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…