What would self-made men such as Ernest Bevin and Jim Callaghan, who hauled themselves up by their bootstraps from poverty, think of a leadership election that asked members to choose between two privileged, Oxford-educated brothers from North London?
What would war heroes such as Major Clement Attlee and Major Denis Healey make of an election in which neither of the leading candidates had ever held a job outside the political arena?
And what, they might well ask, does it say about the sad state of British politics that our three major parties are led by smooth fortysomethings who might have been cast from exactly the same mould? Look again at the scenes of delight and despair at last week’s Labour conference, and you see not just an astonishingly incestuous story of fraternal rivalry, but a damning indictment of the collapse of opportunity in modern Britain — and a depressing reminder of the extent to which we are now governed by a tiny, closed and thoroughly narcissistic political class.
And the one characteristic they all share is an overwhelming sense of entitlement that — despite having no knowledge of the real world — they believe gives them a preordained right to rule over us. But as genuine mobility slips further from reach, there has rarely been a greater gulf between rulers and ruled. Perhaps not since the Victorian era has the distance between the voter and the politician seemed such a chasm.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z11AMkrBpg
One for you Jim
One for you Jim
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: One for you Jim
Interesting article Strop....
I thought it was funny back when Blair took on John Major, that the Labour Party Candidate, (supposedly the "working man's" party) was the Oxford educated son of a University lecturer, while the Tory candidate, (supposedly the party of the well to do) was a shop keeper's son who got most of his education through correspondence courses....
I thought it was funny back when Blair took on John Major, that the Labour Party Candidate, (supposedly the "working man's" party) was the Oxford educated son of a University lecturer, while the Tory candidate, (supposedly the party of the well to do) was a shop keeper's son who got most of his education through correspondence courses....
Re: One for you Jim
If war heroes were great leaders you would have elected T.E. Lawrence.
Otherwise, stop whining.
yrs,
rubato
Otherwise, stop whining.
yrs,
rubato
Re: One for you Jim
The main thrust of the article though, about the homogeneous party apparatchik sausage making machine; which is squeezing out bland uniform politicians, is quite frightening if you think about it.
(In another place I 'd be willing to bet the "M" word would arise.
)
(In another place I 'd be willing to bet the "M" word would arise.
)“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: One for you Jim
No doubt....(In another place I 'd be willing to bet the "M" word would arise.
I think Blair sort of set the trend, in the UK....
He was the first ultra-slick "blow dried" candidate, and because of his enormous electoral success, now all the parties have produced similar type leaders hoping for similar success...
Re: One for you Jim
Oh, Bliar was the poster boy for it.
After attending The Chorister School in Durham in north-east England from 1961 to 1966, Blair boarded at Fettes College, a prestigious independent school in Edinburgh in Scotland. After Fettes, Blair spent a year in London, where he attempted to find fame as a rock music promoter before reading jurisprudence at St John's College, Oxford.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”