Mail Order Xalatan Xenical Online Sales Coumadin Nomogram 10mg Diclofenac Mylan 100mg Buy Albenza Over Counter

Five thoughts on Ed Miliband’s speech of his life


4:49 pm - October 2nd 2012

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

Ed Miliband’s speech to the Labour party conference today far surpassed expectations – even the right wing press is convinced of that.

By the end my main thought was: how the hell has this guy managed to memorise an hour-long speech (1hr 5 min) and deliver it with such detail and without missing a beat? Watching it in the conference hall was extraordinary.

A few thoughts on the speech:

1) It started off as a very personal speech about his life: his background, how his values were formed and what drives him. As I said last week – Ed Miliband needs to tell a personal story too, so people feel they know more about him and trust him as a person.

I’m not bothered about the lack of policy detail: that is not what people are looking for – they want to know what direction the party is headed in and whether they trust Miliband to lead it. That is the job of convincing he has to do. Policy detail is irrelevant to that task.

2) ‘Can you imagine this guy as Prime Minister?’ He passed that test with flying colours. Even the right-wing press admitted it. In delivery Miliband was very good and at ease like never before.

3) People keep saying that Labour need to hammer the Tories harder. This had plenty of that. In one devastating line he called the government, “incompetent, hopeless, out-of-touch, u-turning, pledge breaking, make-it-up-as-you-go-along, back-of-the-envelope miserable shower.” He had fire in his belly and he showed it.

4) One Nation Labour – this is how he wants to define the party now. He mentioned that phrase 46 times. He talked about the growing divide between the north and south, between public and private sector, between the rich and poor etc. No doubt Cameron and Clegg will claim they were also on this territory, but Ed Miliband firmly and strongly planted that flag. New Labour is dead: One Nation Labour is the new identity.

5) Ed Miliband’s speech managed to get praise from Tim Shipman (Daily Mail), Tim Montgomerie (ConHome) and Fraser Nelson (Spectator) from the right, to Len McCluskey, Seamus Milne and Owen Jones on the socialist left. Westminster rarely sees such consensus.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Labour party ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Thanks for the notes. I look forward to catching the full speech later on. Good point on the policy detail. It does seem to me sometimes that there’s a bit of a blank space where Ed should be. I don’t want him to pretend to be my mate (like certain other leaders) but I do want him to stand up and make his presence felt. He needs to make people really believe in him. If he has accomplished that today, then good on him.

By the end my main thought was: how the hell has this guy managed to memorise an hour-long speech (1hr 5 min) and deliver it with such detail and without missing a beat?

It’s a good trick, but it’s not that amazing. He had the speech finished (apparently) weeks ago, and learning your lines properly isn’t all that hard.

For what it’s worth I thought it was pretty good, though I do wish he wouldn’t keep lying about the 50p tax cut – it’s demeaning.

I watched the speech, which was well delivered but the usual platitudinous stuff we get from all party leaders. And, to judge from those watching the same screen I was (in a car dealership), he has a long way to go before being seen as prime minister material. He is rather odd in appearance and mannerisms – he speaks out of one side of his mouth, as one woman I was with observed. Another said she thought his Jewish background would lose him votes in seats with large numbers of Muslims…

4. Chaise Guevara

Hi mods, and sorry for being totally off-topic, but when I try to access the Mona Eltahawy thread, Chrome is warning me off and saying: “liberalconspiracy.org contains content from thinkprogress.org, a site known to distribute malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site.” Thought you might like to know.

I’m pleased that Ed was courageous enough not promise to repeal the important work of welfare reform and specifically the work of ATOS.

Labour started ATOS and – although unpopular with the far left – it is now yielding massively positive results for the national economy, as well as securing resources for those who are genuinely disabled.

The hard left promised that fraud was less than 2%, but using LC’s own articles we know that between 15 and 30% of those previously claiming to be quotes “disabled” are now working.

For someone like me – born and bred on a council estate – this level of shirking is no surprise. Obviously it’s more difficult to swallow for those middle-class Guardian readers who bought into the idea that the UK had been afflicted by a gigantic epidemic of bi-polar/back-pain/depression and countless other self-identified “medical” conditions over the last decade.

Carry on, Ed. Let’s hold steady on this particular course of action.
.

6. Shatterface

By the end my main thought was: how the hell has this guy managed to memorise an hour-long speech (1hr 5 min) and deliver it with such detail and without missing a beat?

Idiot boards?

When you’ve got the likes of LondonJ praising his lack of remorse over ATOS you can see why the right wing press aren’t too bothered if he’s the next PM.

However…..

Labour will make cuts to welfare budget if it wins 2015 election, says Liam Byrne

Shadow work and pensions secretary points to resentment of benefit claimants and says social security must be ‘reinvented’.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/02/labour-cuts-welfare-liam-byrne

Yep they’re still New Labour.

New Labour – “Yes we will forcibly violently sodomise you, but we promise that unlike our nasty opponents, we will use a bit of lube”.

8. Dick the Prick

He’s the Tories best asset, lovely little guy and seems to be improving in his work experience, ah, bless.

@7

Of course welfare will and should be cut.

After being promised for years that fraud was less than 2%, Labour’s ATOS scheme (continued by the Coalition) is returning between 15 and 30% to work.

That number has a massive impact on the national accounts. But it’s no real surprise to those of us born into working-poor families and who have observed wide-scale abuse throughout our lives.

Most likely the ATOS scheme needs tweeking in certain places. But let’s be clear, the 2% was a lie. There is no going back.

IDS’s job seekers’ reform will no doubt reveal similar levels of abuse in unemployment.

8. Dick the Prick

“He’s the Tories best asset”

– so Hug a Hoody Cameron, “Schools should be shaped like ‘Little Boxes'” Gove, “We Etonians are all in this together” Osborne and F******g Plebeians Mitchell are less good assets?

11. Chris Brennan

Really impressed by Miliband. One Nation labourism is simple and attractive. Some tougher talk on crime and immigration would be on the cards imho, but a great start.

12. Raymond Terrific

He still has policies that would have made Thatcher blush. No wonder the middle classes love it – see news reports and blog topics like this one. And benefit cuts, introducing tuition fees and that ATOS farago should shame anyone. So people like this Hundal chap can pretend they’re the salt of the Earth – or even vaguely socialist – while shafting the neediest in society. We used to have a word for them around our way – Tories.

A good speech.

@5
Trololo

Perhaps it’s timely to recall what Disraeli wrote in his novel Sybil (1845):

Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws: the rich and the poor.

Ed Miliband is more credible as an advocate for the One Nation message than the Conservatives.

Long ago in 1883, the Conservatives set up the Primrose League to commemorate Disraeli and his message. Kenneth Clark used to be a member but, sadly, the Primrose League became inactive in the 1990s and was finally disbanded in 2004.

The death of Eric Hobsbawm has created a vacancy in the Order of Companions of Honour. Especially after today, it ought to go to the former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. Bless.

That the Conservative Party has for so long supported the “free” market, contrary to its own history, is because it has for so long been dominated by people who are not in fact conservatives at all, but rather Liberal Unionists, Liberal Imperialists, National Liberals, and so forth, exemplified in part by Alderman Alfred Roberts (who sat as an Independent while the Liberal Party collapsed around him, never joining the Conservative Party to his dying day), and thus above all by his daughter, Margaret Thatcher.

In fact, Toryism in its Disraelian classical form has far more in common with Labourism in its classical, also very Disraelian, form than either has with this Gladstonian Liberalism. Labourism agrees wholeheartedly both with the importance of defending the conservative values and with the “free” market’s self-evidently destructive effects upon them, but goes further in proposing, specifically, the universal and comprehensive Welfare State (including, for example, farm subsidies) and the strong statutory and other, including trade union, protection of workers, consumers, communities and the environment, the former paid for by progressive taxation, the whole underwritten by full employment, and all these good things delivered by the partnership between a strong Parliament and strong local government.

Albeit with differences as to detail, this has always been acceptable to Tories, but certainly not to Thatcherites, since Thatcher was not a Tory (i.e., a Disraelian), but, like her father, a Gladstonian, a Whig, a Liberal. In fact, far more of the Tory populist heritage was carried over into the emerging Labour Movement than into the Conservative Party. The former took over Radical Liberalism or Tory populism in accordance with the local political culture on the ground, whereas the latter has always been a wholesale Liberal takeover of the Tory machine, effectively compelling Tory voters to support Liberal politicians, not least by pretending that the aspirations of such electors had nothing in common with the only viable alternative since the end of the First World War. This Government and the public reaction to it ought to have finished off those fantasies once and for all, and it looks more and more as if they have indeed done so. Especially after this afternoon.

Furthermore, since Gladstonians favour unregulated markets, they therefore also favour the use of armed force to secure that global state of affairs, which they see as necessary for the emergence and defence of democratic institutions. By contrast, we Disraelians see such economic arrangements as subversive both of those institutions and of the values that, among other good things, sustain them; accordingly, we are immensely cautious about adventures abroad. The rising Chinese superpower confirms our belief that the “free” market not only subverts democratic institutions and their necessary underlying values, but prevents those institutions from developing where they do not already exist.

David Cameron, like Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher, is a Gladstonian. Ed Miliband is a Disraelian, a voice of Tory Britain. Let battle commence.

As Shakespeare might have written: A primrose by any other name would small as sweet.

I was duly impressed by this report in the Telegraph last May:

David Cameron is worth almost £4million according to a new analysis that estimates the combined wealth of the Cabinet at nearly £70million.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9290520/Exclusive-Cabinet-is-worth-70million.html

Basically this is Labour supporters (and indeed the commentariat of all colours) being thankful that someone has shown some stage presence since Blair.

We’re not living in a land where one party has ruled for years, and the opposition can just say what they like and memories will be faded enough to believe them. Labour cannot play the trick that they are a)different or b) have changed without solid proposals for how they’re going to do it.

Unfortunately for Labour, their proposals so far are all a return to business as usual, and that isn’t going to end up inspiring people to vote for you in enough numbers. Cameron seems to still have failed to have learned this from his many, many Big Society launches.

“Unfortunately for Labour, their proposals so far are all a return to business as usual”

I suspect that many of us, doubtless including the shadow cabinet, would dearly like to know about what this “unusual” business is that would quickly resolve our national economic problems. Do tell.

Toe curling stuff from another useless, vapid politician leading a moribund Party. The fact that this speech was a) lauded across the political spectrum and b) the speech of his life, tells us more about the breath of the political spectrum and Ed’s speeches than it tells us about Ed the man or the ‘Prime Minister’ in waiting.

My first thought about these type of speeches is ‘show, don’t tell’. I am sick tired of football players who tell me they want first team football at a club or Country and bemoaning the fact they are on the bench. Don’t tell me you are good enough, show me. Don’t tell me you care about the environment, show me. Don’t tell me you care for what we care for, show me. Saying something in front of a ‘selected audience’ is not the same as ‘caring’ about something. The parsnips are unbuttered as far as I am concerned.

Blair invented the phrase ‘New Labour’ and got lucky, if Ed thinks he can turn a bit of Tory Clothing into a brand new suit, I think he is sadly mistaken. This is more likely to be a shroud than anything else.

I understand and respect the term ‘One Nation Tory’. A fine tradition and in another universe I will no doubt be voting for one Nation Tories. Whatever the Labour Party were or should be now, they were not a ‘One Nation’ Party.

The Labour Party was a Party born in class struggle. No polite way of saying that, but the Labour Party was specifically set up to fight for a very partisan cause. The working classes wanted and needed protection from the ruthless owners of capital and fought bloody wars to achieve power. The anthem of the working class ‘the people’s flag’ is not a metaphor, we buried people who died for the cause of the class struggle.

The days of the ‘One Nation’ Tory are long gone and with them the concept that we could have some kind of common cause are long gone too. Those Tories may have understood the need for the post war settlement, but the new post Thatcher breed (dead cat bounce of a John Major notwithstanding) of Tories are unashamedly ‘old school’ Tories who want to return us back to the Victorian era. The rich having the whip hand and Capital owning the law makers. They are repealing, bit by bit the health and safety laws and the employment rights. They are attempting to re-introduce the utter fear, shame and ultimately the poverty of Victorian unemployment along with the deserving and undeserving poor. ‘One Nation’ politics are dead because the cunts in the Tory Party have deliberately killed it. The Tories have polarised society into distinct groupings and Miliband thinks we can get back to a society built around a common cause? A post War spirit to rebuild a Country? What kind of common spirit can we build when the Tories hate everything we stand for? What kind of common cause can we have with people that want to bring back the poor laws, child prostitution and begging for charity? What kind of consensus politics can we ever hope to build with people who see the unemployed and disabled as scroungers?

These people are not misguided, but essentially decent people who want to build a Nation fit for heroes. These are not the political decedents of the One Nation Tories, they are simply a group of greedy bastards who care for nothing but feeding their own lust for wealth and power. If you can find common ground with the type of cunts that see disabled people as scroungers and Health and Safety Laws as unnecessary, then you are part of the fucking problem.

20. Richard Carey

@ Jim,

“What kind of common cause can we have with people that want to bring back the poor laws, child prostitution and begging for charity?”

It was around this point that I realised there was no need to offer any refutation.

21. Planeshift

Worth pointing out here that the vast majority of people would not have watched the speech, but would have watched the edited news report of it. Crucially this means they would have also watched the political editors commentary on it as well. As such the actual content of the speech doesn’t matter, what matters is first of all the soundbites that the news reports feature (which explains why he mentioned ‘one nation’ so many times – it was simply a way to ensure the news clip contained him saying it), and secondly the way the political editor reports the reaction – which is why the reactions from the right wing press are so important – they will be picked up on by the TV news and reported as ‘milliband impressed’.

Basically the main lesson here is that labour’s competence at PR has returned. And if you conservatives don’t like that – just remember you have leveson ready to offer a game changer.

22. David Ellis

I remember the same idiots being blown away by Tony Blair’s speeches to conference prior to his election in 97. Conservatism thinly disguised as radicalism.

If anybody thinks keeping the Commissioning Boards is repealing NHS privatisation they are deluded. Tory spending plans and no reversal of the privatisation of the NHS is what Milliband’s New Labour mob are offering.

