theatre.

First ambivalent thing about this is the questions from the “public”.  It is of course, the public’s opinions that should be at the heart of politicians’ questions, and in their interests in which they serve.  It is also good that people ‘feel’ involved in politics.

Yet, these questions are never and never will be ones drawn from the tombola – otherwise why would one need a Jeremy Corbyn?  And, if the tombola selected one which was very searching of him, it would make for an odd result  

Now, given that there will be as diverse opinions as there are members of the public (and given that a great many of those would support the Conservatives, given the election result) the questions are presumably the ones Jeremy Corbyn himself wanted to ask.  And, if he wanted to ask them, why not just go ahead and do so?  What does adding that Nick, Steve or Maureen asked the questions contribute other than being its own bit of theatre?

Second, isn’t theatre the point of PMQs and isn’t that why people watch?

It is a good thing to have a sensible and sober analysis of policy and governmental action, focusing on the issues, working together where appropriate and weighing evidence. 

Yet, does this not happen already?  There are parliamentary debates highlighting the different points of view on bills going through the House.  There are parliamentary select committees with cross-party representatives scrutinising experts and outside witnesses.

And is this not already available to view?  People can watch serious politics all day long if they so chose on BBC Parliament. but I very much doubt that many do.

Yet, the “Punch and Judy show” of PMQs is watched (more) and does showcase what the different sides stand for.  People might “love to hate” PMQs but it is these exchanges that people tune in for.  Once the novelty of the new approach wears off, will the majority of people be even less engaged than before?

People should refrain from personal attacks, but fierce and entertaining attacks on the policies of another party is surely a key element in informing the public

Jeremy Corbyn: Likes, Dislikes, Ambivalences and Indifferences: Intro

Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, an unacceptable force in British politics.  Being friends with dictators, fascists, anti-semites, murderers and terrorists is something that  should disqualify him immediately.  This is not an issue of left or right, but of core values that underpin liberal democracy and more mundanely: common decency.  Pointing out the truth about someone’s allegiances is not a smear campaign, but a necessary expose of undesirable viewpoints. 

Nevertheless, one is in danger of quite a common thing: the truth is heard so much and is so obvious that people begin to disbelieve it (e.g. Hamas using human shields).  It is also true that not everything he says is or will be bad or wrong.  People can jump on the small truths to ignore the big lies.  Part of people ultimately making the right decision will be based on a balanced view of what is being said.

Of course, the balanced view is simply my view.  Nevertheless, I feel compelled to think about the items I like, the items which (although others may think terribly important) I am rather indifferent about, the ambivalent items where I am pulled in many directions and the many dislikes.

As ambivalence is my primary emotion that will be my first port of call…