Inspired by this story:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16958852
He 'wont rule out' women quotas for boardrooms. Big wow. What does that even mean? What else wont he rule out? Appearing on Strictly? Copulating with Gideon on the despatch box? Selling the Falklands to the Argies for a box of buttons?
Ive noticed this a lot with this government. Someone has a brainfart, or reads some obscure study, and thinks - 'Wouldnt it be good if we could do X?'. Well, steady on there - the thing about policies is that people might not like them. Better dip our toes a little bit first, eh?
So there's a story leaked to the press - 'The government are considering X'...and they wait. See what the reaction is. If there's any hostility, no matter how ill informed, or if its a tiny minority, then rejig the policy a little. Then we get 'Senior government ministers are planning...', and the process repeats. By now, assuming no flak is incoming, you may even get a junior minister breaking cover and attaching their name to it. Over and again.
Finally, once the plan has been watered down and bastardised to the point where its as inoffensive as it is ineffective, it may actually get put before parliament.
Where's the leadership - where's the notion that 'We beleive that X is good for the country, and we're going to spend some political capital to get it done, and we'll try damn hard to persuade the doubters, rather than collapsing in the face of dissent'.
Im not arguing for an autocratic regime who bulldoze opposition, but i'd like to see the government arguing for things, rather than taking the line of least resistance.
Or is it just me?