Milliband is a second-generation immigrant whose Marxist parents despised almost everything the UK stood and stands for while accepting the shelter rightly afforded them and accumulating wealth in London property. Unlike most second-generation immigrants, Milliband has never done a proper day’s work in his life. And now on the strength of having attended a comprehensive school, he’s invoking the one nation theme. Really, you couldn’t make it up…

Jim,

My first thought about these type of speeches is ‘show, don’t tell’. I am sick tired of football players who tell me they want first team football at a club or Country and bemoaning the fact they are on the bench. Don’t tell me you are good enough, show me. Don’t tell me you care about the environment, show me. Don’t tell me you care for what we care for, show me. Saying something in front of a ‘selected audience’ is not the same as ‘caring’ about something. The parsnips are unbuttered as far as I am concerned.Genuine question: how can he “show” us?

25. Man on Clapham Omnibus

Listening to Ed on the wireless this morning he was totally incapable of converting his slogan into policy ideas.
I think its worth considering that Ed like the rest of them occupies part of the political which is currently witnessing the collapse of the economic system, one which hitherto was only supported by the expansion of credit.

No doubt he’s a nice guy, but all politicians are only really clowns in a bigger economic circus which is owned
by the banking classes.

“Milliband has never done a proper day’s work in his life”

What ‘proper jobs’ have Cameron and Osbourne done?

27. Chaise Guevara

What, for that matter, is a “proper” day’s work?

The Cat is not impressed.

29. Man on Clapham Omnibus

@27

one where you end up dirty and sweaty I think!

Commentary in most of the press has been positive about Ed Miliband’s conference speech and the FT is very encouraging about the business relevance of his proposals for a Technical Baccalaureate for the 50pc or so of school leavers who didn’t take the academic route at school to go on to a university:

Politicans set sights on bridging skills gap
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ae27a32-0c96-11e2-a73c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz28Evebe7u

Russell Group universities in Britain rate well by global standards but opportunities for vocational technical education have long been sparse, badly structured and with complicated access routes. The so-called Modern Apprenticeships have been mostly taken up by employees already at work on short courses. The apprenticeships have been doing little for 16 year-old school leavers lacking the benchmark 5 good GCSEs, including English and maths.

Work is where you end up dirty and sweaty?

As much work nowadays is with computers and CNC machines, I can only suppose none of that counts as real work.

Try this Wikipedia entry for 3D printing and shudder:

Additive manufacturing or 3D printing is a process of making three dimensional solid objects from a digital model. 3D printing is achieved using additive processes, where an object is created by laying down successive layers of material. 3D printing is considered distinct from traditional machining techniques (subtractive processes) which mostly rely on the removal of material by drilling, cutting etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing

Very good speech he engaged with the whole nation and across many divides. I esp liked ghe ideas around real vocational study for the other 59%. My only concern is that I think we need to see an equal amount of focus anx energy on the issue of worklessness as this affects so many people and is constantly ignored. This is esp important when you consider ghe power of role models on young people

The rapid advances in technology such as automation, robotics and 3D printing means that the ruling elite are progressively needing less and less of us to do their work, so many of us are becoming surplus to requirements. High unemployment is set to become the new normal and will likely increase in the future. For the rulers, if it’s a choice between a human worker who will demand a living wage, sick pay, holidays and lunch breaks and a machine that will work around the clock and just needs fuel and maintenance, it is no contest.

A mass of angry perpetually underemployed and unemployed people might pose a threat to them. The main threat we pose to the ruling elite is our numbers – we greatly outnumber them, they are afraid of our numerical advantage, the threat it poses to them their way of life and their pathologically insatiable out of control desire to acquire more and more. We have the numbers to overthrow them, if we get fed up enough of their greed and we all decide to rise up against them together. The capitalist ruling elite because of their wealth, power, privilege, status and the power of life and death they have over us, feel like they are our gods. They do not see us fellow human beings, they see us as worthless expendable vermin.

In Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union “alcoholism, unemployment, suicide, homelessness, exposure, lack of medications and ordinary sicknesses like bronchitis and pneumonia took their lives. Russia’s life expectancy fell dramatically. It’s birth rate declined. Public health fell apart. Suicide rates went up. The population shrank. Entire towns became abandoned. In post-collapse Russia there was a slow die-off that occurred outside of the daily headlines that no one seemed to notice. They were ground down slowly by day-to-day reduction in the standard of living, a million little tragedies that, like pixels in an image, looked like nothing until the focus was pulled back”.

Some say that the real purpose of the austerity being forced on much of the developed world, is to reduce the consumption of the masses because of peak oil and to covertly reduce the population to a level manageable for the global ruling elite, so that our numbers no longer pose them any threat.

http://hipcrime.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/what-if-collapse-happened-and-nobody.html

“currently witnessing the collapse of the economic system,”

Is it really? I hear it a lot….. the sky is falling? Or do things need tweaking?

PS @ 26:

“What ‘proper jobs’ have Cameron and Osbourne done?”

The professionalization of politics has been disastrous! Time was when our politicians had run businesses or trade unions, had some experience of the ‘real’ world and had acquired an understanding of how organisations and people behave. I have previously complained here that the entire political class has little experience of work outside the Westminster/media bubble and (more importantly) has minimal management experience.

Millipede, I’m afraid, is a classic example: graduated from Oxford, spent a few months as Andrew Rawnsley’s researcher at C4, then became Harriet Hormone’s SpAd, and the rest is history. What experience is that to run a country? It is zero!

Cameroon is little better; but at least he was Director of Communications at Carlton TV, which entailed some management and commercial experience. Osbourne, however, briefly worked for the NHS entering death dates on a computer and re-folding towels at Selfridges. Overall, not much ‘real’ world experience, I’m afraid; but more than the Millipede. None of them, IMO, has the qualifications to run a country like the UK; but almost anyone would be better qualified than Millipede….

CG @ 27:
“What, for that matter, is a “proper” day’s work?”

IMO, work that gives you some significant understanding of how organisations function, people behave and what the realities of a daily working life are. (More importantly, for senior management positions, ‘real’ work would involve working occasionally on the lowly front-line and some experience of staff, strategic and financial management – as most graduate management trainees will get.) To my mind, none of our leading politicians fits the bill. However, Osbourne and Cameron have slightly more relevant experience than Millipede.

MoCO @ 29: Sweat’s got nowt to do wi’t, tha’ knows!

ukl @ 24

Since the last election a couple of million people have lost their jobs and have been forced to take part time/zero hour contract work.

Now, it is no good saying something to the effect ‘I care about what you care about’, he needs to show me he understands their plight. He needs to meet people who have been kicked in the gonads by the Tories and that he wishes to improve their lives. I am not interested in Miliband’s throwaway line about the Tories I want to see consistent attacks aimed at the heart of the Tories desire for greed.

He needs to point out that the zero hour contract is not just a ‘fact of life’, but required by the rich elite who want to fuck you over. He needs to point out to the ATOS victim that it not a ‘mistake’ that they have no income but that money is now snorted up the nose of the Bullingdon club boys. He needs to point out that instant dismissal makes it easier to control people and workfare was designed to shore up the profits of the parasites that run the huge factories.

Anyone can stand and read a list of Julie Andrews list of ‘favourite things’, everyone wants to vote for motherhood and apple pie. The difficulty in building a one nation consensus right now is that we are trying to build consensus with people who have seen the rise of food banks and soup kitchens and seemingly approve. We are attempting to build a consensus with people who think disabled people are fucking scrounging bastards. We are trying to achieve a consensus with people who see working class people as the enemy.

You cannot build a consensus between people who want their employees to be treated like powerless serfs and those who want to be treated with dignity. The Left tried to build a consensus with the cunts, we gave up everything we stood for; and it wasn’t enough. We designed a regime so tough for the disabled, terminal cancer and coma patients failed. It wasn’t enough. We left millions without an income, it wasn’t enough. We threw millions onto the dole, it wasn’t enough, we re introduced soup kitchens and saw children as the enemy and it still wasn’t enough.

Ed milliband could be caught directly shitting into the mouth of a cancer sufferer and the Tories would still claim his heart wasn’t really in it. As George Orwell might have written, it is not good enough to attack the weak, you need to want and enjoy the process.
Miliband and One Nation Labour need to look at the two entrenched sides of society and climb into one of those trenches. They are either on the side of the human or the side of the vermin, pick a side and stick with it.

Miliband should read TONE’s little effort here and decide whose side he is on.

The premium for Labour is putting out credible, workable policies that will engage sufficient votes at a general election to win enough seats in Parliament to form a government. Without that, everything else is just talk.

South of a line from The Wash to the River Severn, Labour has just ten out of 197 parliamentary seats. Numerous counties, from Cornwall to Essex, are Labour-free zones.

“5) Ed Miliband’s speech managed to get praise from Tim Shipman (Daily Mail), Tim Montgomerie (ConHome) and Fraser Nelson (Spectator) from the right, to Len McCluskey, Seamus Milne and Owen Jones on the socialist left. Westminster rarely sees such consensus.”

Makes me nervous.

I didn’t listen to the speech, as I had more important things to do, but from what I’ve read it sounds OK.

However, what Labour really needs is a complete and utter renunciation of New Labour. We need to admit that the “project” was a mistake from start to finish and that it had nothing to do with real Labour politics. You may think that’s unnecessary, but in fact it’s vital in order to purify the party’s soul. 1994 is still the original sin of this party and we can’t really move forward till we’ve atoned.

Planeshift @ 26

What ‘proper jobs’ have Cameron and Osbourne done?

It doesn’t matter the Tories are the Party of the idle rich and their camp followers. The Labour Party are supposed to be about the plight of those who live in the real World. miliband cannot understand that plight because he has never needed to wait on a phonecall for a days work.

@36 Jim

Fully agree! I suspect many other people would too. One of the worst things about modern politics is the sense of powerlessness among people. They see nobody offering what they want, just the same stuff with a different tint.

The question is whether this is due to our politicians, ourselves or something bigger a such as managing a country in a global economy?

To me the fact that many of our politicians have entered public life as their first career choice is part of the problem. They have none of Dennis Healey’s hinterland. They have no real life experience outside politics. They obsess about detail and polls but have no idea, apart from the few Tory ideologues, about what they actually believe in.

I suspect another problem is that people are sceptical about politicians. They have such a bad press that they are pathetically keen to please, when in fact they should attack the press for its lies or simply bypass it and use new media to connect to people directly. If they took this route we wouldn’t have to cringe through party speeches aimed entirely at press commentators.

The big problem is how to stand out as a good place for everyone in a rapidly changing and unstable global economy. Looking at what works elsewhere strikes me as a good place to start. Do we want to be like America, as the Tories believe, or like Denmark?

I suppose the final problem for Miliband is that he’s in the same position as Cameron, trying to hold a very divided party together. The remaining presence of tainted people like Balls makes it very hard to shake off the evils of New Labour.

I’m left in the position of wondering not who to vote for, but whether to vote at all.

If between 15% and 30% of Atos graduates are supposedly now in work – What kind of work by the way? Part-time, full-time, temporary, or minumum wage? – what are the other 70% to 85% doing? Running marathons?

42. Planeshift

“The professionalization of politics has been disastrous! Time was when our politicians had run businesses or trade unions, had some experience of the ‘real’ world and had acquired an understanding of how organisations and people behave”

If that’s your beef, then you would do well to pursue this a non-partisan manner. It is a problem of all political parties, and has many reasons for it.

The public need to start understanding that when they elect an MP, what they are doing is electing a team to work for the constituency, not and individual. This applies to independents as much as party members. Each MP will have several staff ranging from caseworkers to press officers. However, the salaries of these staff are relatively low – certainly compared to other industries that postgrads can work in (there are of course issues around transparency and the recruitment process here). This means the people who apply for them tend to be graduates who don’t care about the money, and who want careers in politics and who have already done some watercarrying for the party. I’d prefer it if this wasn’t the case, and I think MPs would work better if they recruited experienced people from outside the party – but you have to accept this would cost the taxpayer significantly more.

The second point here is that once somebody does get in as a staff member, it inevitably becomes significantly easier to rise up the ladder to special advisor and MP themselves. Simply because the staff member will have day to day contact with party members in the constituency and nationally. They’ll also have the resources to obtain substantial knowledge of significant issues locally and be able to demonstrate this in any selection process. They are simply always going to know how to beat the local builder who has spent their time working rather than doing things that impress a local constituency party.

Finally, not all MPs have been careerists. But many (not all) of those who have come to politics as a second career have proven to be utterly useless. Think about it – a person who has spent 30 years in a hard job is going to enter parliament, and is far more likely to be content to pick up a nice contribution to their retirement fund in exchange for turning up to whipped votes. Their staff will be doing the majority of the work anyway. Given the choice, I’d rather have an ambitious 30 year old who has spent a decade working in and understanding the system representing me than a 65 year old who spends the day socialising in the bar before voting the way the whips say, and who just allows 21 year old graduates to do the actual constituency work.

The BMA are against Atos and have demanded that the WCA test be ended. But they’re only medically qualified general practitioners with at least ten years of training behind them, including medical school. So, who are you going to believe? Laymen like Iain Duncan Smith, Liam Byrne, and risible crypto-Tory LondonJ above or a body of professionally trained and qualified doctors? I know who I’d pay attention to and whom I’d ignore.

44. Chaise Guevara

@ 35 TONE

See, that’s reasonable. I don’t think it’s vital to leadership, but it’s extremely useful experience.

Every time someone starts talking about “proper” jobs I expect them to grab my hands, examine my callous-free palms with a sneer, and then go into a monologue containing phrases like “never done a decent day’s work in your life” and “you don’t know you’re born”. Plus at least five instances of the word “graft”.

“See, that’s reasonable. I don’t think it’s vital to leadership, but it’s extremely useful experience.”

“IMO, work that gives you some significant understanding of how organisations function, people behave and what the realities of a daily working life are”

But more importantly a working record gives US a significant understanding of the persons ability to perform to a high standard, its absolute lunacy to believe displaying leadership and outstanding ability in industry’s and working life is just a useful experience and anything but vital to the leader of a country, just having experience of the above is not enough, one must excel…

But no.. we have an individual running who if it were not for there political fame would not qualify for a managers job in tescos in way of education and experience…

To be fair to Ed, not one politician understands the economy, social policy or world systems, that’s why they are surrounded with experts in those particular areas.

Thatcher had a degree in chemistry, I think Blair had a law qualification and Brown studied history. And although studying at degree level has merit, it cannot develop an understanding of the national/world stage, and neither can working in any particular workplace give an overview of the whole of society.

blah @ 45:

“we have an individual [Ed Milliband] running who if it were not for there [sic] political fame would not qualify for a managers [sic] job in tescos [sic] in way of education and experience…”

Yes: exactly so.

PS @ 42:

“If that’s your beef, then you would do well to pursue this a non-partisan manner.”

