"We must not fetishise debate"

[RoyalCorgi]

A line from an article by Nadia Whittome, MP. She was so pleased with it that she also tweeted it.

t.co/cr8b8QfOn0?amp=1

When did our MPs become this stupid?

If you are not able to discuss a topic, listen to and hear different views, defend your position and open yourself up to possibly changing your mind about a subject, then you are not fit to govern.

How is an MP, who is unable to debate a topic and listen to concerns from constituents, capable of drafting and making laws which affect every member of society?

This moron is one of the reasons why the Conservatives will keep winning.

How is an MP, who is unable to debate a topic and listen to concerns from constituents, capable of drafting and making laws which affect every member of society?

Sorry, posted too soon, was supposed to quote Ginger. Agree with your post, it's astonishing and a grim indictment of both modern politicos and the education which has produced someone proud of her contempt for debate

Just out of curiosity, how does anyone see a route out of this woke madness with Labour?

Slow and painfully. Initially rolling back the extremes, medicalisation of children and sports like rugby. Then we might end up having an actual opportunity for discussion.

I am still optimistic that sense will win out eventually.

it's astonishing and a grim indictment of both modern politicos and the education which has produced someone proud of her contempt for debate

Quite - and surely it will only worse when people with these approaches to a diversity of views (that type of diversity is the wrong type) are going into schools, producing the guidelines for schools and then the kids who were in the schools grow up and start to run things themselves.

I'll say it - someone who is 24 with no real work - or life - experience, should not be an MP. Here the issue is compounded by sheer stupidity, but I'd apply it even to someone very intelligent.

I agree. It’s not just because of her age- lots of older adults would agree with her on this issue. Unfortunately.
But in general being an effective MP requires excellent personal boundaries and good self awareness as well as having reached full mental maturity. Age and life experience is needed to develop these things.

Not her fault though. Local selection committee and Labour central office should have kiboshed this at the start.

I don’t know if she’s intelligent or not tbf- I can’t say anything about that solely on the basis of anyone holding genderist views. As much as i disagree with the views.
Does mean that those people are supporting a sexist, homophobic and anti-scientific authoritarian political lobby position though.

There are many MP’s in the HOC who are not overly gifted, some rarely speak in debates or do much beyond trotting through the lobby when instructed. She is an activist and seemingly committed to raising issues and speaking in the House, I hope she is an effective constituency MP.

I think her use of language and understanding of the implications of what she’s saying are either dangerous or foolish but I’m not sure which it is.

The evidence of the ability to think critically, to process additional or different information (which is being given to her in droves on her twitter threads with links), to see the bigger picture and anticipate the bleeding obvious issues, or to have awareness of professional responsibilities and one's own job description is a pretty good indication of intelligence.

@Gronky

If there was ever an argument for a return to aristocracy this is it.

I think she is arguing for a return to an aristocracy, of sorts. It would seem that only certain people have the correct brains required to produce 'appropriate' thoughts and everyone else should shut up and fund their execution.

Wish there was a ‘like’ function on here.

@Trenisenne

I'll say it - someone who is 24 with no real work - or life - experience, should not be an MP. Here the issue is compounded by sheer stupidity, but I'd apply it even to someone very intelligent.

I don't care if it is controversial - I absolutely agree with you. I don't like career politicians, I think it is much better if they have had another job and a chance to grow up a bit and mingle with people in daily life as an adult. As a young person, having ideals is fantastic, and it is great to bring that to politics but if your ideals are unrealistic and involve ignoring any contrary view then politics isn't for you. I'd rather have someone open to learning and growing in the role. She and Mhairi Back both think they are right and that's an end to it, they are not remotely interested in constituents unless they are the right kind of publicity winning, woke signalling constituents. If we don't want career politicians (and it isn't a good idea having them represent the electorate) then they shouldn't be becoming politicians at such a young age - what can they really bring to that role at that age apart from ideals and an unwillingness to listen and debate.

I think Starmer will be able to shift things, he has made some positive steps, but it's a long road for labour, he has endless lost ground to pull back.

what can they really bring to that role at that age apart from ideals and an unwillingness to listen and debate

Unfortunately, an inability/refusal to debate or even acknowledge that they have one political view, not the only political view appears to be an 'ideal' they have been taught. Or as Douglas Murray puts it, educated into stupidity

This has be someone who has infiltrated labour in a bid to make them unelectable. Right? Right?!

Michelle I agree with you but intelligent people can sell out for their own self-interest just as much as the thick ones do, whether under duress or for personal advantage, so it’s not always easy to tell them apart

I'm 8 years older than her and when I was at school there was already a creeping sense of this with the younger teachers- that there were proper views to have, correct newspapers to read etc. Then it was mostly stamped down by older teachers who talked about the importance of understanding your opposition to debate AND find compromise. Has that side just been lost as older teachers retired? I get the impression now that certain MPs consider compromise as something dirty to be avoided rather than the way to achieve goals that work for the vast majority.

Very true Chatty. And MPs with solid feminist/progressive credentials are staying silent.

I get the impression now that certain MPs consider compromise as something dirty to be avoided rather than the way to achieve goals that work for the vast majority
Yes, being a politician is ultimately about pragmatism and compromise to achieve your goals. Someone upthread described Nadia W as an activist - I think that is the problem. I see being an activist and politician as two different things. Activists raise awareness and make demands - politicians translate that into something practical and workable.

I agree smallskylight there is a difference.

a HoC full of activists and careerist party members is a disaster for our democracy.

@smallskylight

I get the impression now that certain MPs consider compromise as something dirty to be avoided rather than the way to achieve goals that work for the vast majority Yes, being a politician is ultimately about pragmatism and compromise to achieve your goals. Someone upthread described Nadia W as an activist - I think that is the problem. I see being an activist and politician as two different things. Activists raise awareness and make demands - politicians translate that into something practical and workable.

That is a good point. She has chosen a side for her activism and has no interest in viewing all the data or all the different rights which might be affected in this case. Her activist goal is to shut down all debate, and the real reason appears to be that she fears her side would lose the debate, at least in the sense that clashing rights would have to be addressed.

the real reason appears to be that she fears her side would lose the debate

Absolutely. Because #no debate means can't debate.

I disagree. I think It’s zealotry, she’s taken the mantras of fighting against oppression, no paseran etc.

When I first came across the GC argument I was appalled, how can you be so intolerant of difference?! Then after examining it and listening to the arguments I realised that it was much more complicated than that. You have to listen, you have to discuss, or everyone loses.

Sorry! The I disagree crept in from somewhere else!! I don’t disagree!