What should I ask George Osbourne

wymondham wrote: »

I think theres a lot to be said for having politicians who have 'lived' in the outside world before they coccoon themselves into politics. Being a politician is a unique position and brings about great responsibility with regards to their constituents needs.

How can someone who leaves University etc and goes straight into politics claim to know anything about life and the demands/experience a cabinet position holds??

I totally agree. But the trend since 1997, encouraged by the media has been the younger, the better-looking you are, the better candidate you are for Parliament or PM. There's no room for 'conviction politicians' anymore, like Michael Howard or Menzies Campbell, just vacuous ones like David Cameron and Nick Clegg. You can count how many Labour frontbenchers have experience outside the public sector or party politics with one hand.

Emily Benn is the latest extreme. She announced her candidacy at the age of 17! Her qualifications: being Tony Benn's granddaughter....that's it. She's still studying at university despite being a Labour candidate at the next election.

In the US constitution, it sets out a minimum age of 35 for the president, 30 for the Senate, 25 for the House of Representatives. I think that would be a good idea for the UK! We don't need amateurs and 'professional politicians' to represent the country, we need serious candidates with a career outside politics.

Thinking about this, what about a minimum age to be an MP of, say 40. This then forces those wishing to become an MP to have first had a reasonable life outside of politics and they would have gained useful life experiences along the way that they could then apply??

Kohoutek wrote: »

I totally agree. But the trend since 1997, encouraged by the media has been the younger, the better-looking you are, the better candidate you are for Parliament or PM. .

er gordon brown. not particularly young or good looking. and a conviction politician?

ninky wrote: »

i have no problem with privilege when those with privilege use it to help the less fortunate. hence my example with white people joining the anti-apartheid movement. it is not a fault to be born with more opportunity than the next person. but it is a fault to use that opportunity as a weapon of oppression against those who are more disadvantaged than you.

obsorne seeks to keep his position of privilege with the typical cut public spending reduce taxes of the wealthy tory. on the other hand harman has joined a party that seeks to create opportunity for all.

Especially her husband.

Then there is all women shortlists, oppourtunity for all your having a laugh.

I would ask him, why, when a lot of people want any reason to vote Tory, he is incapable of providing one. Why he is just so bad at being a politician. Why he doesn't hire some kind of PR guru to sharpen up his act, his message, his presentation. If apparently Cameron has not noticed, or doesn't feel he can say it, then someone should. This is being kind - I want to vote Tory, but I am having real difficulty with Osbourne.

The man is set to be the next Chancellor - the least he could do is spend half an hour with Max Clifford and ask how to present himself in a way more appealing to people. He just comes across as a slightly unpleasant idiot.

btw Osbourne - I am on your side!