Forum menu
It certainly seems to to me.
Lets discount Dianne Abbott as a token gesture. A problem in itself. as all the female/ethnic candidates always strike me as tokenism
But the other four have all gone the same route. They went from school to Oxbridge, from there straight into the labour party as researchers or spin doctors. Parachuted into safe seats without actually having to fight elections seriously. Then fast-tracked straight into the cabinet. All on condition of doing EXACTLY as they're told at all times
Not one of them has ever done anything that any of us would recognise as a 'job'. They've existed in a Westminster bubble since University. How can any of them even begin to empathise with wreal peoples day-to-day lives?
You look at Cameron and Cleggs immediate groups and they all seem exactly the same. Its utterly depressing what this says about our political system
so erm bring back Big John 2 Jags then?......
Sailor, Boxer, Union Rep, Politician, Egg catcher, Public puncher...etc..
Just wiki'd them all and other than David Milliband, none of them went directly into party politics though unsuprisingly most had some politial connection in their first jobs. Not quite as clear cut as you make out but you're right that none of them seem to have 'real world' work experience of the sort that most of us would recognise but is that inherently a bad thing? Not sure that it is FWIW.
I write software for a govt agency. I have never worked in a govt agency - does that mean I am not qualified to write software for them? I don't have to 'empathise' with them, I just have to listen to their needs and deliver according to them.
so erm bring back Big John 2 Jags then?......Sailor, Boxer, Union Rep, Politician, Egg catcher, Public puncher...etc..
In some respects, yes.
Abbott is apparently a Cambridge graduate, and sends her son to a fee paying school because she's a single parent. Fits in quite well with the rest of the candidates really.
The Labour Leadership. Does it sum up the problem with politics generally?
Nope. It sums up what's wrong with the Labour [s]Party[/s] Pains...
id love to see abbot as PM
but lets face it, unlike america this country is way to institutionally racist to have a black PM
we managed a woman once but only because she was more manly than the rest of her cabinet,- without of course being gay, because that wont go either
(as shown by the torygraphs public outing & lynching of david laws)
i believe it was edmund blackadder who best summed up the 'choice' we have in politicians.....
fat tory landowners who get made MPs when they reach a certain weight; raving revolutionaries who think that just because they do a day's work that somehow gives them the right to get paid... Basically, it's a right old mess. Toffs at the top, plebs at the bottom
Whats wrong with people who went to Oxford or Cambridge?
Are people who went to red bricks or poly's somehow different?
the fact is that our MPs are selected from an ever dwindling pool of over-privileged under-personalitied with little or no ability to understand the needs of the electorate
if you werent on the debating team at oxbridge then you dont get in the house because youre not a good enough bullsh!tter to make it in the world of PR managed punch and judy politics
Hmmm... Diane Abbot. Socialist politician, believer in the comprehensive system. Sends her child to private, fee-psying school. No double standards there then. A finer example of "do as I say, not as I do" you will struggle to find.
The Labour Leadership. Does it sum up the problem with politics generally?Nope. It sums up what's wrong with the Labour Party Pains...
More carp from Woppit. There's a surprise.
After speaking with a party whip I came to the conclusion that Political parties don't want the likes of us as MP's, we're too difficult to control.
Dianne Abbot will never be PM because she doesnt have the capaibility nothing to do with her colour.
El-bent - MemberThe Labour Leadership. Does it sum up the problem with politics generally?
Nope. It sums up what's wrong with the Labour Party Pains...
More carp from Woppit. There's a surprise.
After speaking with a party whip I came to the conclusion that Political parties don't want the likes of us as MP's, we're too difficult to control.
What d'you call that? Dogfish?
Never had a gay PM - are you sure?
We've never had a gay PM that has worn their sexuality on their sleeve, but that's not the same as saying that we've never had a gay PM. Discounting the rumours about Brown, I think that you'll find Edward Heath was in the way of Freddie Mercury, very much a man's man.
Unfortunately that also seems to describe a lot of senior management too...