If you re-read my post, you’ll see I tried.

However, the general point here is that Millipede is even less qualified than Cameroon to manage the government and rule the country. Millipede is a civil servant’s dream: so utterly inexperienced as to be completely plastic in their hands.

“It is a problem of all political parties, and has many reasons for it.”

True; but none of which you identify. One of the problems is the apparent necessity for political apprenticeships – in the media, in ‘research’, in ‘think tanks’ and ‘policy units’ – when representing voters is not something you need to train for at all. The political parties can try to refresh themselves by drawing in people from different backgrounds – eg primaries as in Totnes, Cameroon’s A-list – but I suspect they will fail and that independents and minority parties will fill the gap.

steveb @ 46:

“and neither can working in any particular workplace give an overview of the whole of society.”

Which displays once again your knack of totally missing the point! The point is in the quantification, as logicians say. Nobody, least of all me, requires politicians to understand ALL of society, only SOME of society. And the point about Millipede is that his very limited experience means that he has almost no experience relevant to the role to which he aspires.

48

I was responding to @45, so it wasn’t your point which I was making reference to, or indeed missing.

However, I will respond to your comments @48, the point of government is to act for the social good, which requires policies which will address the entire population, something which requires a great deal of study and reflection, particularly as there are quite marked differences in economic and social needs from one county to the next. That’s why politicians have advisors from different disciplines. And where else do you get experience of being a politician other than being a politician?

As you also point out, much of everyday political business is carried-out by civil servants, one of Thatcher’s favourite programmes was ‘Yes Minister’, Note how it has been three civil servants who have been fired following the debacle with the bidding for the west coast train franchise.

“Note how it has been three civil servants who have been fired following the debacle with the bidding for the west coast train franchise.”

I’ve been wondering whether the three “suspended” civil servants in the DfT – firing civil servants isn’t done easily – included the janitor. But I also wondered how many jobs had recently been lost in the DfT and what consequences had flowed from filling in for posts that had gone. By media accounts, the DfT is expected to cut administrative costs by a third. Note: Tony Blair also regarded civil servants as obstructive which is why he introduced sofa government.

51. Chaise Guevara

@ 45 blah

“But more importantly a working record gives US a significant understanding of the persons ability to perform to a high standard”

In theory, but how often have you found yourself reading someone’s workplace employment record before voting for them? Quick: before they were a politician, how many sick days did your MP have during the average year in their last career?

“its absolute lunacy to believe displaying leadership and outstanding ability in industry’s and working life is just a useful experience and anything but vital to the leader of a country, just having experience of the above is not enough, one must excel…”

It’s not lunacy, it’s the opposite. Lunacy would be focusing on one or two useful things and raising them to the level of godhood, making them all that matters. You could have an excellent politician who’d never worked in their life, it’s just considerably less likely. I’m simply being rational in not declaring the possible impossible.

“But no.. we have an individual running who if it were not for there political fame would not qualify for a managers job in tescos in way of education and experience…”

The skill set between the two roles varies somewhat. You would not want some of my old Somerfield’s managers running the country, I tell you that.

“In theory, but how often have you found yourself reading someone’s workplace employment record before voting for them?”

Let keeps theory out of the real world in which we find entire nations prosperity and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people world wide at stake due to the decisions of a few.

Are sick days really the most important issue that came to mind here? Really? That is your selling point? I am interested in a detailed working history that demonstrates strategic thinking ability, in-depth understanding of business and financials,proven leadership in positions that actually count and have consequence etc etc.

“It’s not lunacy, it’s the opposite. Lunacy would be focusing on one or two useful things and raising them to the level of godhood”

That is nice, tell that to a bank the day you turn up stating you’re there to be CEO with nothing on your CV…

“making them all that matters. ”

Qualifications & experience aren’t all that matters, I think you will find they are just a foundational requirement to high demanding professional jobs of importance..

“You could have an excellent politician who’d never worked in their life, it’s just considerably less likely.”

Reflecting upon the state of this country ohh don’t we just know it!

“I’m simply being rational in not declaring the possible impossible.”

This is not some pseudo-science quantum physics documentary, we want the solid and dependable, not a theory of possibility’s and a social experiment to see if it can be pulled off, placing entire nations in jeopardy in the pursuit of finding out.

“You would not want some of my old Somerfield’s managers running the country, I tell you that.”

Your dam right, yet your a proponent of flipping the coin. To be frank you and I have been through this before, if individuals such as your self and this country are more than happy to place ed & balls at the wheels of this country’s finances and future direction, I am really not going to give a fuck when the consequences of that come barrelling down the road and every one is moaning, like a bitch, about the new inequality and state of affairs.

I understand there’s a distinct need in human psychology to be able to relate to people, to believe we as individuals and people just like us can do anything and not feel like people are over our heads, which no doubt plays a key part when it comes to individuals so unsuitable gaining critical positions.

I am comfortable with people being bigger, better, smarter and more able than me in what ever department that may be, there is always someone who is one step ahead and when it comes to some jobs they are simply the person for it end of.

53. domestic extremist

I was very impressed by the part of the speech where Ed talked about socialism. I counted up and he used the word 46 times. Apparently that’s more times than it was used by Blair and Brown in their whole lives. Stunning!

54. Chaise Guevara

@ 52 Blah

“Are sick days really the most important issue that came to mind here? Really? That is your selling point? I am interested in a detailed working history that demonstrates strategic thinking ability, in-depth understanding of business and financials,proven leadership in positions that actually count and have consequence etc etc.”

Eh? You think I care about politicians’ sick record? Apparently I need to work on my online sarcasm delivery. The point was that the amount you can learn about someone else’s working history is actually pretty limited. It’s not like you can pull up their file. Even if you’re impressed that they pulled off that brilliantly successful merger, you’ve no way of knowing whether they’re just taking credit for an underling’s work.

“That is nice, tell that to a bank the day you turn up stating you’re there to be CEO with nothing on your CV…”

See, you’re stuck between two extremes. You want politicians that have jumped through your ideal set of hoops, and the only alternative you can think of is politicians who are utterly unqualified. What I’m saying is that your pet qualification is not the only qualification that matters.

“Qualifications & experience aren’t all that matters, I think you will find they are just a foundational requirement to high demanding professional jobs of importance.”

Agreed, but as this isn’t even vaguely relevant to what I said, shall we move on?

“Reflecting upon the state of this country ohh don’t we just know it!”

Boom, boom.

“This is not some pseudo-science quantum physics documentary, we want the solid and dependable, not a theory of possibility’s and a social experiment to see if it can be pulled off, placing entire nations in jeopardy in the pursuit of finding out.”

Indeed. How do we determine what is solid and dependable in the first place? Does it include rational assessment? My word, it does!

It really isn’t clever to go on a rant about “pseudo-science quantum physics whatever” just because someone’s talking about taking a rational approach to the situation. Does reason offend you? Would you prefer irrationality? If not, what on earth are you on about?

“Your dam right, yet your a proponent of flipping the coin.”

Sigh. No, I’m talking about using all the information available to you when deciding what politicians to support. That’s the fucking opposite of flipping a coin.

“To be frank you and I have been through this before, if individuals such as your self and this country are more than happy to place ed & balls at the wheels of this country’s finances and future direction, I am really not going to give a fuck when the consequences of that come barrelling down the road and every one is moaning, like a bitch, about the new inequality and state of affairs.”

Well, good for you. I’m sure it’s comfy with the blanket over your head. Meanwhile, some of us do give a damn about the direction this country goes in. And we find it suspicious when people like you spend your time arguing politics on the internet while claiming not to give a fuck about political consequences.

“I understand there’s a distinct need in human psychology to be able to relate to people, to believe we as individuals and people just like us can do anything and not feel like people are over our heads, which no doubt plays a key part when it comes to individuals so unsuitable gaining critical positions.

I am comfortable with people being bigger, better, smarter and more able than me in what ever department that may be, there is always someone who is one step ahead and when it comes to some jobs they are simply the person for it end of.”

This last bit surprised me, because it’s honestly pretty insightful and a lot better than most of the stuff you hear people say about politics online. I agree with all of that: people are swayed too much by instinctive feelings that they like or dislike a candidate, and jealous reactions along the lines of “he thinks he’s better than us” are possibly the worst of the lot.

For the record, I don’t tentatively support Ed Milliband because I think he’s lovely. I agree with the general assessment that he seems a bit weird, much less personable than his rival. I just prefer him to Cameron because he appears to give a fuck about people, whereas Cameron obviously only gives a fuck about pride and money. Wrong priorities.

“Apparently I need to work on my online sarcasm delivery. ”

Its late..relax

“The point was that the amount you can learn about someone else’s working history is actually pretty limited.”

Ok, I will start tomorrow and address this critical issue, I have hundreds of thousands of employers to send letters to informing them that the education/skills/experience & requirements they use to map candidates suitable to apply for employment at there place of work is in fact useless. They may be annoyed but progress is progress.

“See, you’re stuck between two extremes. You want politicians that have jumped through your ideal set of hoops and the only alternative you can think of is politicians who are utterly unqualified”

Its not “my set of ideal hoops”, desiring candidates aiming for one of the most important jobs in the country to be accomplished and very much ” been there done that ” individuals, with masses of experience to draw from and a mature time tested mind is no extreme.

As for ” the only alternative I can think of ” ?? The candidates presented to us are utterly unqualified, the alternative I do think of is replacing them with those who are qualified….complex concept…

Its not exactly as if I am demanding every MP no matter the size of the constituency be a rocket scientist, we are talking about the prime minister of an entire country here….

“shall we move on?”

No we shall not, it would appear it is you who is stuck between two extremes, for to suggest one be qualified to carry out the duties of a position according to you is raising the ability to do the job you have been employed to do to the level of godhood, on the other hand any form of under qualification from the extreme to the so – so is just fine…

“Boom, boom”

Boom! Boom! The end of boom and bust! No return to boom! and bust!!! Piss off you history graduate.

“Indeed. How do we determine what is solid and dependable in the first place? Does it include rational assessment? My word, it does!”

What is that you say good sir? A 2:1 in Modern History and some towel folding experience? Ohh god sir good sir, I took my degree in rational thinking and that is why my company appointed me to this position of candidate selection, I have just the right job in mind for you follow me god sir.. oh by the way have you heard of a bond before?

“just because someone’s talking about taking a rational approach to the situation. Does reason offend you? Would you prefer irrationality? If not, what on earth are you on about?”

Evidently I do not see your position as a rational one but no, you cause no offence.

“Sigh. No, I’m talking about using all the information available to you when deciding what politicians to support. That’s the fucking opposite of flipping a coin.”

That I have taken account of the relevant information concerning the current choice appears to be my problem, did you not know?

“Well, good for you. I’m sure it’s comfy with the blanket over your head. ”

Its called a roof and houses require building.

“Meanwhile, some of us do give a damn about the direction this country goes in.”

Awful shame giving a dam does not translate into the ability to do things well.

“And we find it suspicious when people like you spend your time arguing politics on the internet while claiming not to give a fuck about political consequences.”

I will argue with you not to snort arsenic and try to inform you of a more ideal way to invest you’re time, however if you are stupid enough to do it then no, I do not care of the consequences. I am not your guardian.

“Cameron obviously only gives a fuck about pride and money. Wrong priorities.”

It does not matter what you are for if you are incapable of working and reaching your desired goals. It is a hell of a lot easier to be self serving in politics and reach your goals than it is to be for the people and reach the goals, in this time period especially.

I do not think he is weird, coming across a bit difference perhaps,I also like that he cares and wants to be for the people, yet life is not about what you want its about what you have the ability to achieve and deliver. We are so used to the standard of politics in the UK we have developed some what of a normalcy bias for what is on the horizon.

“One of the problems is the apparent necessity for political apprenticeships – in the media, in ‘research’, in ‘think tanks’ and ‘policy units’ – when representing voters is not something you need to train for at all.”

Think about this way. PR and lobbying companies (usually the same these days) pay exceptionally high salaries to people who used to work for MPs and think tanks purely to lobby on behalf of their clients. They do not employ retired tradesmen who watch the news and have opinions on things.

Quite clearly therefore working in the media, as a researcher, or for think tanks or whatever you want to describe the ‘political aprenticeship’ as provides a useful skill set that commands a high commerical value. So it isn’t that suprising that constutiency party would pick someone with this background to represent them over a retired teacher is it?

Before I moved house recently my local MP was a careerist who used to work as a lobbyist for Pfizer. I now live in area represented by a retired teacher. The former was simply far better at representing the interests of the constituency – if he can make the case for big pharma ripping off the NHS, he’s certainly going to be able to fight for new schools, transport investments, be able to network with big business to attract investment etc.

57. Chaise Guevara

@ Blah

“Ok, I will start tomorrow and address this critical issue…”

Could you please just state what you mean? Because I think you’re attempting to satirize a straw man, and I really don’t see why I should bother unentangling something like that.

“Its not “my set of ideal hoops”, desiring candidates aiming for one of the most important jobs in the country to be accomplished and very much ” been there done that ” individuals, with masses of experience to draw from and a mature time tested mind is no extreme.”

This isn’t the same as the criteria you described upthread, which was much more specific. Please pick one so that I can aim at a stable set of goalposts.

“As for ” the only alternative I can think of ” ?? The candidates presented to us are utterly unqualified, the alternative I do think of is replacing them with those who are qualified….complex concept…”

Another straw man. I said that the only alternative you can imagine to perfect qualification is complete lack of qualification, not vice versa. In reality, nobody is perfectly qualified, and candidates 1’s industry experience might balance with candidate 2’s experience of life in poor communities. Or candidate 1 might be slightly more experienced, but an irresponsible arsehole.

As I haven’t had a single honest response from you yet, I’m guessing that straw men are your standard MO. From here on in I’ll just say “straw man” and move on. So: straw man.

“Its not exactly as if I am demanding every MP no matter the size of the constituency be a rocket scientist, we are talking about the prime minister of an entire country here…”

While we agree that the higher qualified the better, how would you like this to actually be achieved?

“No we shall not, it would appear it is you who is stuck between two extremes, for to suggest one be qualified to carry out the duties of a position according to you is raising the ability to do the job you have been employed to do to the level of godhood”

Straw man .

“on the other hand any form of under qualification from the extreme to the so – so is just fine…”

Straw man.

“Boom! Boom! The end of boom and bust! No return to boom! and bust!!! Piss off you history graduate.”

What is this, very bad freestyle poetry? Or an anecdotal example of a single Prime Minister you didn’t like?

