“Why should anyone listen to Tony Blair?”

For entertainment?

I think it would be useful for Tony Blair for once in his life to take a very long look in the mirror, a very, very, very long look.

Try this “exclusive” interview with Tony Blair in the FT last weekend:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b2ec4fd6-c0af-11e1-9372-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1zYQdZavs

I really believe that there could be another potential big job for him if he is proclaimed the next Pontiff by acclamation. That would be good PR and an excellent modernising strategy for the Church.

Is this a trick question?

Why should anyone listen to you?

Try this nostalgic reflection by Francis Wheen in the Guardian from 12 years ago:

The first sound of bats flapping in his belfry was heard even before the election, in December 1996, when he told Des O’Connor that as a 14-year-old he had run away to Newcastle airport and boarded a plane for the Bahamas: “I snuck onto the plane, and we were literally about to take off when the stewardess came up to me…” Quite how he managed this without a boarding card or passport was not explained. It certainly came as a surprise to his father (“The Bahamas? Who said that? Tony? Never”), and an even greater surprise to staff at the airport, who pointed out that there has never been a flight from Newcastle to the Bahamas.

A couple of years later, he told an interviewer that his “teenage hero” was the footballer Jackie Milburn, whom he would watch from the seats behind the goal at St James’s Park. In fact, Milburn played his last game for Newcastle United when Blair was just four years old, and there were no seats behind the goal at the time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2000/feb/23/londonmayor.uk

Nobody should listen this loon. He is a deluded fool, albeit now a very rich one.

He should join the church and do baptisms tours to the holy land. Blair can dress up in white robes and strum his guitar, and then give talks while wearing his Newcastle shirt.

His psycopathic diseased personna broke our family’s 100 year loyalty to the Labour Party – forever.
The fact is New labour is still stuffed full of Blair worshipping acolytes.
A pox of medieval proportions on them all.

In his memoirs, Blair admitted to great admiration for Nigel Lawson.

He even comes out with the absurd idea that Labour lost in 2010 because it ceased to be New Labour.

On a more positive note, he was surprisingly uncertain about replacing Trident.

You people still do not get it, politicians do not have to explain anything they are there to further there own agenda because They believe its what should happen and what ever that agenda may be they can find support/shape a public image perception to gain support and then do a U turn with there actions once in power.

There is so much bullsh!t, deception, out right lies, uselessness, illegitimacy and incompetence moving around today’s political system, I do not know how you can stomach it by keeping up with on going developments. If we had evolved past this absolute shambles of a political system and now had people who were actually relevant, qualified and competent to carry out these roles we would be looking back to these times with as much disgust as we look back to the bizarre practises of the middle ages, it is a case of how the hell did you live like that.

But on and we go! The never ending political pantomime in which any one can be a star!

How?

He’s either deluded (as others have noted) or he is being paid by the coalition to ensure that his toxicity will continue to infect the Labour Party.

@ 9 xox

“There is so much bullsh!t, deception, out right lies, uselessness, illegitimacy and incompetence moving around today’s political system, I do not know how you can stomach it by keeping up with on going developments.”

And yet here you are reading and commenting on a political current affairs blog.

“11. Chaise Guevara”

Yes and I have debated you many times on several issues, I know with certainty I am not the only who is disillusioned with the state of the political play in this country, do I really have to have my tongue inserted up a politicians back side so I can get a taste of the crap he produces at both ends before I am entitled to casually browse a blog at break time now and again and leave a comment or two?

Tony Blair should pop his head down below the parapet once more! The world has moved on since he was PM and the world a different place – we now have proof of his Iraq machinations, he sucked up to the bankers and once he left office was only too happy to advice the world of neo-conservative bankers and arms dealers!
He also ‘opened the door’ to private contractors in health and education – now the Tories have gratefully pushed open this door.
No, Mr Blair, you are a spent force and we need to revert to a little more ‘old’ rather than your discredited New Labour.

9 “If we had evolved past this absolute shambles of a political system and now had people who were actually relevant, qualified and competent to carry out these roles …”

Maybe we need to start contemplating the possibility that “these roles” you speak of have got completely out of hand in terms of size and complexity of jurisdiction and that no human being can possibly be “relevant, qualified and competent” to fulfil them satisfactorily, no matter how excessively you try and remoonerate them.

Maybe our whole socio-economic system is just starting to collapse under its own weight?

Here we go again.

Another article pushing the ‘not fit to wipe my backside’ review of Tony Blair. He won three elections as Labour PM and people here complain about him as if they were his spurned lovers.

Politicians lie – so what?
You didn’t mind so much when you were voting for him.

Blair’s entire time of being Prime Minister has been a failure. Iraq war, bankers, Murdoch. All shown to be crocks of shit. Even the rare progressive things like removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords or the Freedom of information act he regrets.

A delusional clown who should have been a dodgy country solicitor or a wacky church of England Vicar. But he will die rich from his blood money so as a tory that will make him happy.

@ 12 xox

“Yes and I have debated you many times on several issues, I know with certainty I am not the only who is disillusioned with the state of the political play in this country, do I really have to have my tongue inserted up a politicians back side so I can get a taste of the crap he produces at both ends before I am entitled to casually browse a blog at break time now and again and leave a comment or two?”

What are you on about? The OP is an attack on Tony Blair, not a eulogy to him, so who’s brown-nosing? And obviously you’re not alone in being disillusioned. What I dislike is that you sneer at everyone else here simply for discussing the issue – oh, they’re so naive, not proper cynics like you – while you yourself are, um, discussing the issue. I’m not saying you aren’t “entitled” to post here, I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of your post.

