There's plenty floated as political or economic policies which we disagree with. There's more put up for consideration which we think simply wrong or even counter-productive. But it does have to be said that there's not all that much which we actively consider to be mindgarglingly stupid. But take this from Owen Smith's platform to topple Jeremy Corbyn:
Increase spending on health and social care by at least 4% in real-terms in every year of the next parliament.
Commit to bringing NHS funding up to the European average within the first term of a Labour Government.
No, we don't think real term increases in such programs are needed but that's a matter of opinion and a vision of the good society. Ours is not one where ever more of the population is shackled to the State's teat.
But that second one falls off the edge we're afraid. for consider the argument that is used to defend the NHS. All that centralisation and planning is more efficient than the chaos and competition of markets. No, of course we don't believe that but the important point is that they do.
The NHS must be state run, only state run and state paid for because it is more efficient that way. That is the defence of it which is trotted out every time we suggest a bit more competition in it.
Now note what they're saying. We must be spending the same as other European nations all of which use a less efficient method of running a health service.
Err, why? If we've got the more efficient system then we can get the same or more health care for less money. They're either that mindgarglingly stupid, don't believe their own propaganda about efficiency or are simply saying anything they can in the pursuit of votes.
Given that this is politics we think it likely that it's a combination of all three. But we're giving very serious consideration to the idea that they really are too stupid to have noted the contradiction in their separate statements.