“What is that you say good sir? A 2:1 in Modern History and some towel folding experience? Ohh god sir good sir, I took my degree in rational thinking and that is why my company appointed me to this position of candidate selection, I have just the right job in mind for you follow me god sir.. oh by the way have you heard of a bond before?”

Straw man, and quite a surreal one at that.

“Evidently I do not see your position as a rational one but no, you cause no offence.”

In which case, why go on an anti-intellectual rant when I mentioned being rational?

“That I have taken account of the relevant information concerning the current choice appears to be my problem, did you not know?”

I have no idea what this means.

“Its called a roof and houses require building.”

More freestyle poetry?

“Awful shame giving a dam does not translate into the ability to do things well.”

It’s better than not giving a fuck, like you.

“I will argue with you not to snort arsenic and try to inform you of a more ideal way to invest you’re time, however if you are stupid enough to do it then no, I do not care of the consequences. I am not your guardian.”

If I snort arsenic and die, my problem. If I and enough other people vote for an incompetent politician, whole country’s problem. Many of the people who suffer as a result will not have voted for the person in question. If you don’t care about political consequences, you don’t care about those people; if you don’t care about those people, it’s a mystery to me why you care about politics.

“It does not matter what you are for if you are incapable of working and reaching your desired goals. It is a hell of a lot easier to be self serving in politics and reach your goals than it is to be for the people and reach the goals, in this time period especially.”

Agreed, which is exactly why I want someone who seems to give a damn in the top position. The system basically requires politicians to suck up to their superiors, so it’s best if they’re sucking up to a humanitarian.

“I do not think he is weird, coming across a bit difference perhaps,I also like that he cares and wants to be for the people, yet life is not about what you want its about what you have the ability to achieve and deliver. We are so used to the standard of politics in the UK we have developed some what of a normalcy bias for what is on the horizon.”

True, but up to a certain point at least, I’d prefer bumbling kindness to skillful malice. And bear in mind that a PM doesn’t work alone – he can (if he’s sensible) surround himself with experts on various relevant topics. Anyway, the alternative at present is Cameron. Which is worse?

” Could you please just state what you mean? ”

What do I mean, well as you say, the amount you can learn about some ones working past is quite limited and to think there are entire industry’s that map suitable candidates using there past and standards achieved there.

This unnecessary process no doubt costs millions per year to conduct, I shall inform them that its no longer required, in fact they are to employ from here on out the candidates who deliver the most compelling speech.

“This isn’t the same as the criteria you described upthread, which was much more specific. Please pick one so that I can aim at a stable set of goalposts.”

Oh no… I added that a candidate should be very accomplished in there previous high importance position, one who has most certainly been around the block as far as experience is concerned. I have moved the goals posts, my position is now beyond repair, its just to much, to much!

“Another straw man. I said that the only alternative you can imagine to perfect qualification is complete lack of qualification. not vice versa. In reality, nobody is perfectly qualified, and candidates 1?s industry experience might balance with candidate 2?s experience of life in poor communities. Or candidate 1 might be slightly more experienced, but an irresponsible arsehole.”

That is nice but I am not dealing with imagination, I am dealing with what is on the table, that would be unqualified candidates and a job of such importance only the highly skilled and qualified could do it justice, at no point have I stated a perfectly qualified candidate exists, I do not live in your world of hypothetical, theory and ideals, to then resign my self to what ever comes along if they cant be achieved.

The highest standards in the country are to be applied to the running of the country. A high degree of financial acumen and the ability to create policy that works is very important, so go on pal, place your “experienced in poor communities” guy with no financial/management education/experience in charge of the country over the candidate with a career history excelling in it, see how that works out.

“As I haven’t had a single honest response from you yet, I’m guessing that straw men are your standard MO. From here on in I’ll just say “straw man” and move on. So: straw man.”

Oh the supreme power of you’re judgement.

“While we agree that the higher qualified the better, how would you like this to actually be achieved?”

We spoke about it before, I suggested that local MPs be required to sit certain tests to demonstrate there knowledge/reasoning & thinking ability as well as emotional intelligence/sound mind before they became eligible to run for such a position of responsibility, I also suggested that the jobs at the top of the chain require so much more from people who have spent considerable time specializing in fields with direct relation to the job they are to perform in government. You called me undemocratic.

How would I like this to be achieved?

Well I really do not know, I cant envision any system that would guarantee the chancellor of exchequer for instance had ever been present at a single economics class in his life or had proven his worth in the private sector before we invest our trust into them to run the entire country, it is just to complex to work out…I mean…I guess this is the point at which you attack me for not spoon feeding you detailed solutions and then declare that’s evidence the premise of being qualified to do ones job does not apply in politics. Enjoy the endorphin rush.

“Straw man .”

http://kevingriggs.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/scarecrow.jpg arrrghhh!!!!

“What is this, very bad freestyle poetry? Or an anecdotal example of a single Prime Minister you didn’t like?”

Freestyle yo! Reping the masses! What does it have to do with liking a prime minister as an individual or not? He neither had the education or the skills to do the job and he fucked up. When pointing out this can be the result of your ” there can be excellent politicians without skills or experience it’s just less likely but we should employ them anyway ” the only response you have is to mock it with a boom boom? Do you have any respect for this country and professionalism?

“Straw man, and quite a surreal one at that”

“Indeed. How do we determine what is solid and dependable in the first place? ”

By using the process that installed a man with a 2:1 in modern history and Minor private sector employed as the individual responsible for all economic and financial matters of this country – yes that’s a very rational assessment process of what’s required of an individual to take a position…your beliefs speak for them selves.

“In which case, why go on an anti-intellectual rant when I mentioned being rational?”

Your very rational.

“I have no idea what this means.”

It means I have read the qualification/experience of the candidates and that is the problem..to much for you?

“More freestyle poetry?”

No, there’s just a difference between being given a blanket to shield your self from the elements and building a house to do so…

“It’s better than not giving a fuck, like you.”

I am rational, I do not invest mental and emotional energy into things I can not change, why should I give a fuck if people like you vote completely unsuited people
to govern this country and get hurt as a result? You bought about the situation, I am more focused on protecting my self from your actions.

“If I snort arsenic and die, my problem. If I and enough other people vote for an incompetent politician, whole country’s problem. Many of the people who suffer as a result will not have voted for the person in question. If you don’t care about political consequences, you don’t care about those people; if you don’t care about those people, it’s a mystery to me why you care about politics.”

Says a lot about your care for those people as you are the one voting for incompetence. I care for and protect the people I have the ability to do so,I am not going to apologize that that does not extend to the entire country of your victims, I am just one person, we created a government to perform and care for the people, its not my fault people such as you’re self are incapable of envisioning standards to entry that would improve the results of it.

“Agreed, which is exactly why I want someone who seems to give a damn in the top position. The system basically requires politicians to suck up to their superiors, so it’s best if they’re sucking up to a humanitarian.”

I would rather some one who is self serving yet has enough sense to keep the country functional,as opposed to some one who is for the people yet bankrupts and destroys the country, as a result severely damaging the means people have to make a living for them selves.

“And bear in mind that a PM doesn’t work alone – he can (if he’s sensible) surround himself with experts on various relevant topics” on expert- expert-school”

I can think of another place in which the uneducated, unskilled and unqualified are surrounded by experts to carry out there work, its called school.

“Anyway, the alternative at present is Cameron. Which is worse?”

As stated I would prefer self serving over good intentions approached in an unrealistic way, taking us to hell in the bond markets and directly into the tight arms of the EU, when you can not manage your own affairs ultimately some one steps in to handle them for you.

With the disdain this country has displayed towards professionalism when it comes to managing its governance, as previously stated I don’t give a dam. Solutions how ever interest me, hence you and I have talked of this at length before, you have demonstrated you’re belief of there being no better way, we have nothing further to discuss.

59. Chaise Guevara

@ Blah

“This unnecessary process no doubt costs millions per year to conduct, I shall inform them that its no longer required, in fact they are to employ from here on out the candidates who deliver the most compelling speech.”

FFS, I ask you to say what you mean, but you’re incapable of anything other than sarcastic rhetoric. From the above I divine that you think I believe people’s work records are irrelevant. I don’t. Told you it was a straw man.

“Oh no… I added that a candidate should be very accomplished in there previous high importance position, one who has most certainly been around the block as far as experience is concerned. I have moved the goals posts, my position is now beyond repair, its just to much, to much!”

So it’s no longer necessary for them to work in industry?

“That is nice but I am not dealing with imagination, I am dealing with what is on the table”

We’re both dealing in hypotheticals to exactly the same extent, so perhaps you should grow up instead of using special pleading.

“that would be unqualified candidates and a job of such importance only the highly skilled and qualified could do it justice”

Yep, it’s a real-word problem. As is arseholes running things. So why am I living in the world of imagination again?

“at no point have I stated a perfectly qualified candidate exists, I do not live in your world of hypothetical, theory and ideals, to then resign my self to what ever comes along if they cant be achieved. ”

God, you go ON and ON about things that make no sense. Please explain why my position involves “hypothetical, theory and ideals” where yours doesn’t.

“The highest standards in the country are to be applied to the running of the country. A high degree of financial acumen and the ability to create policy that works is very important”

I don’t suppose you’ve heard of the term “Chancellor of the Exchequer”?

“so go on pal, place your “experienced in poor communities” guy with no financial/management education/experience in charge of the country over the candidate with a career history excelling in it, see how that works out.”

And I could equally claim that your rich FS expert would inevitably shaft the poor, if I was as hysterically idealistic as you.

“Oh the supreme power of you’re judgement.”

Supreme? No. Better than yours? Yes.

“We spoke about it before, I suggested that local MPs be required to sit certain tests to demonstrate there knowledge/reasoning & thinking ability as well as emotional intelligence/sound mind before they became eligible to run for such a position of responsibility, I also suggested that the jobs at the top of the chain require so much more from people who have spent considerable time specializing in fields with direct relation to the job they are to perform in government. You called me undemocratic. ”

Well, it IS undemocratic. And it would have massive consequences in terms of consolidating the power of the already dominant classes. I personally don’t think the payoff is worth it. I would like the media to make more of a point of testing cabinet members to see whether they know their stuff.

“Well I really do not know, I cant envision any system that would guarantee the chancellor of exchequer for instance had ever been present at a single economics class in his life or had proven his worth in the private sector before we invest our trust into them to run the entire country, it is just to complex to work out…I mean…I guess this is the point at which you attack me for not spoon feeding you detailed solutions and then declare that’s evidence the premise of being qualified to do ones job does not apply in politics. Enjoy the endorphin rush.”

I’m not going to attack you over it, even though you’re trying to goad me into doing so. I will point out that it’s silly to attack me for living in the now, given that you don’t have a system in mind for changing things.

“http://kevingriggs.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/scarecrow.jpg arrrghhh!!!!”

Is this supposed to indicate that you’re proud of your fallacies?

“What does it have to do with liking a prime minister as an individual or not?”

It doesn’t, which is why I didn’t say it did.

“He neither had the education or the skills to do the job and he fucked up.”

It was rather more complicated than that. But even were you right, it would be anecdotal.

“When pointing out this can be the result of your ” there can be excellent politicians without skills or experience it’s just less likely but we should employ them anyway ” the only response you have is to mock it with a boom boom? Do you have any respect for this country and professionalism?”

Firstly, my “boom boom” was a response to your own poor attempts at humour, so get your own house in order. Secondly, you’ve already declared that you don’t care about what happens to this country, so ditto.

“By using the process that installed a man with a 2:1 in modern history and Minor private sector employed as the individual responsible for all economic and financial matters of this country – yes that’s a very rational assessment process of what’s required of an individual to take a position…your beliefs speak for them selves.”

My beliefs would speak for themselves if they actually came up. What process would this be, Goalpost McShifter? You attacked rationalism, which was pretty fucking stupid of you. Whatever process you’re thinking of isn’t the same thing as rationalism.

I know it’s hard to keep going when you’ve put yourself totally in the wrong. I understand that it’s tempting to historically revise the conversation to fit. But there’s no reason I have to go along with your revisions.

“Your very rational.”

So you’re not going to answer the question, then. Your evasiveness speaks for itself: you have idea what you’re talking about, so you have to throw snide remarks as cover (note to avoid future nonsense: I too am using snide remarks, but attached to actual content).

“It means I have read the qualification/experience of the candidates and that is the problem..to much for you?”

Excuse me, are you insulting my reading ability? You write like an eleven-year-old. You’re borderline coherent and have a penchant for going off on bizarre asides that, when finally unravelled, turn out to be irrelevant to what you’re allegedly replying to. It’s hardly surprising that I can’t always interpret your gobbledygook at first pass. I deserve a bloody medal for ploughing through it for this long.

“No, there’s just a difference between being given a blanket to shield your self from the elements and building a house to do so…”

So you’re saying a blanket is too weak a metaphor to describe how cut off you are from reality? Ok, fair enough.

“I am rational”

Hang on, a moment ago you thought rationality was an evil process that puts unsuitable people into power. Make your mind up.

“I do not invest mental and emotional energy into things I can not change, why should I give a fuck if people like you vote completely unsuited people
to govern this country and get hurt as a result?
You bought about the situation, I am more focused on protecting my self from your actions.”

Straw man.

“Says a lot about your care for those people as you are the one voting for incompetence.”

Sigh. I was accepting your premise for the sake of argument, you complete and utter tool.

“I care for and protect the people I have the ability to do so,I am not going to apologize that that does not extend to the entire country of your victims, I am just one person, we created a government to perform and care for the people, its not my fault people such as you’re self are incapable of envisioning standards to entry that would improve the results of it.”

Fine. Quite sensible, in fact. Just a pity that it’s a 180-degree turn from your previous position where you were trying to claim that you care and I don’t.

“I would rather some one who is self serving yet has enough sense to keep the country functional,as opposed to some one who is for the people yet bankrupts and destroys the country, as a result severely damaging the means people have to make a living for them selves.”

Sure, which is why in reality we don’t want to be choosing from either extreme.

“I can think of another place in which the uneducated, unskilled and unqualified are surrounded by experts to carry out there work, its called school.”

I refuse to interpret any more of your stupid tangental comments. The above could mean at least two different things. Just spit it out instead of hiding behind weird and ambiguous metaphors.

“As stated I would prefer self serving over good intentions approached in an unrealistic way, taking us to hell in the bond markets and directly into the tight arms of the EU, when you can not manage your own affairs ultimately some one steps in to handle them for you.”

I don’t think that’s gonna happen just because we get a slightly more compassionate leader. But again, it’s not an either/or dichotomy.