The worst person in any discussion is the one putting everyone else down for being involved in the discussion.

Kojak – “Politicians lie – so what?”

Classic!

“Maybe we need to start contemplating the possibility that “these roles” you speak of have got completely out of hand in terms of size and complexity of jurisdiction and that no human being can possibly be “relevant, qualified and competent” to fulfil them satisfactorily, no matter how excessively you try and remoonerate them.”

No, people can only tolerate a certain level of feeling stupid before they start to lose it and face serious mental issues, I am not this cruel, if one were to contemplate it from the above angle one has to do so from the reality of previously placing people whose only qualifications are a PHD in history, or perhaps a BA in jurisprudence into these fantastically demanding and complex positions.

People whom by there own past work experience and curriculum vitae before having the magical fairy dust of politics sprinkled all over it would not have been suitable to walk off the streets into a management position in Tesco, never mind a basic but demanding position at a financial institution….

“What are you on about? The OP is an attack on Tony Blair, not a eulogy to him, so who’s brown-nosing? And obviously you’re not alone in being disillusioned. What I dislike is that you sneer at everyone else here simply for discussing the issue – oh, they’re so naive, not proper cynics like you – while you yourself are, um, discussing the issue. I’m not saying you aren’t “entitled” to post here, I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of your post.

The worst person in any discussion is the one putting everyone else down for being involved in the discussion.”

I have not put any one down ” you people still do not get it” is not a put down, its an opinion. Of course I recognize this is no eulogy, I also recognize while a fair and accurate assessment of that character has been given this site is still littered left right and center with utter shite about Labour, Balls, Miliband and many other members of the current Government who are as lacking. What is your point? If you don’t like my tone then do not read it, respond to the issues I have bought up and do not wasting my time by moaning or questioning my reason for being here.

Thank you.

@ 20 xox

“I have not put any one down ” you people still do not get it” is not a put down, its an opinion.”

“You’re a prick” is also an opinion, but it’s still a putdown.

“Of course I recognize this is no eulogy, I also recognize while a fair and accurate assessment of that character has been given this site is still littered left right and center with utter shite about Labour, Balls, Miliband and many other members of the current Government who are as lacking.”

How does this justify your attack on the other posters?

“What is your point?”

I’ve explained my point; read before you reply.

“If you don’t like my tone then do not read it,”

How the fuck would I know what your tone is before I’ve read it? Christ. This is pathetic. You come on here having a go at everyone else, and then when someone criticises YOU your response is “don’t read it if you don’t like it!” Like I said, you’re a hypocrite.

“respond to the issues I have bought up and do not wasting my time by moaning or questioning my reason for being here.

Thank you.”

Cheers, but I’d rather say what I want to say rather than let you dictate the conversation.

19 xox
I’m sorry, but I can’t understand what you mean. What I was trying to suggest is that we should not put ANYone in such grandiose roles in the first place, just abolish them, like the Monarchy, and re-organise society along more sensible, practical lines.

After all, tell me xox, when you look around you at our society does it not strike you that everything is becoming more and more complex, more and more bureaucratic, and more and more likely to catastrophic failure?

@ xox again

Hang on, possible crossed wires: who were you addressing when you first said “you people”?

““You’re a prick” is also an opinion, but it’s still a putdown.”

I am going to be honest with you, in our past dealings I thought you gave really thoughtful responses and you made me think, but today you appear to be blowing things way out of proportion, that or your looking for a fight.

Your a prick is an opinion and an insult, “you do not get it” is an opinion, it can be valid or invalid but it is no insult or reason in the slightest for you to start. In my opinion if you agree with the above tone about Mr Blair yet you still react positively to the topics that appear on this site about Labour, Miliband, Eb Balls etc..you do not get it…

We can have a discussion about these individuals, analyze and compare them all day long, but if you can not even get past the first disagreement some one has with you, that would also suggest to me that you do not get it and navigate the political word by your gut feeling instead of reasoning and logic in which case a debate is pointless.

“What I was trying to suggest is that we should not put ANYone in such grandiose roles in the first place, just abolish them, like the Monarchy, and re-organise society along more sensible, practical lines.”

I do actually agree with you I just see that as to far of a step from our current point of development to take in a single leap.No politician does a bad job, is ill-informed or is badly equipt to do the job just to piss me off, I do not take it that personally. How ever when we have people in positions of power who through arrogance or the total inability to admit one is incorrect still to this day advocating the UK joining the Euro, ignoring the reality of what would have happened had we done so, this is a clear and definable threat to all of our future prosperity and well being.

Its just one example of the so many issues that make me feel as though politics is a game of Russian roulette when it comes to the future of this country, society does strike exactly as you say, especially since 2008.

————————————————–

23. Chaise Guevara

Hang on, possible crossed wires: who were you addressing when you first said “you people”…

The people who may have been agreeing with the tone concerning Mr Blair yet find them selves wanting to give credit to and put faith in others who have demonstrated they are as lacking. If one were to do so would you not agree that they do not get it?

@ 25 xox

Ah. Sorry. I completely misread your first post.

As I’m sure you’ve noticed yourself, when you talk about politics online you find a fair few people swaggering around and sneering at others just for taking an interest. You know, people saying things like “I can’t believe you simpletons are even talking about this, if you were as clever as me you would have realised that politicians can’t be trusted!” Basically people who think they’re cynical but aren’t, and use that as a poor excuse to go around patronising everyone else.

I read your first post in those terms; looking back I was wrong. I apologise for flying off the handle. The patronising faux-cynical crowd really get my goat, so I went straight to anger mode, when I should have given you the benefit of doubt and asked what you meant – or even re-read your post so I understood it properly!

