More irritation

And while we are on the subject of irritation, the Guardian managed to score again yesterday.

First, it treats the recent vote on matters Syrian in the House of Commons as if it was a personal humiliation for the Prime Minister. Now while I dare say it is a bit of a blow and it will take a day or so for him to recover his full authority over his colleagues, I think it is wrong to treat the result of this vote in this way. The PM had a view and he put it to the House which, after due consideration, disagreed with him: we should be thankful that we have a house which does occasionally discuss matters of substance and does occasionally make a difference, despite the rigours of our party system and its whips, rather than using the opportunity to have a pop at him, that is to say at our PM. Talk of humiliation will hardly encourage him to public debate, rather to stifle debate and to make all the real decisions in the private comfort of his coterie.

I should add that, on this matter, I agree with the House. Intervention in affairs of this sort, tragic though they are, has a poor track record.

Second, it drags out the word 'appalling' for yet another facet of the Mid Staffordshire Health saga. OK, so the health people there have a poor track record and something needs to be done, not least about the senior managers who pay themselves so well while things go a bit wrong down at the mill. But let's keep a sense of proportion and reserve appalling for things which really are. The people more closely involved might go pale and feel weak (the original meaning of the word) at the failure of their colleagues, but it is not going to affect the rest of us in quite that way.