“With the disdain this country has displayed towards professionalism when it comes to managing its governance, as previously stated I don’t give a dam. Solutions how ever interest me, hence you and I have talked of this at length before, you have demonstrated you’re belief of there being no better way, we have nothing further to discuss.”

If we have nothing to discuss, why did you just address a long post to me? Idiot.

The point was that the amount you can learn about someone else’s working history is actually pretty limited. It’s not like you can pull up their file.

This is true up to a point, but by way of example, whenever I read Will Hutton’s confident assertions about what needs to be done to restore prosperity, I can’t help but remember what he did to the Work Foundation.

PS @ 56:

Sure, PR skills are highly marketable. But do we want to be ruled by people in thrall to a PR/marketing/advertising complex? Which is what we have a present.

And your examples do not even support your point. One MP you say “used to work as a lobbyist for Pfizer”, as opposed to the “retired teacher”. Do you expect me to be surprised that someone with commercial and business experience would make a better MP than someone who has spent her career in the public service?

Your examples simply underline my point: we need a greater variety of people in our parliament.

“FFS, I ask you to say what you mean, but you’re incapable of anything other than sarcastic rhetoric. From the above I divine that you think I believe people’s work records are irrelevant. I don’t. Told you it was a straw man.”

Not quite, its just you are incapable of understanding. There are thousands of jobs throughout the economy, all state the requirements to apply and guess where they look for the goods that meet the requirements of education and experience?

You guessed it…within ones past..your claim that the amount we can learn from ones past when it comes to suitability of employment is bollocks, Dont believe me? That doesn’t really concern me considering its the way our entire economy works, want to argue that’s not a reality? Carry on..

“So it’s no longer necessary for them to work in industry?”

Remains 100% necessary, I guess you believe there are no positions of importance there, no problem, that would appear to be a reflection upon your own working life.

“We’re both dealing in hypotheticals to exactly the same extent, so perhaps you should grow up instead of using special pleading.”

That the current candidate is neither qualified or experienced is fact, that the job requires both to do it and this country justice is fact, that an individual who has through there own effort and abilities excelled to the top of there industry’s, positions involving the management of people finance and situations can be relied upon for results to an incredible degree more than an individual who has never been tested or had the environment to develop those skills is fact.

“FFS!!” “Grow up” 😆

“Yep, it’s a real-word problem. As is arseholes running things. So why am I living in the world of imagination again?”

A solution to assholes running things A – stop employing them B – have a mechanism to remove them when misconduct is displayed.

” God, you go ON and ON about things that make no sense ”

Yea..I read the bible to 😆

“Please explain why my position involves “hypothetical, theory and ideals” where yours doesn’t.”

Let me break it down for you :

In reality, nobody is Perfectly qualified – I agree – and it is quite puzzling why every time I mentioned qualification you state with a passion NO ONE IS PERFECTLY QUALIFIED..we know…the point is that some individuals are more qualified for the position than others. It would be wise to place the highest calibre of person into those positions that we as a society we have produced, no they will not be “perfectly qualified”, yet they are the best that we can do, the best we can do should always be the minimum we aim for. This would also see an an end to finance ministers without even a degree in economics. Etc

” I don’t suppose you’ve heard of the term “Chancellor of the Exchequer ”

Yea I have in fact, currently the guy with an education in modern history and a job resume ranging from data entry for the national health service to manual labour at Selfridges… that’s you’re definition of the highest standard the country has to offer in terms of education and experience when it comes to filling this position.

Understood…..

“And I could equally claim that your rich FS expert would inevitably shaft the poor, if I was as hysterically idealistic as you”

A person of any qualification and skill can shaft the poor, its down to us as voters to employ a correct analysis of those we are voting for, as for desiring the person selected to a role be experienced enough to fulfil its purpose, the reason why it actually exists in the first place,being “hysterically idealistic”, well in my world its simply a standard.

I do not know much about your world but from your attitude it certainly comes across as one in which being told what to do for the entirety of ones career instead of thinking about what to do and how its best done has been the reality.

“Supreme? No. Better than yours? Yes.”

I don’t suppose you’ve heard of the term “Chancellor of the Exchequer?

“Well, it IS undemocratic”

Just because you watch Jesse James, doesn’t mean you can be Jesse James, just because you want to run in the Olympics, doesn’t mean you can, just because you want to be a heart surgeon doesn’t mean you have the mental ability to become one. We set standards to create the best potential of quality results. Its not undemocratic if you lack the ability to do something, its just an aspect of life you need to be emotionally mature enough to deal with.

There are those who believe every one is entitled to be anything, well they aren’t and the only way it becomes a remote possibility is if we lower the standard which lowers the quality of the results. This is not the basis of the progression of our society.

“And it would have massive consequences in terms of consolidating the power of the already dominant classes. ”

And the massive consequences consolidating power into the hands of those not qualified to conduct it? Oh right, we can still print money without issue, you aren’t quite up to speed on the outcome until its undeniably in your face I guess. Concerning the dominant classes they are dominant for a reason, its a question of what we want that reason to be? Do we want the dominant class to be the the dominant class because they are the most productive and capable, the most able to cater to our needs? Or do we want them to be dominant by way of who you know and the small group you manage to gain entry to, not what you know and are capable of achieving?

“I personally don’t think the payoff is worth it.”

Oh how generous of you. Easy to say from a cushy position, tell that to those on cuts struggling to survive because the books were blown in a boom when it would have been wise to save for a rainy day.

A confidential document presented to the Cabinet in January 2006 asks:

“We’ve spent all this money, but what have we got for it?”

It warns that the efficiency of the public sector needed to improve rapidly and insisted that “spending growth will slow”. The document drafted by civil servants also says that “ineffective spending” must be “closed down”.

However, Gordon Brown discarded the advice and embarked on a £90 billion increase in spending when he became prime minister. The expenditure meant that the economy was left facing a record deficit as the effects of the recession were felt.

The document is the first official evidence that shows the scale of concern over the activities of Mr Brown and those around him in his time as chancellor. In an analysis of spending plans drawn up in January 2006 for the following year’s Comprehensive Spending Review, the document states that any increase in taxpayer expenditure should only be in line with inflation.

It sets out detailed plans for cutting spending in more than 12 areas to reduce spending by billions of pounds.
However, Mr Brown neglected the advice and increased spending by twice as much as recommended. He only cut the wasteful spending in four of the areas identified.”

From the people of the UK Fuck you and fuck your “surrounded by experts is enough to guide anyone unsuitable for the job through it with out causing damage” theory.

It really comes across as though you suspect anyone capable or rich as a prime candidate to shaft the poor, some one clued up on economics and budget design can just as easily tend to the needs of the population, as well as cut the continuous massive amounts of waste:

“Sir Philip has reviewed government spending, and says it is failing to make full use of its buying power.

He said no business could survive the level of money that was wasted from the £191bn of spending he reviewed

He believes billions could be saved if the government did simple things like checking spending properly.

Speaking to the BBC’s business editor, Robert Peston, he said that between £600m and £700m could be saved on the £2bn telecoms bill alone.

Sir Philip was asked to look at how efficiently Whitehall departments spent their money.

He said the information held about what the government spent on services was so sketchy that if his business was run in that fashion “the lights would go out”.

Sir Philip said: “The process is shocking. There’s no reporting, there’s no accountability.”

He told Robert Peston: “You could not be in business if you operated like this. It would be impossible.””

– Or put a stop to wild unneeded pet projects before they gain ground:

“Ministers are to axe Labour’s disastrous £12 billion NHS computer scheme..it has already squandered at least £12.7 billion”

Or legislate banks in an effective manner that doesn’t allow run away lending or derivatives built on a house of cards, instead of believing the rise of the market was down to there ability, a change in the fabric of economic reality, an end to boom and bust, caused by there actions.

“I’m not going to attack you over it, even though you’re trying to goad me into doing so. I will point out that it’s silly to attack me for living in the now, given that you don’t have a system in mind for changing things.”

Nope cant think of a better way.

” Is this supposed to indicate that you’re proud of your fallacies? ”

Scare crows are cool, was gearing up for the Halloween spirit!

“It doesn’t, which is why I didn’t say it did.”

Ah so you were on about the quality of his work? Right.. just an anecdotal example? No logical rational thinking person would ever look to address how such a failure in the system was allowed to develop with the intent of creating safe guards to make sure it never happens again? Gotcha.

“It was rather more complicated than that. But even were you right, it would be anecdotal.”

Sure thing bud.

“Firstly, my “boom boom” was a response to your own poor attempts at humour, so get your own house in order. ”

It was no humour, one can reflect on this issue and see the results.

“Secondly, you’ve already declared that you don’t care about what happens to this country, so ditto.”

Correct, if things continue down the same path I do not care of consequences that were asked for, that does not change the magnitude of your stupidity or make it acceptable.

” My beliefs would speak for themselves if they actually came up. What process would this be, Goalpost McShifter? You attacked rationalism, which was pretty fucking stupid of you. Whatever process you’re thinking of isn’t the same thing as rationalism”

“We want the solid and dependable” = Individuals capable of carrying out the job to a high standard.

“Indeed. How do we determine what is solid and dependable in the first place? Does it include rational assessment? My word, it does!”

100% correct, it does. And is the process that was used to place a history graduate into the position of responsibility for the financial and economic matters concerning 60+ million people a process that used a rational assessment to select a candidate suitable for this role?? According to you, yes, so what next? The butcher running the bank???

“I know it’s hard to keep going when you’ve put yourself totally in the wrong.” 😆 ok bud…

“So you’re not going to answer the question, then. Your evasiveness speaks for itself: you have idea what you’re talking about, so you have to throw snide remarks as cover”

Sure thing bud.

“Excuse me, are you insulting my reading ability?”

No, I was just explaining what I meant by it in response to you stating you did not understand:

“That I have taken account of the relevant information concerning the current choice appears to be my problem, did you not know?”

However if you can not understand the above to mean I have researched the candidates qualifications and experience and that is what causes me to think they are not suitable, then yes, I do question your reading ability, yet to question is not to insult.

“You write like an eleven-year-old. You’re borderline coherent and have a penchant for going off on bizarre asides that, when finally unravelled, turn out to be irrelevant to what you’re allegedly replying to. It’s hardly surprising that I can’t always interpret your gobbledygook at first pass. I deserve a bloody medal for ploughing through it for this long”

Its correct that writing has never been my strong point, in fact quite a struggle. I am dyslexic,I recognize the issue and aim to use my skills accordingly, for instance I will use writing to communicate with people and comment on blogs, I wont however decide to become an English teacher and place the education of students in jeopardy because I am not skilled enough to fill that position. I would also never take a job I was not qualified or experienced enough to do so when the well being of others depended on the out come of my work.

Look at how much you relish in your attack upon my incompetence as a writer, could you take someone of the same standard seriously as an English teacher? Would it be ok if a teacher had several aids who stand silent in class only to correct grammar and punctuation mistakes on the white board as they emerge, whispering the correct way to do something in there ear when they present something that’s incorrect to the class, only to be blindly repeated by “the teacher”.

Is that ok for you? How much are we willing to lower the standard?? It appears the standard can not even be tolerated on a blog between commenter’s.

Yet when it comes to the vast incompetence of individuals running a country, something that could be improved upon by formulating entry requirements and specialization in specific fields, any comment is “anecdotal”..brushed under the carpet, business as usual please nothing to see here…yea..rational mind for sure.

We all have strengths and weaknesses, its really nothing to be ashamed and they are only seen as a threat when questioned or pointed out to those with fragile egos and an undeveloped sense of self. Instead of acknowledging the reality it is taken as an insult followed by an overwhelming need to prove they can do it, time and time again through out history we have seen leaders ignore reality due to this and fail, when society starts ignoring the reality of required standards as a whole, it fails to.

When it comes to acting for others, it has to be in an area we are strong and can deliver, end of.

“So you’re saying a blanket is too weak a metaphor to describe how cut off you are from reality? Ok, fair enough.”

I guess, with the annual income streams I have created I am in a much better position to withstand events that impact the economy than I would have been otherwise.

“Hang on, a moment ago you thought rationality was an evil process that puts unsuitable people into power. Make your mind up”

If we used a rational process to select candidates we would not have people qualified in history trying to conduct one of the most complex financial and economics jobs in the country, rationality is good, my point is the current system uses none.

“Straw man.”

If you say so.

“Sigh. I was accepting your premise for the sake of argument, you complete and utter tool.”

If you say so.

“Fine. Quite sensible, in fact. Just a pity that it’s a 180-degree turn from your previous position where you were trying to claim that you care and I don’t.”

It is not hard to understand that one can care about solutions to an issue yet withdraw that care if no interest is shown and one chooses to move on to disaster. Its also not hard to understand that one can care as much as they like but if the actions they take to express that care are useless or destructive, there care is not worth a dam.

You can tell me you care about making money and the way in which you intend to do so is to watch tv for 8 hours a day, nice that you care but I wont invest in your idea.

You can tell me that you care for the country and its people then go on to vote for people who have the potential to cause it damage and deny with a passion that we could never improve that, nice that you care but its not worth shit as it amounts to part of the problem.

“I refuse to interpret any more of your stupid tangental comments. The above could mean at least two different things. Just spit it out instead of hiding behind weird and ambiguous metaphors.”

And bear in mind that a PM doesnt work alone – he can (if he’s sensible) surround himself with experts on various relevant topics, hey really? I cant think of other important leadership positions in which the least knowledgeable and capable person in the room is the guy in charge! Infact that kind of relationship, the knowledgeable preaching to the unknowledgeable, reminds me of school where students go to learn that which they do not know from experts,I think you will find that within industry’s you have teams of experts giving advice to someone more capable than them, someone deemed capable enough to analyse the information and make the correct decision, but my god, did you really have two different things to choose from?

“I don’t think that’s gonna happen just because we get a slightly more compassionate leader. But again, it’s not an either/or dichotomy. ”

We shall see, I have not been filled with confidence by listening to them to date.

“If we have nothing to discuss, why did you just address a long post to me? Idiot.”

I said we have nothing further to discuss, the difference between “we have nothing further to discuss” and “we have nothing to discuss” is small, sure, its just one extra word in the sentence yet they have different meanings. For example if we “had nothing to discuss” I would not have addressed you at all, yet I did address you and at the end of that I stated we have nothing further to discuss, in reference to the future.

It as a slow night so I thought what the hell I will respond? Does that make me an “idiot” to? Bit of a flippant judgement system you have there, I tend to reserve judgement for the bigger issues in life.