Sorry for jumping to conclusions and for acting like a pillock.

“Ah. Sorry. I completely misread your first post.”

Easy enough to do on the internet and no problem. I speak strongly on this subject and that is just a reflection of how hopeless I see the current situation. I do not look down on those who engage in politics its more the case of ” how long are we going to give the current state of affairs legitimacy by accepting it and becoming tied up in party politics” you know…

Not that rejecting it is going to solve all of our issues and neither will seeking those qualified to do the job,there are many issues to solve beyond this and qualifications are no guarantee yet our society is so creditability & qualification oriented when it comes to high stake positions and for good reason, I see little difference between a person leaving education with a degree in social sciences etc and landing a job as a surgeon and the same person of the same situation landing a job in politics, both are as insane.

To me until we address that, and I seriously doubt we ever will..all else is spam,futile, pointless political shuffling.

10 steveb, why do you feel his toxicity infects the laobur party, he never lost an election

@ 27 xox

“Easy enough to do on the internet and no problem.”

Thanks, I appreciate that.

“I see little difference between a person leaving education with a degree in social sciences etc and landing a job as a surgeon and the same person of the same situation landing a job in politics, both are as insane.”

The question is, what system could we use to prevent this? Unless we want to do worrying things to democracy, all I can think of is encouraging people to vote for qualified candidates, which might happen but I imagine it would be slow.

28

I’m not aware that there exists a universal principle which states that a prime minister can’t be toxic to their party if they have never lost an election.

As the OP, I thought I should probably reply to some of the comments, though just 2.

@4
‘Why should someone listen to you?’
Good way to completely ignore the arguments I put forward and just attack me. My criticism of Blair was based on what he has said, not who he is.

@15
‘Another article pushing the ‘not fit to wipe my backside’ review of Tony Blair. He won three elections as Labour PM and people here complain about him as if they were his spurned lovers.’

Again, completely fails to engage with my arguments again. Just because he won elections, does not mean his economic ideas should be deferentially accepted. I am also too young to have ever had a chance to vote for Blair! This sort of comment would be more convincing if you pointed out where you disagreed with what I said rather than just going for the GAH, he won elections, shut up line.

@ 31 Tom

“GAH”?

@ 31 Tom

“GAH”?

GAH was just meant to be general noise of annoyance rather than a tla or anything

“The question is, what system could we use to prevent this? Unless we want to do worrying things to democracy, all I can think of is encouraging people to vote for qualified candidates, which might happen but I imagine it would be slow”

When a board of directors for instance has several candidates to select a single person to fill a position they are voting on who they want to take on that job, its still a democratic voting process among the board yet before any candidate reaches the level at which they face a vote they have been vetted for there suitability in all aspects.

Any system worth the time would not just encouraging people to vote for qualified candidates, it would have a means of providing only qualified candidates for the public to vote from.

Business and commerce in an imperfect world have mapped out such a system fairly well, you wont find a community organizer managing a research lab that houses substances that if released would pose a great threat to the public’s health, yet you can find one in control of the most powerful weaponry & military system in the world.

Running a country and politics is not a business, its a dam lot more complex, the positions are varied and many, yet we do not require “rocket scientists” for every post, I think even applying some common sense and personality vetting would cause drastic changes.

But we are going the other way, slowly but surely..aren’t we. With Europe we are heading towards a system that does not even provide a vote never mind an opportunity to remove..

@ 34 xox

To be honest I value free elections over qualifications. I really don’t want to have the law dictate who we can and can’t vote for, especially when that’s determined by background. For the same reason I don’t think we should make people pass an IQ test before being allowed to vote, even though that would improve the country in myriad ways.

Banning people from standing for election anti-democratic and inevitably skews representation away from what the people want and towards a “preferable” demographic. For a start, if you need a certain level of voluntary education to be an MP, then all MPs will be working from the perspective of the sort of person who can and does pursue voluntary education. The number of Oxbridge grads with arts/humanities degrees in parliament is already massively unrepresentative; what you’re proposing would exacerbate this.

@ 33

Ah, ok, thought it might be interwebs slang.

To be honest I value free elections over qualifications. I really don’t want to have the law dictate who we can and can’t vote for, especially when that’s determined by background……..”

So on the one hand you do not want the law to dictate who you get the opportunity to vote for yet on the other hand you want the law and background to dictate who can and cant operate on you, provide medical advice diagnosis and medication, install a gas boiler, fly your aeroplanes, teach and care for your children, take on the good job of policing our streets hey even drive our taxis.

Law dictates a huge amount of our lives, really with the amount of law, and rightly so, dictated to us, you want it to dictate everything apart from the credibility and competence of those designing these laws?

For the same reason I don’t think we should make people pass an IQ test before being allowed to vote, even though that would improve the country in myriad ways….”

I am in 100% agreement, a person has no say or influence when it comes to the mental ability they are born with, a person with an IQ of low standing has as much right to vote as one termed a genius. We both acknowledge that people have different ability’s when it comes to analyzing those they vote for and the consequences that will come as a result of that which is even more reason to place safe guards and quality assurance in place when it comes to the ballet box.

Banning people from standing for election anti-democratic and inevitably skews representation away from what the people want and towards a “preferable” demographic…”

I am a proponent of no such thing, I am also not a billionaire, the chief architect of a multinational construction firm, an accredited psychologist or a school teacher. How ever I am not banned from being any of the above. A lot of positions in this world have one of two things, depending upon you as an individual. You may see requirements for entry or barriers to entry.To me concerning the above vocations I see nothing but barriers to entry, I am either not intelligent enough or I have not invested the time required in education and real world experience to become proficient in these roles.