What? Senior management are all men's men? 😉
thats my point cranbery politicians have to lie to convince us to vote for them
I'm not really sure why this is about the Labour leadership and not about politicians in general, it's hardly a party political break, you could say much the same about any party rather than targeting labour. I also question why someone who's spent their entire life in politics is automatically considered less qualified than someone who spent 10 years as a plumber and 10 years as a politician. And lastly, sometimes the "real work" tells you more about the person than anything else, David Cameron of course was a PR man before he was a politician.
"unlike america this country is way to institutionally racist to have a black PM"
Course, that's exactly what everyone said about America before they had a black president.
northwind i know i remember the 2pac lyric
hes wrong and dead
I agree with what kimbers says
It is bad that we draw our elected representatives from a very small pool of talent and they are in no way representative of the people in terms of gender, ethnicity, education, class etc.
I think most of us struggle when we hear a multi millionaire privately educated oxbridge graduate tell the people we are all in this together as David Blunkett replied which of the vital service will he miss most? How many of his family and friends will be made redundant and loose their home? It is hard to empathises with people and represent them when you know nothing about them
Labour seem to have got much worse of late but I suspect rising through the union ranks from a proper working class background is not electorally desirable these days. Essentially people voted for Dave and Tony because they were [relatively] attractive, well groomed, educated and erudite. It is b0ll0cks but that is what the media celebrity obsessed masses want
Course, that's exactly what everyone said about America before they had a black president.
Never mind that - d'you think we'll ever have a black monarch? Now, that really WOULD set the cat among the pigeons...
... if you think the Monarchy is actually worth anything in the first place, of course...
...which I don't...
Dianne Abbott = Joke
Whats wrong with people who went to Oxford or Cambridge?Are people who went to red bricks or poly's somehow different?
Yes, they are not as clever
or possibly just had a far less privileged upbringing and had to suffer public education rather than a £25 k per year Private education.
No that can't be right someone told me they were all merchant bankers.
There are two schools of thought here:
You either believe politicians are best qualified to stand by virtue of most closely reflecting the masses that they are there to serve, i.e. they are all average intelligence, average social standing and background, diverse in their ethnicity such that it reflects in proportion the demographics of the country etc.
Or you believe politicians are best qualified by being the most capable of dealing with the large, complex and highly challenging problems the role demands they undertake.
There are valid arguments for both schools of thought but the right answer is probably to have a mixture of the two.
Personally, I'd much rather have someone intellectually in the top 2% as well as being qualified in a whole host of other ways, heading up the main political parties and therefore possibly running the country, which doesn't strike me as being a simple straightforward role.
We are not asking for stupid people to be in charge we dont need Bush jnr for example. It is better that we get a cross section of society rather than a huge weighting towards rich, middle /upper class white men . Half the cabinet [as was Labour] are millionaires. How unrepresentative is that and how can they represent the "common" people when they are not "common".
Junkyard, here then is another perspective.
Do you want politicians to do what's right for the country or do you want them to do what you want them to do?
The question assumes that these two things are not the same.
Also, I think your question is perfefctly valid, but this question is also perfectly valid:
'Why can't these rich middle/upper class white men represent the 'common' people; what is it about their situation and background that prevents them from doing that?'
And for the record, Bush Jnr is not stupid, he's just very average intelligence. The guy did get a degree and an MBA and while he was bottom of his class at Harvard, it does mean he can't be below average intelligence.
geetee1972
its very hard to gauge intelligence based on someones educational background
ive worked with plenty of postdocs who are absolutely clueless about science or real life, most of them get found out in the end but a few, especially the ones especially good at asskissing or stealing other peoples work seem to go from strength to strength
Kimbers - I agree, but I think there is a range in which you can make a prediction, probably within one SD, which rules out the very bright and the very stupid.
i suspect the Bush example shows where you can get if you know the correct people and somewhat proves my point about privledge assisting them to the top rather than talent. I assume much as our royalty get into Oxbridge with results a commoner would be laughed at the same applied to a Presidents son?
I agree with most of your postings but when the multi millionairre landed gentry privately educated Chancellor tells us we are all in this together is he really as in it as the rest of us? Can he really empathises with us? Is his home [any one of the many he owns]at risk due to the recession, his standard of living? No of course not. I am not saying it is impossible for him to represent us or say a single mother living in a council housing estate but he certainly has no direct experience of this, does not know anyone in this sitiuation and is not friendly with anyone in this socio-economic group. I am only saying that all this makes it harder for him to represent the "common" people as he is not one of them. You cannot represent people if you do not understand their lives or aspirations. He cannot know what it is to be working class any more than the single mother can know what it is to be landed gentry and a millionairre ....you have to walk the walk so to speak.