Anyhow this could go on indefinitely and we have little to gain. Your stance is that its ok to have some one with a history degree doing one of the most important financial jobs in the country, when some one of the same would not walk into a trainee traders job slinging 10 lots of currency around on the first day.

I just burst out laughing 😆

Bye.

“And your examples do not even support your point. One MP you say “used to work as a lobbyist for Pfizer”, as opposed to the “retired teacher”. Do you expect me to be surprised that someone with commercial and business experience would make a better MP than someone who has spent her career in the public service?”

Do you actually know what a lobbyist is?

It is far more of a westminster bubble type job than working as caseworker in a regional office for an MP. Commercial and business experience it aint.

‘Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country’ Margaret Thatcher.

And, perchance, we end-up electing an old demented actor, all we need to do is keep them away from the ‘deploy missile’ button.

65. Chaise Guevara

@ Blah

Being now well-acquainted with your character flaws, I was cautious enough to check the end of that post before reading it from the start. Yep, you’ve taken your ball and run home. So I won’t waste my time reading the damn thing.

66. Chaise Guevara

@ 60 Tim J

“This is true up to a point, but by way of example, whenever I read Will Hutton’s confident assertions about what needs to be done to restore prosperity, I can’t help but remember what he did to the Work Foundation.”

Oh, sure, employment history is a useful indicator. One of the best, in fact. What Blah is incapable of understanding is that identifying one indicator doesn’t mean all other indicators become moot.

67. Charlieman

@56. Planeshift: “Quite clearly therefore working in the media, as a researcher, or for think tanks or whatever you want to describe the ‘political aprenticeship’ as provides a useful skill set that commands a high commerical value. So it isn’t that suprising that constutiency party would pick someone with this background to represent them over a retired teacher is it?”

The choice between communicator (media or researcher) and communicator (teacher) is an interesting one. What do you want to communicate?

Adopting stereotypes, the retired teacher might be good at explaining concepts to those who are unfamiliar with a subject, pointing out the good and bad aspects of a proposition; the media/researcher wo/man might sell the concept a bit harder, disregarding the cons.

I’m not going to push this argument very hard. New Labour gave us John Reid, a man who falls into a category of his own: run a mile before nominating this man as a parish councillor.

“Being now well-acquainted with your character flaws, I was cautious enough to check the end of that post before reading it from the start. Yep, you’ve taken your ball and run home. So I won’t waste my time reading the damn thing.”

I am not surprised its “fingers in the ears and la la time” there comes a point techniques don’t work.I could not respond from your indefensible position either.

“Oh, sure, employment history is a useful indicator. One of the best, in fact.

And by your logic we are to totally ignore that indicator all together, and put the total weight on the others?

“What Blah is incapable of understanding is that identifying one indicator doesn’t mean all other indicators become moot.””

“Qualifications & experience aren’t all that matters, I think you will find they are just a foundational requirement”

The above are the words of a man who believes identifying one indicator of suitability as a foundational requirement makes all other moot..not the sharpest tool in the box… are you 😆

la la la!!! I cant hear you any more! It becomes a case of character flaws when I can no longer produce enough bullshit to try and counter your position 😆 :lol:!!!!

69. douglas clark

Have none of you idiots any idea why I vote SNP?

Apprently you don’t. For all you do is argue over a single square mile of this planet. As if it was all that mattered. Your are all making complete fools of yourselves.

Just saying…..

Your Northern, just North of Watford, correspondent.

70. Chaise Guevara

@ 68 Blah

“I am not surprised its “fingers in the ears and la la time” there comes a point techniques don’t work.I could not respond from your indefensible position either.”

Um, no. You said in your last post that you were done with the conversation, so why would I take the time to go through your response? Now you’re back in the conversation, apparently. Make your mind up. This “Ha ha, I’m leaving! Ha ha, I’m back!” bullshit is a wee bit desperate.

“And by your logic we are to totally ignore that indicator all together, and put the total weight on the others?”

Silly little hypocrite! I think you’re confusing MY logic with YOUR logic. I’m the one saying we should consider all factors. You’re the one going into apoplexy the moment anyone mentions a factor other than professional qualification and experience.

“The above are the words of a man who believes identifying one indicator of suitability as a foundational requirement makes all other moot..not the sharpest tool in the box… are you ”

Makes it moot in the sense that you can have as many other skills as you like, but you’re considered “utterly unqualified” if you don’t have the skillset Blah considers most important.

“la la la!!! I cant hear you any more! It becomes a case of character flaws when I can no longer produce enough bullshit to try and counter your position !!!!”

Do you need to sit in the corner for a bit and calm down?

By the way, there’s probably more middle ground here than we realise. And we’d probably have found it by now if it wasn’t for the fact that your idea of a conversational opener is insults and incoherent rants.

“Um, no. You said in your last post that you were done with the conversation”

Uh yea, I said we have nothing further to discuss here, discuss in my book is when you make meaningful progress concerning an issue, discuss in your book is win a debate despite the facts, and become insulted if someone dare question you.

“Silly little hypocrite! I think you’re confusing MY logic with YOUR logic. I’m the one saying we should consider all factors.”

“The highest standards in the country are to be applied to the running of the country. A high degree of financial acumen and the ability to create policy that works is very important”

“I don’t suppose you’ve heard of the term “Chancellor of the Exchequer”?”

There is no way on earth I could confuse my logic with yours, all your “logic” does is confuse, and destroy country’s.

“Makes it moot in the sense that you can have as many other skills as you like, but you’re considered “utterly unqualified”

Or…”but you’re considered “utterly unqualified” if you don’t have the relevant education and experience in relation to the subjects that make up the core of the job, Chancellor of the Exchequer for instance, education and experience in finance and economics being essential, history being irrelevant.

My local music shop “We are always on the lookout for enthusiastic, motivated and knowledgeable individuals to join our busy team. An in depth knowledge of dance music is essential; along with IT skills and some retail/customer service experience”

Note how they state some of there requirements as essential, there’s a reason for that;)

“Do you need to sit in the corner for a bit and calm down?”

Na…I am not one to go ” Excuse me!!!! Are you questioning MY!!!” Etc I have a bit more of a healthy handle on my self.

“By the way, there’s probably more middle ground here than we realise. And we’d probably have found it by now if it wasn’t for the fact that your idea of a conversational opener is insults and incoherent rants.”

The middle ground being education and experience in relation to the core aspect of the job as a foundational requirement, was mentioned in the first post I am not sure if you caught on..oh no you would not have, everything is “incoherent” and some times you have ” two things ” to decide from when it comes to meaning…. don’t quit your day job love.

72. Chaise Guevara

@ Blah

“Uh yea, I said we have nothing further to discuss here, discuss in my book is when you make meaningful progress concerning an issue, discuss in your book is win a debate despite the facts, and become insulted if someone dare question you.”

So… you meant you don’t think we have a chance of making progress but you still want to talk about it? Fine. But that’s not what the phrase means. So don’t pretend to quit the conversation then be surprised when people think you’ve, um, quit the conversation.

“There is no way on earth I could confuse my logic with yours, all your “logic” does is confuse, and destroy country’s.”

I notice you don’t actually substantiate that claim with anything. What did the quote have to do with it, BTW? Is it illogical to point out that the cabinet involves division of labour?

“Or…”but you’re considered “utterly unqualified” if you don’t have the relevant education and experience in relation to the subjects that make up the core of the job, Chancellor of the Exchequer for instance, education and experience in finance and economics being essential, history being irrelevant.”

History isn’t irrelevant, it’s hard to have a realistic handle on economics if you don’t know history, because you’ll end up repeating past mistakes.

But there isn’t really a “running the country” industry job. Being PM needs lots of different qualities.

“Note how they state some of there requirements as essential, there’s a reason for that;)”

I am absolutely fascinated by your local music shop. Please go on to tell me what they sell at your local butcher, and how good the quiz is at your local pub.

If you’re trying to compare working in a music shop with being Prime Minister: apples and oranges. Music shop workers aren’t responsible for the wellbeing of millions and can’t really impose their views on anyone much, so it doesn’t really matter if they’re terrible human beings.

Also, remember that we’re not arguing over whether qualifications and experience are important. We’re arguing over the relative importance of different qualifications and experience.

“Na…I am not one to go ” Excuse me!!!! Are you questioning MY!!!” Etc I have a bit more of a healthy handle on my self.”

This from the guy who thinks any deviation from his business-focused PM selection process “destroys countries”.

“The middle ground being education and experience in relation to the core aspect of the job as a foundational requirement, was mentioned in the first post I am not sure if you caught on..”

Of course I did, you’ve said it a million times. The problem is that you’re obsessed with one factor of many as the “foundational requirement”.

“oh no you would not have, everything is “incoherent” ”

A lot of it is, yes. Perhaps you should try to do something about that.

“and some times you have ” two things ” to decide from when it comes to meaning…. don’t quit your day job love.”

Case in point. I have no idea what this means.

” So… you meant you don’t think we have a chance of making progress but you still want to talk about it? Fine.”

Progress here is somewhat unlikely.

“I notice you don’t actually substantiate that claim with anything. What did the quote have to do with it, BTW? Is it illogical to point out that the cabinet involves division of labour? ”

You are not very good at making connections are you, its perfectly logical to point out that the cabinet involves division of labour, your logic seems to fail at the point you asked “I don’t suppose you’ve heard of the term Chancellor of the Exchequer” in response to: The highest standards (of capable people) in the country are to be applied to the running of the country. A high degree of financial acumen and the ability to create policy that works is very important.

Considering the last three Chancellor haven’t even had a degree in economics and due to that alone I think its illogical that they have that job, its certainly not “my logic” that places them there, you keep saying we should consider all factors, yet you consistently over look, place absolutely no weight upon and discredit the factors vital to understanding and successfully carrying out those jobs, whilst talking up “experience in poor community’s” & “nice personality”. You would get laughed out of any boardroom when the issue of candidate selection came up so hard I doubt your image would ever recover.

All a self important “excuse me!!!!!” would get you in that environment is an escort out of the building, as opposed to leaving by your own free will.

“History isn’t irrelevant, it’s hard to have a realistic handle on economics if you don’t know history, because you’ll end up repeating past mistakes.”

I agree history is important in fact that’s why the last time we spoke of this issue I suggested that all persons, to become eligible to run for the job of MP in the first place be required to demonstrate there handle on history, in way of a test. Its a foundational requirement,in the same way its hard to have a realistic handle on economics if you don’t know history, its hard to have a realistic handle on economics if you don’t know economics hence my additional suggestion that those who take such specialized roles as chancellor come from a backround that demonstrates an indepth education understanding and capability in economics. According to you this is undemocratic.

Does each and every MP need to have the same handle on history? Not quite, world history & history of the UK as a whole, plus the history of the constituency they are to govern is desirable, as we move up the chain and find our selves at specialized roles, chancellor, prime minister etc more knowledge is required.

But given the choice between a chancellor versed in history and one versed in the world of economics, I will go for the economics each and every time, the economist can work for the situation at hand, what we are facing here and now in our modern world, the historian can look at what has and has not worked in the past then try to apply it to the present,a combination of the two, which I have long suggested as a foundational requirement to do the job,is adequate.

“But there isn’t really a “running the country” industry job. Being PM needs lots of different qualities.”

Exactly it is a very unique job with exceptional demands, the top of those demands of course being to run a country, the major quality I would suggest, when it comes to filling this position is that of a history that demonstrates competency when it comes to running complex organizations?

You could say that’s a starting point, a standard of demonstrated competency, unless of course you like to gamble.

“I am absolutely fascinated by your local music shop. Please go on to tell me what they sell at your local butcher, and how good the quiz is at your local pub”

Yes it is a cool place, but I think you will find that I am not actually trying to compare working in a music shop with being Prime Minister. If I want music & music knowledge I go to the music shop, if I want meat and advise concerning it I go to the butcher, each educated and established in there own field of expertise, each requiring a foundational standard to enter the field, so why is it when we want economic policy for 60 million people we go to an historian? Or when we want leadership for the same amount we go to some one who has hung around parliament for a few years and been a researcher??

“Also, remember that we’re not arguing over whether qualifications and experience are important. We’re arguing over the relative importance of different qualifications and experience.”

If I were qualified & experienced in history, are those relevant to the role or architectural design & structural engineering? What about budgetary and investment design for a fortune 500 company? No? But what if I was a nice guy who had the best for every one in mind and had experience in poor communities? Does that have any relevancy what so ever if I do not meet the foundational requirements to be functional in the role in the first place?

“This from the guy who thinks any deviation from his business-focused PM selection process “destroys countries”.”

Yes the economy is booming and those at all levels have never had it better, lets get some more of your arts and history grads running the show shall we?

“A lot of it is, yes. Perhaps you should try to do something about that.

“and some times you have two things to decide from when it comes to meaning…. don’t quit your day job love.”

Case in point. I have no idea what this means.”
——

“I refuse to interpret any more of your stupid tangental comments. The above could mean at least two different things.”

Memory issues as well as comprehension issues? Although there is nothing I can do directly to help you improve in those areas, I suggest researching nootropics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic

Good luck.

74. Chaise Guevara

@ 73 Blah

“You are not very good at making connections are you […] Considering the last three Chancellor haven’t even had a degree in economics and due to that alone I think its illogical that they have that job, its certainly not “my logic” that places them there”

But if your Chancellor does have relevant skills or qualifications, it’s not vital for the PM to have those skills too?

“you keep saying we should consider all factors, yet you consistently over look, place absolutely no weight upon and discredit the factors vital to understanding and successfully carrying out those jobs, whilst talking up “experience in poor community’s” & “nice personality”.”

Boring lies are boring. I’ve said more than once that I place high weight on them.

“You would get laughed out of any boardroom when the issue of candidate selection came up so hard I doubt your image would ever recover.”

Shall I explain why the country is not a company? Do you really need to be spoon-fed to that extent?

“I agree history is important in fact that’s why the last time we spoke of this issue I suggested that all persons, to become eligible to run for the job of MP in the first place be required to demonstrate there handle on history, in way of a test […] According to you this is undemocratic.”

It’s not a case of “according to me”. It IS undemocratic. You are taking a candidate people might want to represent them, and saying that they have to vote for someone else instead, someone YOU have deemed worthy.

“Undemocratic” isn’t always bad, but in this case I think the downsides far outweigh the postives, for reasons given upthread.

“But given the choice between a chancellor versed in history and one versed in the world of economics, I will go for the economics each and every time”

I would most of the time, too. But not if that chancellor announced that he wanted to get rid of free schools and wipe all benefits, for example.