Does my absent in the above roles when I am of the current standing skew the representation towards a preferable demographic? Is the question of more significance not does one want these jobs done to the highest standard possible and how are we to achieve that outcome?

For a start, if you need a certain level of voluntary education to be an MP, then all MPs will be working from the perspective of the sort of person who can and does pursue voluntary education. The number of Oxbridge grads with arts/humanities degrees in parliament is already massively unrepresentative; what you’re proposing would exacerbate this….”

I in no way seek to exacerbate this, I seek to ensure the person at the head of health in this country is an expert in the subject with a verifiable relevant history we can count on, not a BA in political studies, that when such as individual legislates in this area they do not receive a 96% motion of no confidence from organizations at the heart of the sector they are legislating for.

You are correct that MPs, just like any one seeking a specific vocation will work from the perspective of becoming the sort of person who is able to do the said job, in all other areas we call this having a goal and we call reaching your goal and becoming the person able to do this career success..in politics we call it a threat to democracy.

The preservation of this country takes a lot more important than an individuals right to decide they would like to govern this country despite there lack of credentials and working experience/success.You create quality by having requirements of good quality and allowing those who can reach such heights to carry out the roles they have demonstrated there ability in.

“For the same reason I don’t think we should make people pass an IQ test before being allowed to vote, even though that would improve the country in myriad ways….””

An illuminating twist on this is that voters in elections for the Diet in Japan have to write in the names of their preferred candidate(s) in constituencies which are often multi-member constituencies. But by many reports, literacy rates in Japan are very high as compared with Britain:

“Up to 12 million working UK adults have the literacy skills expected of a primary school child, the [HoC] Public Accounts Committee says. . . The report says there are up 12 million people holding down jobs with literacy skills and up to 16 million with numeracy skills at the level expected of children leaving primary school.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4642396.stm

@ 36 xox

Could you clarify the system that you’re proposing? Not the end goal (i.e. politicians being qualified in their fields) but the method used to get there? At the moment I’m confused, it sounded like you wanted to ban unqualified people from holding office but now you seem to be saying you’re not.

Some general comments in the meantime:

1) Yes, I’m aware of the inconsistency in having qualified professionals running most industries, but amateurs running the country itself. I also agree that it’s far from ideal. I simply see democracy as a special case. Restrictions put the power into the hands of those who design the restrictions.

2) Mandating that MPs have a certain level of education will mean that more MPs (all of them) come from the demographic of people with that education. It doesn’t matter whether you “seek to exacerbate” the issue, because it will be exacerbated under that system whether that’s your intention or simply a side-effect.

3) You seem to be ignoring the negative consequences of limiting power to a select band of people. At least, you’re not discussing it. Whether it’s a threat to democracy is arguable, but it’s definitely a threat to the interests of the less educated, who for obvious reasons are more likely to be vulnerable.

4) This country will be “preserved” even if no changes are made to the system. I raise this because I’m concerned that your proposal is being presented as the only way to prevent a spiral into destruction that won’t happen anyway.

Why should I not listen to Tony Blair?
Free speech.

@ 39 Andreas

That’s some impressive point-missing there.

White Trash re comments 18 + 22:

From your comment 18:

” Kojak – “Politicians lie – so what?”
Classic!”

From your comment 22:

“What I was trying to suggest is that we should not put ANYone in such grandiose roles in the first place, just abolish them, like the Monarchy, and re-organise society along more sensible, practical lines.”

I hold the view that politicians often lie to us whenever they can get away with it – as opposed to telling us their uncomfortable truths.
That’s the reality as I see it.

Whereas you would like to re-organise society to prevent this type of thing happening.
That’s the “sensible” solution you would like to put in place.

Classic indeed.

Could you clarify the system that you’re proposing? Not the end goal…….”

Am I banned from being the chief architect of a multinational construction company? I have dug many foundations in my early working years, for conservatories houses and even garages. I have laid simple brick work and mixed many tons of cement. If I were to construct a curriculum vitae detailing this work history and apply for a job as a chief architect, due to my history lacking the qualifications, working experience and references relevant to a top level architect is my application going to be stamped with a big red |BANNED| sign?

It is not a driving license and there is no “ban”. The application is not going to get a second thought however because I do not have the skills to do the job, to such a company a person of my standing not only represents a waste of capital but a liability to the health of there company and the customers I am employed to service.

I am not proposing a “system” in such stringent terms, as I have previously said the positions that make up the world of politics are many and varied, this is not a black and white situation in which the same is expected or can be applied to all.

Let me give you an example, of my local MP I think most require a clear sense of pride and involvement in the community, good communication skills sound mind and character of good standing above all else. A level of financial, business and law acumen are also very important, being able to understand and reflect upon how issues will impact there community and work with the people towards the most balanced out come.

Do you think I expect the same level of competence from an MP representing a few thousand people as I expect from the individual representing 60+ million by having the most responsibility when it comes to the country’s economic and financial matters????

You can call democracy a “special case” and discuss the fact that the individual responsible for this country’s economic/financial matters comes with the experience of a towel folder and has a degree in history in a nonchalant manner, casually stating that its not ideal, you do so from my perspective on par with the people who try and hand me leaflets at my door, telling me I am condemned to hell if I do not find god. If you can not conceptualize how the qualifications and experience required for the most crucial centralized roles that have the most impact on us all can be determined and expected of an individual before they become eligible to stand for election to that role, I don’t know how I am going to be able to get my point across to you.

It seems your attention is fixated on the term “ban”, I understand you want a wide representation of the population, there views and perspectives working in politics as opposed to a bunch of rich guys who seem to be removed from the rest of us..oh…dam…..it would seem that is exactly what we currently have.

