Perhaps we're all just walking around the same course, separately, together, one after another, all together. Thinking about the way politics is characterised by disagreement not leadership; how every initiative tends to end up with an unintended consequence. And about how often the quest for "balance" in political broadcasting turns into an active search for people who will disagree with each other. It's always surprising when they agree with each other - example: both sides (sic) saying that the rating agencies are discredited along with all the other institutions.
Unintended consequences. The attack on Hilary Mantel's speech about royal women. Must have seemed like a no-brainer for the PM, defending Kate against the media version of a long and closely argued speech given a month ago. But didn't they turn on him? All I heard was the backlash: he can't have read all of it, not on a trade mission to India. Although maybe he did read it, in the month since it was delivered, before the media picked it up. A pity to deliver the apology for Amritsar (or was it an expression of regret?) on a trade mission.
But the sincerity, or lack of it, isn't the point. What's interesting is the not very straight line between action and consequence: comment on a speech; ah, he can't have read it. Strikes me sometimes that we meddle too much. Once upon a time, systems, customs, principles evolved over time. They may have needed fixing, but the parts that didn't need fixing - they were long-standing enough to qualify as tried and tested. Now we seem concerned to fix absolutely everything, whether or not it needs it.
A lot of it ain't broke. So we're going to fix it.
Unintended consequences. The attack on Hilary Mantel's speech about royal women. Must have seemed like a no-brainer for the PM, defending Kate against the media version of a long and closely argued speech given a month ago. But didn't they turn on him? All I heard was the backlash: he can't have read all of it, not on a trade mission to India. Although maybe he did read it, in the month since it was delivered, before the media picked it up. A pity to deliver the apology for Amritsar (or was it an expression of regret?) on a trade mission.
But the sincerity, or lack of it, isn't the point. What's interesting is the not very straight line between action and consequence: comment on a speech; ah, he can't have read it. Strikes me sometimes that we meddle too much. Once upon a time, systems, customs, principles evolved over time. They may have needed fixing, but the parts that didn't need fixing - they were long-standing enough to qualify as tried and tested. Now we seem concerned to fix absolutely everything, whether or not it needs it.
A lot of it ain't broke. So we're going to fix it.