HAPPY ST.GEORGES DAY.....

[Neil]

No what I tend to believe in is the reluctant leader

So Ian Duncan Smith, then?

Ian or Duncan? (to recycle on of Merton's jokes, AGAIN)

How's about Tony Blair - surely he needed plenty of persuasion to dive-tackle the leadership of the Labour party...

 

[silverclaws]

Orwellian is it, h'mm and what is being exacted on the population of this country is what ?

Here I am referring to the fact that we are the most watched people in the western world via cctv cameras which has already been proved do not stop crime happening, but aid the authorities in prosecutions when the CPS thinks it is worthwhile pursuing.

And now we have the government wanting to hack into our online private communication, if they are not doing already.

Then there is the issue of private government contractor that will do stuff the government won't do because of the politics involved.

But for leaders to come up with such brain waves, then one really does have to question their mentality, what are they scared of, I will tell you what, they scared of us, that is why we need to be watched and with that, they need to be watched by us.

Always question authority

 

[highlandsflyer]

Mundane?

Well that is all relative.

Merely pointing out the vast majority of knowledge most have about leaders is of the 'minor' type. Knowledge of figures such as Tony Blair, for example, is fairly speculative.

Perhaps I have been fortunate, but my general experience is of highly professional, capable leaders, there by merit. Certainly not the only people who could have fulfilled their roles, but not obviously deficient or unsuitable, and don't forget management often involves sacrifices that rule it out for others.

I don't look at political figures I don't have the skinny on, or similar from the worlds of religion or otherwise, for my picture of how power and responsibility effect or attract the individual.

Out of twenty or so managers I have had in the past, I would say maybe five were not 100% suited to the job. Of those, only two I would have considered unable to fulfil the role in at least a basic capacity.

One was standing in and did not want the role, the other ended up being sacked and I was their successor.

Getting back to the origins of this thread, I think it would be great to make more of England's history and traditions. Naturally it takes time to wind down an empire enough for nationalism to be palatable, but if the Germans and Japanese can be proud of their nations, why not the English?

 

[highlandsflyer]

Orwellian is it, h'mm and what is being exacted on the population of this country is what ?...

...Always question authority

Yes it is Orwellian.

You cannot ameliorate one bad thing by introducing another. Psychiatric evaluation would be carried out by the state, and would allow the state to prevent those who might oppose them to gain the power to do so. Obviously.

Always question authority?

No, don't! You may be prevented from seeking a position of authority if you do. They will consider your questioning a marker of an unsuitable personality when they undertake your psychiatric evaluation.

I was involved in industrial action in the eighties that saw me on a blacklist for certain employment. How easy would it be, given laws to prevent such blacklists, for the state to ensure I did not pass such an evaluation instead?

This is the way central government and central leadership operates, rogue power with displaced or untraceable accountability.

My ideal is power devolved to much smaller groups, with far MORE 'leaders' of these much smaller groups. The leaders would all be operating with much more scrutiny, much closer to those they lead with little separation.

When a nation wide consensus was needed the decisions of the smaller groups would be passed up. The only power national level leaders would have would be in those matters passed up.

Idealistic perhaps, but much more democratic and less open to the corruption of power.

 

[petitpal]

Put short, I, whether in a small minority, or otherwise, feel silverclaws had a good point - whether idealistic, or otherwise - perhaps the desire and intent to grasp power should involve some degree of evaluation. To be glib, the bigger the risk the greater the scrutiny.

Well, that sort of happens anyway; although admitedly it is by the parties and as to who they will put on their short lists to become candidates. i.e. if you want a position of power you have to be, 'in with the boys' (and that applies to the two main parties, can't remember about the libs).

Was reading an Orwell book recently, 'Why I write', where he points out that yes the English democracy is swayed towards a certain sector of society and while we can always rely on the rest of the English people to come together to fight the common good in an uncanny social-conciousness kind of way, they don't always come together on the right thing. Hence it's not actually quite as bad as you may think that democracy is swayed as it is. Admitedly he was writing in a different era of politics and under the shadow of a world war but I think that, broadly speaking, the point still stands. I suppose that the re-emergence of far right political parties, and their attempt to re-position themselves in the main stream all over Europe, sort of demonstrates this - just because certain sections of society are all for it, doesn't mean it's for the common good.

The problem with 'analysing' who can apply for a position of power, outside of responsible voting by the local electorates (which, really, is where that's supposed to happen I would have thought), is that those people then become more powerful than those seeking power and the problem perpetuates itself.

Anyway - this is getting all far too serious for my liking - wheres me BMX...

 

[highlandsflyer]

Good post. If there was a rep system here I would use it.

 

[Neil]

The problem with 'analysing' who can apply for a position of power, outside of responsible voting by the local electorates (which, really, is where that's supposed to happen I would have thought), is that those people then become more powerful than those seeking power and the problem perpetuates itself.

So... a bit like Peter Mandelson, then?

 

[highlandsflyer]

Don't you say a bad word about Mandy.

Mind you he still owes me for that house.

 

[Neil]

Don't you say a bad word about Mandy.

Think of it more as a sly dig, than a bad word.

It is a slightly curious thing, though about Blair's era and onwards - a guy who really didn't have any obvious, overt or sustained presence in government, still wielded a lot of power in both the formative years, and much of the later power plays.

Campbell too - though can't help but think there's a slight over-egging in that pudding.

Mind you he still owes me for that house.

You'll be lucky, he'll be still cursing you for getting him the boot. Betcha never got that passport, either...

 

[highlandsflyer]

Campbell has a lot of understanding and empathy from me.

He really goes out on a limb sometimes to be real.

The shame in politics is that arseholes like Mandelson can achieve position while the likes of Campbell hold fire thanks to feeling inadequate, or being aware their history will make them unelectable.

He would have been a very strong politician.