You say I ignore the consequences of limiting power to a select band of people yet I have been watching the consequences of just that unfold in the last several years. Power will Always be limited to a select band of people, its the nature of our society and to make it work it becomes a question of selecting the people most capable of doing the job, to do that we must define what is required and use that as a starting point for those who wish to do this.

There are many other areas of society in which power is limited to a select band of people, a visit to your local GP can see your life in there hands, well that’s power to bud and as a society we recognize the importance of this hence they operate under such stringent safety conditions and have such long roads to travel to demonstrate there competence before they may practise.

This country will be “preserved” even if no changes are made to the system. I raise this because I’m concerned that your proposal is being presented as the only way to prevent a spiral into destruction that won’t happen anyway..”

Neither of us can say with such solid stance what will and will not happen, we can only go on the evidence at hand.This country from my perspective is in a spiral to destruction and has been for some time, if the system worked with perfection we should still embrace improvement, why a solution to an all to visible problem actually “concerns” you I do not know, other than perhaps ulterior motive.

@ 42 xox

As I said, I can’t really discuss this fruitfully until you say what you’re proposing. What you’ve done above is spend ages justifying a system without explaining what that system would be.

So, without any justification of the end goals: what precise process are you suggesting here? What changes to the law? In what way would you prevent an unqualified person from becoming an MP/minister? You say it’s not a ban but I’ve no way of knowing whether that’s true at present.

Oh, and please leave off the unwarranted accusations.

Another article pushing the ‘not fit to wipe my backside’ review of Tony Blair. He won three elections as Labour PM and people here complain about him as if they were his spurned lovers.

More like the wives of a persistent adulterer who has brought home syphilis and genital warts.

From his interviews with the FT and other media, it’s clear that TB really doesn’t get it – but this will surely Wow ‘em:

Tony Blair for Pontiff – you can’t stop modernisation.

Oh, and please leave off the unwarranted accusations….”

I do not see the ulterior motive comment as unwarranted, people defend the status quo when they have something to lose, I do not know what your political ties/connections and investments are.

Its human nature, like when sensible regulation is posed to the world of banking to correct a visible in-balance and they shout from the roof tops how much damage such regulation would do to them if they could no longer exploit that in-balance, well that’s the bloody point, and here we have you defending peoples right to govern without expertise because removing those without expertise would reduce the landscape to only the demographic of people with the relevant education and expertise…just like in every other profession and functional business..what exactly am I to think?

What precise process are you suggesting here? …..”

Off the top of my head -To stand as an MP:

Several exams designed for this specific purpose before a candidate is eligible to do so:

* Political & National history.

* Economics & a firm understanding of our country’s monetary & debt/bond market system ( I have seen high ranking politicians not know the difference between the value of pound sterling and UK bonds live in parliament)

* Tests to demonstrate one is proficient in both maths & English.

* Reasoning & problem solving assessments and testing.

* A simple psychological evaluation.

* Three years experience in a private sector job or volunteer work.

There, not to satanic is it? And for the majority no more than a requirement for entry, the barriers for entry should start appearing when we come to the more specialized and critical roles. An example is one previously mentioned, the individual responsible for all economic and financial matters. Such an individual should have an extensive education in both economics and accounting and a lengthy record of successfully placing these into practise in the private sector. We all have the right to mess up our first job lets pick these guys up after they have had time to practise and build an experience base any one would admire. We still have candidates, we still have elections…

You say it’s not a ban but I’ve no way of knowing whether that’s true at present…”

I have gone into the difference between being banned and not being suitable because your history and qualifications indicate you are incapable of doing the job to the standard required, you can not seem to grasp the difference.Yes the result to the individual is the same, they can not do the job, but the results to the rest of the country are changed for the better in a dramatic way. Should politics be your personal playground in which you have the absolute right to equality concerning the role you take on? Or have I been mistaken believing it was a system designed for the greater good of the population it works for?

I do not think you are capable of fruitfully discussing any “system” when you have so little in the way of responding to the justifications for any such system, right now you remind me of a smoker who argues for there right to smoke and die in the process, that’s fair enough unless its my lungs and the lungs of a nation you are sharing, as is the case with your right to vote any one into positions of control over all of our lives if they are suitable or not…

“Off the top of my head -To stand as an MP: Several exams designed for this specific purpose before a candidate is eligible to do so:”

That rather looks as though MPs would have to be up to the education standards of Oxford PPE grads – the like of Cameron and William Hague or Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Rachel Reeves and Lady Vadera. As a mere history graduate, Osborne isn’t up to scratch.

Margaret Thatcher had a degree in chemistry and I doubt if she had ever heard of Adam Smith or Milton Friedman while she was at Oxford, however, she was able to talk about free-markets by virtue of the fact that she was surrounded with experts who enlightened her. Btw, Thatcher’s favourite tv programme was ‘Yes Minister’ which kind of gives an indication about the knowledge and power held by senior civil servants.

“That rather looks as though MPs would have to be up to the education standards of Oxford PPE grads”

Its just something off the top of my head, I am not intending to give the impression to you guys that ” I have all the answers, I have the systems! ” I have neither nor I am qualified to design no such system, I am pointing out the holes in logic I see here, there are always exceptions to rules, Merkel has a background in physics yet she has done a good job with Germany.