“Exactly it is a very unique job with exceptional demands, the top of those demands of course being to run a country, the major quality I would suggest, when it comes to filling this position is that of a history that demonstrates competency when it comes to running complex organizations? ”

I’d say a history of running government departments would be more relevant. It’s possible to demonstrate leadership and organisational skills outside of a company boardroom.

“You could say that’s a starting point, a standard of demonstrated competency, unless of course you like to gamble.”

Every politician is a gamble: this is another attempt by you to paint a difference between our positions that doesn’t exist.

“Or when we want leadership for the same amount we go to some one who has hung around parliament for a few years and been a researcher??”

When YOU want political ability, you go to a… company boardroom.

Same sickness, different symptom.

“If I were qualified & experienced in history, are those relevant to the role or architectural design & structural engineering? What about budgetary and investment design for a fortune 500 company? No? But what if I was a nice guy who had the best for every one in mind and had experience in poor communities? Does that have any relevancy what so ever if I do not meet the foundational requirements to be functional in the role in the first place?”

This is only relevant if we agree on the “foundational requirements”, which we don’t.

“Yes the economy is booming and those at all levels have never had it better, lets get some more of your arts and history grads running the show shall we?”

Sigh. I suppose if I explained that the financial crisis was more or less global and started outside the UK, you’d have no idea what I was on about?

We’re currently throwing the disabled on the scrapheap. So I don’t want to follow your policy of “bastards are acceptable as long as they’re qualified” either. Bastardry is killing people right now.

“Memory issues as well as comprehension issues?”

No memory issues. I do have this weird disability where I can’t magically translate gobbledygook into comprehensible English, though. Poor old me.

“Although there is nothing I can do directly to help you improve in those areas, I suggest researching nootropics”

Ha. Perhaps it would be easier if you entered a night school for remedial English?

“But if your Chancellor does have relevant skills or qualifications, it’s not vital for the PM to have those skills too?”

No,the prime minister should be without even a GSCE level of understanding in economics, his job is not after all to over see and direct affairs. The case in point here is neither Chancellor or PM have them ~ deal with it.

“Boring lies are boring. I’ve said more than once that I place high weight on them.”

If you placed high weight on them you would not be happy with finance ministers who are not educated in finance, just because you think you do something does not mean you are doing it right.

“Shall I explain why the country is not a company? Do you really need to be spoon-fed to that extent?”

Not required, do you need it explained again that if one is working for a company, charity, organization or government of an entire country one still needs to be qualified & capable of conducting there role? There is no magical line you cross when you enter into government that changes reality..

“It’s not a case of “according to me”. It IS undemocratic. You are taking a candidate people might want to represent them, and saying that they have to vote for someone else instead, someone YOU have deemed worthy”

People want others to represent them in relation to there views, not the person, this isent pop fucking culture with celebrities, this is politics. Educated & qualified individuals can hold a view you agree with and wish to have represented in parliament, the difference is they wont fuck it up by having tunnelled vision because they arent competent enough to see the big picture.

I am not saying they have to vote for someone else, I am saying who ever they vote for should be of an established standard concerning education & experience, everything is is built upon that.

Exactly what class of society did you come from to form the view that any one highly educated and competent in no way can have a view you agree with? You keep throwing around this “YOU have deemed worthy” this is not about me.

If you were to select a heart surgeon over anything other than his qualifications and expertise we would call you a retard, infact theres quite a few like that who cant navigate life to well, you have been protected by a standard being set ensuring any one operating in this field has demonstrated competency. All I suggest is the same for government.

” I would most of the time, too. But not if that democratic chancellor that he wanted to get rid of free schools and wipe all benefits, for example.”

Thats there view point, something you agree with or you do not, your power in a democratic society is to vote for what you agree with and want to happen. Being educated and experienced to the degree that allows one to understand and forecast the economy is not a view point, its called being functional in your profession. One applies there view points on top of this, using the ability to most efficiently implement there policy’s without causing damage.

Perhaps if the chancellors of the recent past had understood economics instead of operating under fallacies such as “I have ended boom & bust so its ok to SPEND SPEND SPEND for votes” the country would not have been facing the cuts it is now.

“I’d say a history of running government departments would be more relevant. It’s possible to demonstrate leadership and organisational skills outside of a company boardroom.”

Good luck with that one, want to sell me any more of the country’s gold at the next bottom?

“Every politician is a gamble: this is another attempt by you to paint a difference between our positions that doesn’t exist.”

Incorrect. A gamble is never worth taking, an investment of the right quality on the other hand is, what do you look for in your investments? “CEO/managment with experience of poor communities, nice personality, charming smile.

Understood.I tend to look for the most qualified and capable in the field as a foundation with a world view and strategic plan that makes sense in relation to reality…that cant work in the magical land of politics you scream! Ok.

“When YOU want political ability, you go to a… company boardroom.

Same sickness, different symptom.”

Over the history department of my local universalistic yes, any day.

“This is only relevant if we agree on the “foundational requirements”, which we don’t.”

Oh ok…so I can be an architect, structural and financial engineer whilst only experienced in history, gotcha.

“Sigh. I suppose if I explained that the financial crisis was more or less global and started outside the UK, you’d have no idea what I was on about?”

Nope none at all, concerning the regulation of our own banks, the recognition of the housing bubble and risks certain derivatives and lending practises posed, as well as the governments spending model which was based on an economic environment that soon would no longer exist, there was nothing that could have been done at all, to put it simply..it was the yanks.

“We’re currently throwing the disabled on the scrapheap. So I don’t want to follow your policy of “bastards are acceptable as long as they’re qualified” either. Bastardry is killing people right now”

The saddest part of all this is that you want a government that’s able to provide for the needs of its people in a sustainable long term way, let me give you a hint, we are making cuts for “reasons”. Those reasons apparently totally beyond you, as is the understanding that the governments money doesn’t grow on trees.

And the solution? The results of incompetency already in swing and the solution??!!! BALLS! SPEND SPEND SPEND!!…enjoy that 😆

“No memory issues. I do have this weird disability where I can’t magically translate gobbledygook into comprehensible English, though. Poor old me”

:And some times you have two things to decide from when it comes to meaning..: as stated if that’s incomprehensible to you and even more so if when you come across something that is incomprehensible you find you lack the mentally ability to make sense of it, that’s your problem and something your going to have to learn to live with. Thinking for ones selves or outside of the box is an issue for many.

“Ha. Perhaps it would be easier if you entered a night school for remedial English?”

Not required, writing doesn’t land the line of figures on the table every month, for the purposes I need it to serve I am more than pleased with what I have.

“people want others to represent then in relation to their views”

You mean a professional telepathist?

77. Chaise Guevara

@ 75 Blah

“No,the prime minister should be without even a GSCE level of understanding in economics, his job is not after all to over see and direct affairs.”

Why is it that, when asked what you believe, you so often instead say what you don’t believe? Lack of confidence in your beliefs, perhaps?

“If you placed high weight on them you would not be happy with finance ministers who are not educated in finance”

And when did I say I was happy with finance ministers who are not educated in finance? Saying they might be the best of two evils is not the same.

“Not required”

I think it might be. You obviously think that governments work the same way as companies, hence your saying that my candidate selection process would be “laughed out of the boardroom”. I expect that suggesting a company be run by a CEO elected by the national population would be laughed out of the boardroom too, so democracy must be stupid!

“do you need it explained again that if one is working for a company, charity, organization or government of an entire country one still needs to be qualified & capable of conducting there role?”

No, see, I understand this, or I wouldn’t have been able to have this conversation. The issue is that we disagree on the details of what is most important to that role – and that any disagreement on that point sends you into hysteria for some reason.

“There is no magical line you cross when you enter into government that changes reality..”

No, but there is a difference between government and private companies. My offer to explain stands, or you could use Wikipedia.

“People want others to represent them in relation to there views, not the person, this isent pop fucking culture with celebrities, this is politics.”

Well, that’s not 100% true, and if someone DOES want to vote for someone because they personally like them, that’s their call. Even if it was, though, you’re still in a situation where I want to vote for Bob based on his views, but you declare Bob to be banned from standing, so I have to choose between other people who don’t represent my views as well.

“Educated & qualified individuals can hold a view you agree with and wish to have represented in parliament”

Can =/= will.

“the difference is they wont fuck it up by having tunnelled vision because they arent competent enough to see the big picture. ”

That’s one difference. Another difference is that they’ll be mainly drawn from the more privileged classes (to a greater extent than now), meaning that less educated people will be less well represented, reducing the change of less educated people being given what they need to become educated, exacerbating the rich/poor divide.

“I am not saying they have to vote for someone else”

Only in that they have the option not to vote.

“Exactly what class of society did you come from to form the view that any one highly educated and competent in no way can have a view you agree with? ”

Straw man. And kindly remember that you’re the anti-intellectual on this thread, not me.

“You keep throwing around this “YOU have deemed worthy” this is not about me.”

Yes it is. The suggested criteria dicatate who is worthy to stand for election. You are the one setting the criteria.

“If you were to select a heart surgeon over anything other than his qualifications and expertise we would call you a retard, infact theres quite a few like that who cant navigate life to well, you have been protected by a standard being set ensuring any one operating in this field has demonstrated competency. All I suggest is the same for government.”

It’s quite a big “all”, for reasons I’ve gone into already.

“Thats there view point, something you agree with or you do not, your power in a democratic society is to vote for what you agree with and want to happen.”

And what I want to happen, given the choice of a more experienced/qualified but evil chancellor or a less experienced/qualified but good chancellor, is to get the latter into office.

“One applies there view points on top of this, using the ability to most efficiently implement there policy’s without causing damage.”

Don’t tell me what criteria I’m allowed to use when deciding who to vote for.

“Perhaps if the chancellors of the recent past had understood economics instead of operating under fallacies such as “I have ended boom & bust so its ok to SPEND SPEND SPEND for votes” the country would not have been facing the cuts it is now.”

Or perhaps we’d be even worse off. “What if?” games get us nowhere.

“Good luck with that one, want to sell me any more of the country’s gold at the next bottom?”

Boring anecdotes are boring.

“Incorrect. A gamble is never worth taking, an investment of the right quality on the other hand is”

Definitions here being “If Chaise approves of the candidate, Blah calls it a gamble, if Blah approves of the candidate, Blah calls it an investment”.

You’re like the King of Special Pleading and Double Standards.

“what do you look for in your investments? “CEO/managment with experience of poor communities, nice personality, charming smile. ”

Straw man.

“Understood.I tend to look for the most qualified and capable in the field as a foundation with a world view and strategic plan that makes sense in relation to reality…that cant work in the magical land of politics you scream!”

Straw man. It’s pretty clear that you’re desperate when you can’t discuss the issue without repeatedly lying about my position.

“Over the history department of my local universalistic yes, any day.”

What is your obsession with history degrees, and why do you keep vomiting it over me? Do you see me saying that a history degree is the last word in economic prowess?

“Oh ok…so I can be an architect, structural and financial engineer whilst only experienced in history, gotcha.”

Straw man. I’m promoting you to the position of Emperor of Intellectual Cowardice, as you clearly find addressing people’s actual points too scary to handle.

“Nope none at all, concerning the regulation of our own banks…”

Like I said above, the impact of the crisis on Britain could have been better or worse under different management, we can’t know. However, the fact remains that due to the GLOBAL credit crunch, there would have been some sort of negative impact on the country. If we had happened to have economists for PM and Chancellor at that point, would you therefore be claiming that we needed to replace them with arts grads?

“The saddest part of all this is that you want a government that’s able to provide for the needs of its people in a sustainable long term way, let me give you a hint, we are making cuts for “reasons”.”

Yes, it’s called “ideology”. At least in large part.

“Those reasons apparently totally beyond you, as is the understanding that the governments money doesn’t grow on trees. ”

Ah, the classic attack of a right-winger with nothing left to say: “money has to come from somewhere you know!!!!!”

Amazingly, I knew that. By the way, some of these austerity measures will probably end up COSTING us money – the right-wing equivalent of a leftie government imposing taxes so high that they actually reduce tax income.

“And the solution? The results of incompetency already in swing and the solution??!!! BALLS! SPEND SPEND SPEND!!…enjoy that”

Labour said they would make cuts before the election, and at conference said they wouldn’t be reversing all the Coalition’s austerity measures. It helps to have an idea what you’re talking about.

“as stated if that’s incomprehensible to you and even more so if when you come across something that is incomprehensible you find you lack the mentally ability to make sense of it, that’s your problem and something your going to have to learn to live with. Thinking for ones selves or outside of the box is an issue for many.”

It was incomprehensible due to the context, but that’s a concept that’s probably well beyond your understanding of language.

Suffice to say: I can use English. You cannot. Therefore it seems likely that the problem is with you, given that English is the language you’re attempting to communicate in.

Blaming me for that is like falling asleep at the wheel of your car, and then blaming the person you ran over because “they should have jumped out of the way”.

I don’t know what you’d have preferred me to do. If you write something that doesn’t make sense, should I just make something up and accuse you of saying that?

“Not required, writing doesn’t land the line of figures on the table every month, for the purposes I need it to serve I am more than pleased with what I have.”

Good for you! I hope you won’t object to paying a bit more tax then. Nevertheless: while a decent level of literacy might not be necessary for your job, it would help to prevent you from looking like an idiot in online discussions.

Seriously, it’s not like I’m gonna take pot shots at you based on spelling and grammar errors, but when you write gibberish to the point that what you say makes no sense, then accuse people of being stupid when they ask you to clarify, you do not come off well.

“Why is it that, when asked what you believe, you so often instead say what you don’t believe? Lack of confidence in your beliefs, perhaps?”

Taking the piss out of your stupid question perhaps?

“And when did I say I was happy with finance ministers who are not educated in finance? Saying they might be the best of two evils is not the same.”

They “might be” “could be” “possibly”…the words of a man who strives in life for standards. Although I do understand your point in the current system in which we have to deal with what ever turns up, that may be a man heavily educated in economics who wants to shut down all free schools, and a man with an arts degree who wants to open more, in this instance we are forced to vote for a man with the right values, yet incompetent due to his limited understanding of what he is dealing with. Its the year 2012, why are we still dealing with that?

“I think it might be. You obviously think that governments work the same way as companies, hence your saying that my candidate selection process would be “laughed out of the boardroom”. I expect that suggesting a company be run by a CEO elected by the national population would be laughed out of the boardroom too, so democracy must be stupid!”

