- Re: Quite agree Archived Message
Posted by dereklane
on December 22, 2019, 9:25 pm, in reply to "Re: Quite agree"
|
I don't know about being a foil. I also do t know enough about labour internal rules to know what constitutes a slap on the wrists, expulsion, breach of contract etc, but I know those thing from relevant things within my own life, and where those things have been at odds with my principles, I've ignored the rules in favour of the principles. Perhaps that's part of the same issue; not enough strength of character to suffer the result of sticking to your guns, belief in a system designed to be impenetrable, which means no one could have beaten it, least of all corbyn. I find it hard to believe he could not have said what he though even if within the rules he was powerless to change those situations. But with very carefully worded exception, he didn't do even that. That's problematic for me. I can't claim to be unbending on my principles, and then buckle to someone else's. I think that notion repelled a lot of people instantly. As far as the press having a field day, I think they did anyway. At least going at it with more of a certain step in the direction of honourable action would have gathered support as well as losing it in other areas. He played a game that was meant to be almost apolitical but ended up folding every hand to save his pot. In terms of an ethical stance that lost a lot of support, because he ended up merely feeding the dealer. |