You wont be great just because you grew up in a council house either but surley we can find talented individual from all walks of life or we dont live in a meritocracy [we dont I know] and we should try to redress the imbalance
So it sounds like you're saying that empathy is a crucial skill for being a politician? I would agree with that.
I like your argument; it's the basic premise behind R. D. Lang's book, 'The Politics of Experience' if you're familiar with that? 'I see you, you see me, I experience you, you experience me, but I cannot ever experience your experience of me, just as you cannot experience my experience of you' or words to that effect.
I still believe in the premise of this argument, but these days I see the ability to truly experience someone else's experience as being less important/relevant than the ability to convey the sense of empathy for the other person's position and build rapport as a result. In my work, that skill is 90% of success. I suspect it's the bedrock of politics also.
You'll probably find all the talented "council house" individuals either worked their way up, or founded very successful companies and no doubt get paid vastly more than the PM and his chums!
Maybe the argument could be that the less a decision affects them the more people can be more rational about it. Maybe that's a bit cold blooded and simplistic I know.
Is his home [any one of the many he owns]at risk due to the recession, his standard of living?
That's a silly comment. The home and standard of living of somebody from a council estate background who went to Anglia Polytechnic, then eventually became Chancellor would be no more at risk due to the recession than George's.
It's at this point I like to point out that Churchill (voted Greatest Ever Great Briton in 2004 IIRC) and generally revered as having been one of our greatest ever leaders, was born in a palace. (Blenheim Palace). His father was Lord Randolph Churchill) He was about as landed gentry as you can get.
It's been this way for years. And if the alternative is having thugs like Prescott making decisions then so be it.
Their job IMO is to run the country so I can live the best life I can live, not to be like me. I can do that on my own, thanks.
churchill was also voted out after the war because he was opposed to the formation of the nhs
his tory government voted against it 160 times or something ridiculous like that
im guessing he didnt go hungry due to rationing and having been born in a palace and famously serviced by the best doctors in the land (lord moran) he had no idea how much the people of britain wanted socialised healthcare
Tiger6791 - Member
so erm bring back Big John 2 Jags then?......[s]Sailor[/s] Waiter, Boxer, Union Rep, Politician, Egg catcher, Public puncher...etc..
Maybe the argument could be that the less a decision affects them the more people can be more rational about it.
No the opposite. I hate to use Thatcher but her detachment from the working classes meant she could be more “rational” about closing steel mines, coal pits and destroying entire villages towns and helping to create the underclass who are prevalent in so many areas of our country. Detachment can also make you not give a sh1t hence why the Tories talk about inheritance tax being reduced no tax hike for the rich – they can feel that all right being rich they are not rational or detached on that one are they? - and then tell us we are all in it together whilst hitting the public sector they have largely never worked in or actually used. I don’t think that makes them better placed to decide what is required as they require nothing due to their wealth unlike the majority of the people they represent.
That's a silly comment. The home and standard of living of somebody from a council estate background who went to Anglia Polytechnic, then eventually became Chancellor would be no more at risk due to the recession than George's
George inherited his wealth and is not an example of meritocracy like the one you cite – whatever he was doing now he would be insulated from the market he so adores by his family wealth he has/will inherit?. The point is still valid as how can someone who has many homes say we are in it together when people will loose their homes as result of his decisions – he wont be friends with anyone affected in this way though due to his background and circle of wealthy friends. See also the Kimbers point and Churchill and the NHS for more examples of how this detachment means they don’t make decisions in the bets interests of all citizens
Interestingly on Radio 4 Heresy last night they had the topic that Dave and George were too posh by half and Lee Perrin [ iirc] defended it as he got the snobbery of being poor at Oxford and then treated like one of the posh toffs afterwards. He argued we should hate them for the decision they make not their background [as that was not their fault]. Reasonable points but their background will make it harder for them to make decisions in the common good as they are not common.