These individuals are surrounded by experts, we have teams of experts giving information to people who are not experts to formulate the best course of action with….If there were experts at the scene of the Euro who understood the concept of optimal currency areas instead of good intention yet overpowering political ambition, who knows how much better the European project would have turned out by now..etc

Steveb: “Margaret Thatcher had a degree in chemistry and I doubt if she had ever heard of Adam Smith or Milton Friedman while she was at Oxford, however, she was able to talk about free-markets by virtue of the fact that she was surrounded with experts who enlightened her. ”

For inspiration on industrial policy issues, she relied on Sir Keith Joseph (Fellow of All Souls, Oxford), her first industry minister, and on Nicholas Ridley (an engineer) for mentoring on privatisation.

On becoming industry minister, Joseph famously circulated to senior civil servants in his department a reading list headed by Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776).

It tends to get overlooked that Smith was very clear on the possibility of market failures, including the tendency of businesses trying to rig markets to increase profits.

@ 46 xox

“I do not see the ulterior motive comment as unwarranted”

It’s unwarranted because I’ve told you that I disagree based on my feelings about democracy; you’re insinuating darker purposes presumably as an attempted smear.

“people defend the status quo when they have something to lose, I do not know what your political ties/connections and investments are.”

People also defend the status quo when they think it is better, on moral principle, that the suggested alternative. For the record, I suspect your proposal would benefit most of the political causes I support.

“..what exactly am I to think?”

You could start by assuming my motives are what I say they are unless you’re given reason to believe otherwise. The fact that it’s convenient to demonise the opposition is not a reason. Please note that I could have accused you of only wanting to change the system so that your preferred team could get into power. I didn’t, so try to return the courtesy.

“Off the top of my head -To stand as an MP:

[...]

There, not to satanic is it? ”

Satanic, no. Draconian, yes. A lot of people standing for election will be campaigning on issues that make one or more of those tests borderline irrelevant. Why do they need a good command of English beyond that needed to successfully campaign? And psych tests are hugely dodgy; including them might keep out some nutters but would also exlude other people, either arbitrarily or based on the test-designer’s interests/prejudices.

“I have gone into the difference between being banned and not being suitable because your history and qualifications indicate you are incapable of doing the job to the standard required, you can not seem to grasp the difference.”

Nice attempt at a patronising aside there. In any case, the fact is that there IS no difference: under your system, a person might be legally banned from standing for election. The fact that you don’t like the word “ban” and want to substitute a nicer-sounding phrase that means the same thing is your business, but if you believe in this system you should be honest about its nature. instead of claiming that it doesn’t involve bans when it quite patently does.

“Yes the result to the individual is the same, they can not do the job, but the results to the rest of the country are changed for the better in a dramatic way. Should politics be your personal playground in which you have the absolute right to equality concerning the role you take on?”

No, because people actually have to be *elected* to those roles.

“Or have I been mistaken believing it was a system designed for the greater good of the population it works for?”

It’s also a system that’s meant to represent the views of the public. It does this very imperfectly; you want to make it even worse. That’s not your goal but it would result from your proposals.

“I do not think you are capable of fruitfully discussing any “system” when you have so little in the way of responding to the justifications for any such system, right now you remind me of a smoker who argues for there right to smoke and die in the process, that’s fair enough unless its my lungs and the lungs of a nation you are sharing, as is the case with your right to vote any one into positions of control over all of our lives if they are suitable or not…”

Yeah yeah personal abuse whatever. I said I was reserving comment until you explained your system. I had to ask twice, and when you did get round to responding it turned out that you’d lied about a central tenet of your proposal. So don’t tell me about fruitful discussions. In a fruitful discussion, both parties are honest and don’t start making personal attacks just because they can’t handle the fact that someone disagrees with them.

The irony is that I am worried about the ignorance of politicians on basic matters, and am therefore in a position where I might be persuaded or at least ready to talk it through and make adjustments to my position. Yet I’m being prevented from doing this because of your unpleasant attitude.

It’s unwarranted because I’ve told you that I disagree based on my feelings about democracy, you’re insinuating darker purposes presumably as an attempted smear..”

I do not need to smear you I feel very strong in my position, this is not Somalia this is Great Britain in the year 2012, we are blessed with one of the most advanced nations on earth, some of the best education institutions and even a financial district that competes with the worlds best. I feel its holy unacceptable that along side this we have individuals without even a degree in economics placed in positions of huge responsibility and importance yet a few miles away there are people starting there working careers educated in economics to a degree that dwarfs the individuals in question yet they are limited to a working capital that is but a fraction of what they will be expected to handle several years down the road.

I was not so much insinuating darker purposes, it is more that I took what you had to say believing it was from a person of high intelligence protecting something they have, if that’s not the case your reckless attitude now is surely something that would be looked for if an IQ test to be eligible to vote were ever constructed?

I suspect your proposal would benefit most of the political causes I support….”

Excellent.

Please note that I could have accused you of only wanting to change the system so that your preferred team could get into power. I didn’t, so try to return the courtesy….”

And you would have been correct, I do want the system changed to get my preferred ” team ” in, left and right is of no concern to me, that any politician standing for election is competent and capable is my only concern. I do not care what side of the political spectrum they seek to promote I only care they they can deliver to a high standard, if they are competent and educated they are my team..team competent…

Why do they need a good command of English beyond that needed to successfully campaign?…”

Why did a good friend of mine who came to the UK to attend a university have to take a test to demonstrate her English and literacy skills even though she had already demonstrated the verbal fluency required for an interview and the literacy skills to complete application forms to the required standard?

English is a core subject in this country and in many institutions a particular command over it is required. Are you actually suggesting an official member of this country’s Government who day in day out communicates in all fashions with members of the public they represent should be granted the position to do so with any level of literacy?

