No? Not a good idea? Well, let’s at least discuss it as mature adults, in Parliament for preference.
Don’t even want to do that? Fine, I have lots of other ideas.
Selling human flesh in supermarkets, replacing the Houses of Parliament with a replica of the Gherkin, having one Open Rape Day every month, banning white men from public service – you name it.
I realise you may disagree with these ideas, but that’s good. A clash of ideas, with truth emerging at the other end, is the essence of our parliamentary democracy, isn’t it?
That’s why a company-strength contingent of our pundits welcome with thunderous hosannas Jeremy Corbyn’s ascent to Labour leadership and, potentially, premiership.
To be sure, our so-called conservative columnists state they have no time for ‘most of’ Corbyn’s ideas, leaving the reader with the task of guessing which of his ideas they find acceptable. This disclaimer usually comes at the beginning, both to confirm the writer’s conservative credentials and to set the scene for the inevitable ‘however’.
However, and here the pundits triumphantly toss their hats up in the air, they love our parliamentary democracy with the passion some men reserve for women, the erotic element and all. And for our beloved democracy to function properly, it must feed off a debate on conflicting ideas.
A generally sound thought, that, but few generally sound thoughts this side of the Bible can survive without an attached set of nuances and qualifications. This particular thought will die in the absence of a satisfactory answer to the question “What constitutes an idea worthy of the name – or of debate?”
Obviously those I proposed above don’t fall into that category. They aren’t ideas, I hear you say, they are manifestations of various mental disorders. They should be dismissed out of hand.
Fine. But then I submit that Corbyn’s ideas aren’t ideas either. They are a manifestation of a deep-seated and lovingly cultivated hatred of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, along with everything this commonwealth stands for.
Compared to his cherished notions, my proposals begin to look positively benign. Yes, if acted upon, they’d upset most people and bring the country into disrepute. But they wouldn’t destroy it, as Corbyn’s ‘ideas’ would.
Wholesale nationalisation, maximum wage, a great hike in taxes on the productive classes, printing money as fast as the presses can manage, uncapping welfare benefits – such measures would create not so much an economic crisis as an economic wasteland.
Disbanding our army, abandoning the Trident nuclear deterrent, leaving Nato would take Britain several rungs down from her current second-rate status in the world. For the first time in her history Britain would be unable to defend herself against enemies from within or without.
Imposing a boycott on Israel and strengthening ties with Hamas, Hezbollah, Isis and all other Corbyn’s self-acknowledged friends in the region would almost certainly lead to a major, possibly world, war in which we’d play the role of disarmed targets.
Uniting Ireland under the aegis of Corbyn’s IRA friends and getting rid of the monarchy would put paid to the United Kingdom. It would then become an Islamic republic thanks to Muslim immigration, which, according to Corbyn, should be unlimited.
These are the kind of ideas that our respectable pundits believe ought to be debated in Parliament as a vindication of our cherished democracy. Chaps, are you out of your minds?
Someone who mouths such ‘ideas’ should do so in a saloon bar, at a street corner, with pedestrians giving him a wide berth, or – ideally – in the rubber room of a reliably secure psychiatric institution. Parliament isn’t the place for deranged rants.
The problem with our pundits, with only a handful of exceptions, is that – how shall I put it without offending anybody – they aren’t very bright. Oh I’m sure their IQ scores are stratospheric, but IQ only measures potential.
To develop a potential into intelligence, a person should train himself how to think, and this is a lifetime endeavour, at the end of which the trainee will learn not to take on faith certain axioms of modernity.
By far the most pernicious axiom is that “all men are created equal”. By inference, so are all ideas – regardless of their enunciator’s competence.
As an illustration, back in 1979 the American public was following a debate on the safety of nuclear energy. The opposing parties were Edward Teller, a great nuclear physicist, and Jane Fonda, who probably thought physics was what one did in a gym to make sure those breast implants settle properly.
Teller had his ideas, Fonda had hers, so let the public decide who’s right. All ideas are created equal, aren’t they? They all deserve to be heard, discussed and either accepted or rejected.
Of course in a sane world only sane ideas would qualify as such. But who says we’re living in a sane world? Hence our columnists getting their rocks off over Corbyn’s ideas serving parliamentary democracy, especially since the subversive cretin espouses them in all sincerity.
So what’s wrong with the idea of reintroducing slavery then? Corbyn’s ‘ideas’, if brought to fruition, would make slaves of us all anyway.