Jeremy Corbyn: Likes, Dislikes, Indifferences and Ambivalences: Nuclear Weapons

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

This one - Nuclear Weapons - was a toss up between a like and an ambivalence - which I suppose must, therefore, make it an ambivalence.

Let's start with a clear thing that I agree with:  There is absolutely no situation in which I would press the nuclear button.  None. Whatsoever.  Causing the loss of so many lives, taking the innocent along with the guilty, is unthinkable.

Let us also all be absolutely scared of the prospect of Donald Trump having his finger on that button!  Not to mention, Iran! Or, North Korea! It would be much

This brings me on to one of the reasons for ambivalence. One of Jeremy Corbyn's main focus areas in this regard is not Iran or North Korea.  As part of the campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the Middle East, his main target is, of course, Israel.  The fact that his main interest lies with Britain and Israel - countries who are least likely to use it.

This in turn leads to another ambivalence.  While people that might actually use it, have it:  the illusion that a Western Power might use I on them, acts as a deterrent.  However, Jeremy Corbyn is (and I am) much to honest to foster such an illusion - because an illusion is all it is.  Even in the event of an evil attack by such a country, there would be zero benefit in retaliating with nuclear weapons.

What is more, it is an extremely expensive illusion which could be spend on better things.  It would be much better if the illusion could be the whole hog - we pretend to have the weapon, which we pretend to spend a ludicrous amount of money, which we pretend we might actually use - but which doesn't in fact exist.

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

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 dislike is Jeremy Corbyn’s asceticism, and coming with that as a bedfellow is obsession . 

See Jeremy Corbyn Story on BBC Website.

a man who is known for his austere, almost ascetic, approach to life...

He reportedly split up with his second wife Claudia after she insisted on sending their son Ben ...to Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, in Barnet, instead of an Islington comprehensive....

Chapman says she married Corbyn for his "honesty" and "principles" but she soon grew weary of his intense focus on politics.

"Politics became our life. He was out most evenings because when we weren't at meetings he would go to the Labour headquarters, and do photocopying

But fun was in short supply at home, recalls Chapman, who remains in touch with Corbyn and backed his leadership bid.

During their five years together he never once took her dinner, she told The Mail, preferring instead to "grab a can of beans and eat it straight from the can" to save time.

I have not great love for material or expensive things.  I don't like to splash the cash.  I feel very bad claiming even legitimate expenses at work (taxis etc).  I don't have a great drive or ambition to climb the greasy pole.

Yet, extreme asceticism will often signify an imbalance, or of being psychologically unhealthy: 

• Following one extreme - even if that extreme is one that results in staying away from bad or unnecessary things - can lead to the negation of good things that could be concentrated on (e.g. ascetics bean eating at the expense of attention to your family). 
• It can lead to a lack of compromise -  compromise that leads to a negation of one's saintliness and yet necessary for getting on in the world (cf. breaking up with your wife about your childs' school)
• It will often come from a place of obsession (cf. out every night at Labour Headquarters) 
• At the very least, it leads to a certain element of being unrelatable.  Asceticism is, at its core, a manifestation of not being like everyone else, not being quite of the world.  Can one who is an ascetic empathise with the priorities and concerns of everyone else, and vice versa? (cf. Corbyn's favourite biscuit)

As I say, asceticism isn't wrong in it itself, but can be both symptomatic of, and a precursor to, obsession.  To repeat, I think obsession is wrong even if that obsession is about a good thing. 

For an observant Jew, studying Torah is one of the highest ideals and one that one should dedicate a good proportion of time to.  Once, however, a rabbi I very much respect told of someone who never got a haircut because he didn't want to lose any opportunity to study.  I said it was obsessive and he said: "But is that a bad thing if what he is obsessive about is Torah?" Well, yes, yes it is. 

Equally charity (cf. Peter Singer).  Giving away too much money if it leave you yourself poor, or if you devote more to other people than your own family, it is a bad thing.

Asceticism and Obsession are characteristic of extremists (e.g. religious extremists).  The following of one ideal, one purpose, one goal, one value (at the expense of all others) will at least lead you to having very strange bedfellows; and justifying things which in any other situation one would reject so long as it furthers your goal.  There is a certain level of judgement and sense that is gained from diversity (of people, experience, interests, obstacles) that is absent from people that focus on just 'important' things whilst being generally switched off.

Of course, the above are all the lifestyle choices of somebody which I have no right to criticise on their own terms.  No-one should eat fancy dinners on my say so.  Yet, these items come into play if they start to effect other people - as in the case of politics.

Just as I have no interest in Israeli ultra-orthodox, chareidi, religious judgements from people that know a lot of religious source material but not about peoples' actual religious practice; politicians who do not share the moral sense, or priorities, of the country is not someone I want as a leader.

Rambam/Maimonides contrasts the saint (chassid) and the wise man (chacham).  The saint stays away from evil influences; and if the evil is one extreme they will go to the other extreme to avoid the merest hint of them.  The wise man on the other hand always takes the middle path: He chooses not to do that which is detrimental but does so from a normal context, in amongst the real world.  It might occasionally be necessary to be a saint, but for him, the wise man is far superior. 

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

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…