And psych tests are hugely dodgy…”

Not my area of expertise and something I could never right off in such a flippant manner, there are many positions requiring a psychological evaluation, I suggest one so intimately close to the public requires nothing less.

Nice attempt at a patronising aside there. In any case, the fact is that there IS no difference: under your system, a person might be legally banned from standing for election. The fact that you don’t like the word “ban” and want to substitute a nicer-sounding phrase that means the same thing…”

Explaining the difference between a ban and not being qualified for a role of your own accord is “patronizing” to you? Does not being able to do any job you please represent some form of threat to your ego? When you “ban” a person from doing something and that person has committed no offence to warrant such a ban, we call that discrimination, our society looks down upon such things and luckily has gone to great lengths to stamp out such small mindedness.

How ever when you when you are required to have certain knowledge qualifications skills and working experience before you are granted a position to carry out a job in return for capital, because that is what is required of a individual to be able to do the job and for the employer to receive a fair exchange for that capital, we do not refer to the people unsuitable for such position as “banned ” they are simply termed “unqualified”. They are within there full rights to invest the time required to gain the necessary requirements to enter such positions, its the way the world works…

No, because people actually have to be *elected* to those roles…”

Of course. And to stand for election one requires credentials, in the same way you or I do when we stand for a job. Very simple concept.

It’s also a system that’s meant to represent the views of the public. It does this very imperfectly; you want to make it even worse….”

You seem to imagine that only those of a certain class and views make it through education and are successful. I have a young friend from a low income family of a council estate who has just finished his course in politics and now is going into economics – he then intends to start a business and move in politics later on in life, in his own words ” when I have some dam wits about me in this world ”

You are correct that its and imperfect system, all the more reason to ensure those who are there are up to the task.

Yeah yeah personal abuse whatever Yet I’m being prevented from doing this because of your unpleasant attitude…”

I have given you no personal abuse, non what so ever. There is a vast difference between hearing something you do not like and having abuse directed at you, and even so if I had directed personal abuse towards you that in no way would have stopped you discussing the issue. For instance I once called you “fucking scum” and you went on to discuss the issue at hand for a further 8 postings with me.

I said I was reserving comment until you explained your system. I had to ask twice, and when you did get round to responding it turned out that you’d lied about a central tenet of your proposal…..”

Yes, and as you had so little in the way of opposition to the justifications bought forward I assumed, and correctly so that the same would be the case with any system, also that you can not understand the difference between being “banned” from a position, as opposed to not currently being suitable for that position because you are incapable of delivering the results that the position was created to provide in the first place, as you have stumbled upon this simple every day concept and accused me of out right telling a lie due to your misunderstanding, as well as going to lengths to divert attention away from the issues at hand and towards my “attitude” which is posing so great of a barrier for you, I do not think we have anything to gain by continuing this talk.

So the above will be my last posting on the issue > take care.

@ xox

“I do not need to smear you I feel very strong in my position”

And yet you tried to smear me. Something’s amiss!

“I was not so much insinuating darker purposes, it is more that I took what you had to say believing it was from a person of high intelligence protecting something they have, if that’s not the case your reckless attitude now is surely something that would be looked for if an IQ test to be eligible to vote were ever constructed?”

I’m having trouble working out what this means. You seem to be saying that a person of high intelligence would be LESS likely to support your system, which is frankly weird. Oh, and they don’t test for recklessness on IQ tests, and I’m not reckless. You really need to stop throwing around insults like a child.

“Excellent.”

Not as excellent as you think, as I don’t support political policies purely based on whether they would benefit me.

“And you would have been correct, I do want the system changed to get my preferred ” team ” in, left and right is of no concern to me”

I could have accused you of trying to get your preferred *party* in, e.g. “Let’s do this as I reckon it’ll benefit Labour/Lib Dems/Tories/Other”.

“English is a core subject in this country and in many institutions a particular command over it is required. Are you actually suggesting an official member of this country’s Government who day in day out communicates in all fashions with members of the public they represent should be granted the position to do so with any level of literacy?”

I could see an argument for basic literacy testing, but that’s about it.

“Not my area of expertise and something I could never right off in such a flippant manner, there are many positions requiring a psychological evaluation, I suggest one so intimately close to the public requires nothing less.”

I’ve explained the problem here but you’ve ignored it, presumably because it was inconvenient to you.

“Explaining the difference between a ban and not being qualified for a role of your own accord is “patronizing” to you?”

No, saying that I’m “unable to grasp” your opinion just because I disagree with it is patronising. As well you know.

“Does not being able to do any job you please represent some form of threat to your ego?”

Why are you so obsessed with making this about me? I have no intention of standing for office.

“we do not refer to the people unsuitable for such position as “banned ” they are simply termed “unqualified”.”

Because they’re not banned. It’s not illegal for someone to employ a poorly qualified person (in most cases; people without driving licenses are essentially banned from working as drivers on public roads). Whereas you want to make it illegal for many people to stand for office, i.e. ban them. Stop equivocating. If your system sounds so bad to you that you feel the need to euphemise it, perhaps you need to re-examine your rationale.

“Of course. And to stand for election one requires credentials, in the same way you or I do when we stand for a job. Very simple concept.”

I get the concept, you patronising little shit. I just disagree with your take on it. If you’re going to discuss politics, you need to be able to deal with people not agreeing with you.

“You seem to imagine that only those of a certain class and views make it through education and are successful. I have a young friend…”

Those of a certain class are more LIKELY to make it through education; class affects how LIKELY you are to hold certain views. Therefore you skew the playing field in favour of that class. Furthermore, you now have NOBODY representing the uneducated from first-hand experience.