I expect that your suggesting the company’s accounts be handled by an arts graduate instead of an accountant and financial/investment strategy be handled by a history graduate instead of a financial engineer would get you laughed out of the boardroom, but when it comes to shareholders ( who oddly enough are from the population ) electing a CEO there’s nothing out of the ordinary or funny about that, in the same way there’s nothing amusing about a population selecting its government.

Any company that elects people not qualified or capable of running it to do so is stupid and bankruptcy follows.

Democracy in my view is the greatest system we have ever had and I am proud to be around in the time that allows me to be a part of that, that does not mean it can not be improved upon.

“No, see, I understand this, or I wouldn’t have been able to have this conversation. The issue is that we disagree on the details of what is most important to that role – and that any disagreement on that point sends you into hysteria for some reason.”

If you count my response as “hysteria” please never try to use the road networks in rush hour, I fear for the safety of the general population.

“No, but there is a difference between government and private companies. My offer to explain stands, or you could use Wikipedia.”

I am aware of what the differences are and more importantly I am aware of what they are not, if I am an accountant in the private sector and then become an accountant for the government, I still need to be a functional accountant, no amount of “poor experience” can make up for what I lack in skills when it comes to doing the job, life experience goes towards the forming of views and that is a different matter.

“Well, that’s not 100% true, and if someone DOES want to vote for someone because they personally like them, that’s their call”

I am aware there are people out there who vote for what are somewhat superficial reasons, many without the knowledge or ability to analyse the facts and outcome of there choice, some may even flip a coin when it comes to voting and I am in 100% Agreement! That is there call! Its also our duty to provide them with a political system that no matter who they vote for, there is an established standard of competency.

“Even if it was, though, you’re still in a situation where I want to vote for Bob based on his views, but you declare Bob to be banned from standing, so I have to choose between other people who don’t represent my views as well.”

And if that stops bob from entering the treasury and bankrupting the country, unequipped for the job by way of education and skill, creating an environment in which thousands lose there jobs with even cuts in public spending on the essentials required, then that is the lesser of two evils, and its a quality lesser of two evils. What I think you will find with views is that they aren’t copyrighted by the individual person, house holds to entire nations can share the same views and if you do have respect for a view point, surely requiring the person who is going to act upon it to be competent enough to do so is a minimum standard that you seek.

“That’s one difference. Another difference is that they’ll be mainly drawn from the more privileged classes (to a greater extent than now), meaning that less educated people will be less well represented, reducing the change of less educated people being given what they need to become educated, exacerbating the rich/poor divide”

I have seen you ask “what counts as a real days work” which is a fair question but its the wrong question. When people refer to “a real days work” in relation to politicians they are not talking about the job being done, they are talking about experiencing the reality that most of us accept as the norm and have to operate in.

There is a distinct understanding of needs that is acquired when you make your own way in the world, when there are consequences to not having the funds to pay the landlord on Friday, when there are consequence to not applying your self 100%.

This understanding can not be cultivated by one born into money, who has never Had to work to establish a place in life. There Are consequences to not applying your self in life when one is from an environment in which every material need is granted yet they are different and aren’t connected to the reality spoken of.

What you have written above, to me at least, applies to career politicians more than anything, they Have worked for and established a place, there is no doubting that, yet there is a reality of need one can not understand as a trust fund baby, born into wealth strolling into education and then straight into politics.

There is also an important understanding when it comes to the efficient allocation of capital one can not have in two situations – when they were not part of earning the money – when they have never had to allocate capital in the most efficient manner possible because bankruptcy will be the result of mismanagement.

People of the working class and “lower” class do become highly educated individuals and go on to accomplish much in this world and they carry with them the understanding of needs because they have experienced it. It would be completely unacceptable and undemocratic not to allow some one to become a politician due to the background they were born into, I would look down upon that as much as I would discrimination concerning the colour of ones skin.

To discriminate against one because of there experience and skills when it comes to job placement is acceptable because the world is not about you as an individual, its more of a question of what you can do for the world, your chosen vocation, the one which you meet the requirements through your own efforts and work, has its financial and other rewards to compensate you for doing so.

Political views are formed from personal experience, understanding and world view, to require politicians to be of a certain standard in education & working experience has no impact on there views (close schools or open them). We could have a party composed of individuals who do not understand the needs of the poor or society VS a party composed of individuals who do deeply understand.

Both have the education and resources to handle the economic environment and forces they are working within because that was a standard of entry, yet only one party understands the needs of its population, there understanding translates into there policy’s which is why you voted for them, there experience and knowledge allows them to design and implement there policy’s, catering to all, in a sustainable way without harming or bankrupting the country, which is the supposed reason they are there in the first place.

“Only in that they have the option not to vote.”

If a party as a whole has not got the resources to find one educated and experienced in economics to fill its position as chancellor, another one educated and experienced in health to fill its position as minister of health etc, why the hell should voting for that party even be an option? “we like there views” Well boohoo… it means nothing if they cant implement them without fucking up the entire county.

“Straw man. And kindly remember that you’re the anti-intellectual on this thread, not me.”

No strawman, it was a question which you refuse to answer but its no issue, I understand your position well now.

“Yes it is. The suggested criteria dicatate who is worthy to stand for election. You are the one setting the criteria.”

Running a country is a complex and demanding job, criteria must be set to ensure results.

“And what I want to happen, given the choice of a more experienced/qualified but evil chancellor or a less experienced/qualified but good chancellor, is to get the latter into office”

And what I want to happen, given the choice of any chancellor, is that they are experience and qualified.. we can then select the one that has a value system that most aligns with our own, as there job is based in economics, they must be experts in economics!

“Don’t tell me what criteria I’m allowed to use when deciding who to vote for.”

Someone told you the criteria of heart surgeon you must choose from for your own safety, if you have to be told the criteria of politician for the safety of the entire country then tough shit. Or is your personal choice more important than the well being of an entire nation? Must you always have everything you want despite its consequence you selfish prick?

“Or perhaps we’d be even worse off. “What if?” games get us nowhere.”

Yes we would be worse off in a position that did not require cuts, having funds saved from the good times and much more flexibility in the bond markets would not help the situation at all.

“”Boring anecdotes are boring”

Boring anecdote in your eyes, certifiable fact and substantial financial loss that was completely avoidable in mine”

Definitions here being “If Chaise approves of the candidate, Blah calls it a gamble, if Blah approves of the candidate, Blah calls it an investment”

Definitions here: If Chaise approves of a candidate for Chancellor with a degree in arts and experience in McDonalds and Blah chooses an economist with 30 years experience in the world of economics and finance, Chaise is making a gamble, approving of a candidate from nothing more than the fact he likes his attitude.

Blah, looking to make an investment, seeks to find a candidate with the most appropriate skills when it comes to doing the job and an attitude on top of that which Blah agrees with. The difference is Blah is looking for a return on investment and searches for dependable ways to make that happen, where as Chaise is just hoping for a return on his gamble, there for no input beyond a likeable attitude is required.

“what do you look for in your investments? “ “straw”

Evidently to you that’s what it amounts to, a result of your experiences in life and applications of your own funds and projects, or lack of.

“Straw man. It’s pretty clear that you’re desperate when you can’t discuss the issue without repeatedly lying about my position.”

If you look for a chancellor and over look economics & finance you aren’t looking for the most qualified and capable, end of.

“What is your obsession with history degrees, and why do you keep vomiting it over me? Do you see me saying that a history degree is the last word in economic prowess?”

Its not an obsession, its a fact prime ministers & chancellors of recent history have been qualified only in history, if they had instead been qualified in pottery I would be pointing that out, its an observable fact. When does pointing out a fact get labelled an “obsession”? When that fact pisses the person hearing it off.

“Straw man. I’m promoting you to the position of Emperor of Intellectual Cowardice, as you clearly find addressing people’s actual points too scary to handle.”

I asked if I were only qualified in history am I capable of conducting those roles, you responded that its only relevant if we agree on the foundational requirements, so according to you if within those industry’s requirements to do the job had not been agreed upon any one would be capable of doing it to a high standard. Understood.

“Like I said above, the impact of the crisis on Britain could have been better or worse under different management, we can’t know.”

We were borrowing in good times and in fact had had a structural deficit for the seven years before the recession even began.

Labour entered the financial crisis with a larger structural deficit than France, Germany, USA, Japan, Italy and Canada.

The vast majority of the deficit – £123bn of the £156bn borrowed in 2009/10 – was structural.

By the time Brown, Miliband and Balls left office Britain had the largest deficit in the developed world.

National debt doubled during the Labour years.

“Under any measure Britain under Labour did worse than other countries. Having gone into the recession unprepared we then suffered the longest recession of the world’s twenty biggest economies and suffered the deepest in our recorded history.”

“The main driver of the deficit rise was that Labour stuck with plans to raise spending considerably even when it became clear that the economy was going south.

“The extraordinary extent of Labour’s final spending spree – which cost the public purse £1.3 trillion even as the economy was sinking, the first comprehensive analysis shows that even as the economy was spiralling into recession, Labour kept the spending taps on – sanctioning expenditure that ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous.

So we had a government that did not understand economics, effectively walking blind through the world as well as having no concept of or respect to the value of taxpayers money:

“Labour ministers splashed out nearly 135,000 of taxpayers money on 28 designer sofas to create a “peaceful oasis” for stressed out council tax officials, bizarrely the sofas were bought as part of a drive to save money. In total 2.8 million was spent on furniture for the so called space flex initiative,to make the department “more practical”

Your claim is we cant know if things would have been better if we had a government of standard that done none of the above, no wasted billions upon billions, understood.

“However, the fact remains that due to the GLOBAL credit crunch, there would have been some sort of negative impact on the country.

Oh so now we have gone from unavoidable in its fullest extent to “some sort of negative impact”…

“If we had happened to have economists for PM and Chancellor at that point, would you therefore be claiming that we needed to replace them with arts grads?””

Nope, depending on the situation I would just be pleased they were there, had not spent modelled on an environment that would soon not exist, had not wasted billions, had seen and taken appropriate actions for the coming storm, playing a big part in a government that could still support those who need it most.

Had they failed, instead of looking to replace them with arts grads I would be looking to the information about the causes that lead us to failure in a national enquiry, that information would then be used by those with the relevant skills who take there place, using everything we have in our power not to fail in the same way again.

Tell me, if you have lost your keys inside the house and you can not find them after the first look, do you then go outside into next doors garden to have a look thinking you might have better luck there?

“Yes, it’s called “ideology”. At least in large part.”

No not in large part, just in part. Perhaps if the political party that was out to serve the people to the highest degree understood what they were doing and did not near bankrupt the country every time they were in power, we could keep them there.

“Ah, the classic attack of a right-winger with nothing left to say: “money has to come from somewhere you know!!!!!””

No attack required. Its evident by the spending practises and incompetency’s you support that you do not have a handle on money and how much messing around that source of money is willing to tolerate before it causes an issue.

“Amazingly, I knew that. By the way, some of these austerity measures will probably end up COSTING us money – the right-wing equivalent of a leftie government imposing taxes so high that they actually reduce tax income.”

Yea, I think that’s what you find happens when you place people who aren’t qualified to do a job in that job, shame about all those wasted billions that would have come in useful around now eh?

“Labour said they would make cuts before the election, and at conference said they wouldn’t be reversing all the Coalition’s austerity measures. It helps to have an idea what you’re talking about.”

Yea, this is why you want ” the man who gives a dam! ” for the people in charge, when in there own words they are not going to make one dam difference, is this that superficial thing where you fancy a bit of your self in politics again?

“Blaming me for that is like falling asleep at the wheel of your car, and then blaming the person you ran over because “they should have jumped out of the way”.

Blaming you because you cant make connections, recall what you have written a few postings before or think for your self is unavoidable.

“while a decent level of literacy might not be necessary for your job, it would help to prevent you from looking like an idiot in online discussions.”

By whose standards, yours? Oh yes I have seen the amount of reasoning your capable of placing into the setting of standards.

“But when you write gibberish to the point that what you say makes no sense, then accuse people of being stupid when they ask you to clarify, you do not come off well”

This from the guy who said :Excuse me, are you insulting my reading ability!!!!!!: In response to me explaining what:
That I have taken account of the relevant information concerning the current choice appears to be my problem, did you not know: Means??

I just asked my niece who happens to be here to read that and explain what it meant, she is 9 years old and understood it upon first reading, are you fucking stupid?

You have said time and again “I do not think that positives of having people who understand the job are worth it” Well the negatives have been impacting us for some time, the positives, being the opposite, you don’t support, so it would appear you are for the cuts, the job loses and the harsh environment of recent times.

Well done, perhaps so tied up in that mega intellect of yours that your above, or rather incapable, of using common sense.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Louise Norton

    My five short thoughts on Ed Miliband's speech http://t.co/M3FWsvQw

  2. Fran Platt

    My five short thoughts on Ed Miliband's speech http://t.co/M3FWsvQw

  3. Angie Pedley

    My five short thoughts on Ed Miliband's speech http://t.co/M3FWsvQw

  4. Disappointed Cyrus

    Five thoughts on Ed Miliband’s speech of his life | Liberal Conspiracy — http://t.co/2h31nj9p

  5. Carl G

    "New Labour is dead: One Nation Labour is the new identity" http://t.co/Tp37Rvto It's just words, yes. But it's the right words!

  6. R M Wragg Sykes

    RT@sunny_hundal: My five short thoughts on Ed Miliband's speech http://t.co/I3b4B4tG

  7. Legal Aware

    Yeah! Excellent! RT“@legalaware: I'm really proud of @sunny_hundal for writing this, and I completely agree. http://t.co/pMMmclT1 #Lab12”

  8. Freddy

    Also, I'm not bothered about lack of policy details in speech. Westminster wants meat but public want a grander vision http://t.co/M3FWsvQw

  9. Ken Rice

    Five thoughts on Ed Miliband’s speech of his life | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ln6coMJS via @libcon

  10. Jack Barker

    Five thoughts on Ed Miliband’s speech of his life | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ifCfvMVw via @libcon

  11. Alex Braithwaite

    Five thoughts on Ed Miliband’s speech of his life | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/WxR00fYc via @libcon

  12. LiberalsUK

    Five thoughts on Ed Miliband's speech of his life | Liberal Conspiracy: Liberal Conspiracy, Twitter · Facebook L… http://t.co/hI1nTDQG

  13. sheepvinci

    http://t.co/rljmLtMg

  14. Jane Howie

    RT @libcon: Five thoughts on Ed Miliband's speech of his life http://t.co/9djC9kB0





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.