“I have given you no personal abuse, non what so ever. There is a vast difference between hearing something you do not like and having abuse directed at you”

I’m aware of that – I’m not the one who gets his panties in a twist when someone says something they disagree with, remember! Your last post was riddled with personal attacks, the fact that you didn’t swear or use generic insults is irrelevant.

“and even so if I had directed personal abuse towards you that in no way would have stopped you discussing the issue. For instance I once called you “fucking scum” and you went on to discuss the issue at hand for a further 8 postings with me.”

True. But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t call attention to the fact that you’re acting like a grumpy little twat.

“Yes, and as you had so little in the way of opposition to the justifications bought forward I assumed, and correctly so that the same would be the case with any system,”

Can’t follow this, but it seems you’re still lying and acting like I didn’t specifically and correctly annouce I was reserving judgement.

“also that you can not understand the difference between being “banned” from a position [...] as you have stumbled upon this simple every day concept”

I love how you claim not to have given me abuse, then immediately follow up with insults!

“I do not think we have anything to gain by continuing this talk.

So the above will be my last posting on the issue > take care.”

Ah, taking your ball away and going home, I see. Well, good riddance; I’d rather discuss these matters with someone who doesn’t stamp their feet when everyone else doesn’t instantly fall in line with their opinions. Maybe you should come back and discuss it again once you’ve got your tantrums under control?

An issue aside from the main.

Ah, taking your ball away and going home, I see. Well, good riddance; I’d rather discuss these matters with someone who doesn’t stamp their feet when everyone else doesn’t instantly fall in line with their opinions. Maybe you should come back and discuss it again once you’ve got your tantrums under control?….

A bit juvenile is that not? I have neither stamped my feet or lost control at any point, I went to lengths to explain the issues I see and the justifications for changing the system from my perspective, I went to these lengths because my opinion found no agreement yet I received no opposition with any weight behind it that would allow me to reassess my views from that perspective, so I dug deeper and gave more opportunity for people to do so. All I received was “that is not fair” or “I feel politics is a special case”.

I also never called any one a “twat” but I have in the past, I used to attack people because of there views and show little respect, especially Sunny. At this point I am going to apologize for that, knowing full well I likely was not even noticed by him other than being a waste of space on his site.

I have since reflected upon this issue, every one has a right to there opinion, by the nature of that there will be disagreements and if things can stay on course instead of degrading into personal attacks and profanity, hey I can learn a thing or two, about the world and my self.

Being told “you remind me of a smoker who argues for there right to die” is not all sunshine and flowers, I understand, but its not an insult, its an attempt to show you how I am perceiving you at that moment, a comparison in the world stating how futile I see your position to be, then its down to you to explain how it is not so, I guess that’s just how debate goes..

Its also funny how at times you respond to a posting and refresh before you submit it and the post are responding to appears to have changed a little, lets go do something a little more productive than wage a war of egos now eh?

Take care.

@ 54 xox

“A bit juvenile is that not? I have neither stamped my feet or lost control at any point,”

It’s called a metaphor. Throwing insults around because you can’t handle disagreement can metaphorically be called stamping your feet. Writing a long, aggressive post then announcing that you won’t be coming back to respond to any answers can be called taking your ball away and going home.

“I went to lengths to explain the issues I see and the justifications for changing the system from my perspective, I went to these lengths because my opinion found no agreement yet I received no opposition with any weight behind it that would allow me to reassess my views from that perspective, so I dug deeper and gave more opportunity for people to do so. All I received was “that is not fair” or “I feel politics is a special case”.”

Simply not true. I’ve given several reasons why I think your policy is a bad idea, on more than one occasion. The fact that you summarily dismiss these objections as “lacking weight” is neither here nor there; I could just as easily say the same about your entire proposal.

“I have since reflected upon this issue, every one has a right to there opinion, by the nature of that there will be disagreements and if things can stay on course instead of degrading into personal attacks and profanity, hey I can learn a thing or two, about the world and my self.”

Perhaps you should give it a try, then, instead of spamming out personal attacks? Then you might achieve your goal of learning things.

“Being told “you remind me of a smoker who argues for there right to die” is not all sunshine and flowers, I understand, but its not an insult, its an attempt to show you how I am perceiving you at that moment, a comparison in the world stating how futile I see your position to be,”

As before, you could say the same about the phrase “you’re a prick”. I’m not insulting you, just explaining how I see you! But I wasn’t objecting to that phrase. I found it annoying, as it showed you’d decided to mispresent my opinion, but it pales in comparison to all the other baseless accusations and general patronising bullshit.

“Its also funny how at times you respond to a posting and refresh before you submit it and the post are responding to appears to have changed a little”

Is this some half-arsed accusation? If you bothered to look, you’d see that LC doesn’t have an edit function. I suppose Sunny could be modifying our posts behind the scenes but it’s pretty unlikely.

“lets go do something a little more productive than wage a war of egos now eh?”

The sad thing is, this could have been a productive conversation. Then you let the mask of reasonableness slip and revealed the snide little arsehole within. And it was all downhill from there, unsurprisingly. So yeah, productive conversations are good – shame you’re not capable of participating in one.

“Tantrums!” “insults” “AGGRESSIVE!!” posts, lady’s and gentlemen I have it all for you to see complete with profanity.

I did this with Leon, the only difference is that lasted an entire night, these days as soon as the tone changes from one in which a productive talk can be had I call it a day, leave my last post and state that’s the case concerning that issue, I still respect and read the individuals response to that post which concludes the matter for me.

Take care.

@ 56 xox

Well, I guess this conversation is dead however you look at it. Despite how much you’re annoying me at present, I’d still advise you not to waste your time with Leon. Dude’s crazy.