What should I ask George Osbourne

carolt

Osbourne has a BA in History from Oxford, exactly the same same as me. He was in my year and was a total and utter nonentity - I can assure you he made no waves whatsoever.

He then went straight into politics.

However, unlike him, I've had several jobs in the real world, since graduating.

I'd like to know how someone who is no more qualified than I am, but who has never had a real job, and has far less understanding than I do of the 'real' economy, feels he is qualified to run our economy.

I would really, really like to know the answer to that question.

The_White_Horse

carolt wrote: »

Osbourne has a BA in History from Oxford, exactly the same same as me. He was in my year and was a total and utter nonentity - I can assure you he made no waves whatsoever.

He then went straight into politics.

However, unlike him, I've had several jobs in the real world, since graduating.

I'd like to know how someone who is no more qualified than I am, but who has never had a real job, and has far less understanding than I do of the 'real' economy, feels he is qualified to run our economy.

I would really, really like to know the answer to that question.

the answer is, no politician has.

maybe you should have run?

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

I've no idea what that means, but if you actually look at Cameron's cabinet there are only three Old Etonians in it, and like Labour 's cabinet there are a mix of people from different backgrounds. Don't let David Cameron's background make you think the whole shadow cabinet are toffs.

Let's do a simple comparison with George Osborne, who you obviously think is a 'toff' and Harriet Harman:

Osborne: Aristocratic connections
Harman: Aristocratic connections
Osborne: St. Paul's School
Harman: St. Paul's School for Girls

I can see the Labour propaganda machine works well on you.

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.

Kohoutek

carolt wrote: »

I'd like to know how someone who is no more qualified than I am, but who has never had a real job, and has far less understanding than I do of the 'real' economy, feels he is qualified to run our economy.

I would really, really like to know the answer to that question.

If you think that people who have never had real jobs should not make high level policy decisions, then that excludes most of the Labour front bench from government, not to mention Cameron and Osborne.

They say that politicians are a reflection of the society from which they come - in that case, judging by all three parties, we have a pretty horrible society.

We should demand a law that sets a minimum age of 35 for running for elections to the House of Commons, which would sweep away 'professional politicians' in the future.

LizEstelle

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.

Correct.

People tend to forget the actual meaning of 'Conservatism', i.e. we shall fight to keep things as they are, with power and wealth in our hands and fending off those upstarts from the Great Unwashed.

Labour has always had an agenda which was at least based on the principle of fairness and improvement of the condition of the majority.

No such claim of principle can be made for the Tories.

Before you cast your vote this year, just remember that. Eton and Harrow don't exactly go out of their way to take in your children...

Kohoutek

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.

If you have such a simplistic analysis of the effect of Labour's policies in the last 13 years as 'creating opportunity for all', then you're obviously an ideal Labour voter, considering wealth inequality in the UK today is worse than under Margaret Thatcher.

I prefer to call it: 'lowering education standards for all', 'increasing positive discrimination for all', 'increasing benefits dependence for all'.

I'd also rather not vote for a party that fought a war in Iraq based on deception, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, a party responsible for a sustained legislative programme to erode civil liberties and a party that bailed out enormous financial institutions with taxpayer money without demanding any reforms or concessions whatsoever.

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

I'd also rather not vote for a party that fought a war in Iraq based on deception, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents.

i agree but i disagree that the tories would be any better.

lib dems have a better history on the iraq war. as do the greens. but you have to pick a party based on a balance of policies and attributes. and also the effectiveness of your local mp.

StevieJ

carolt wrote: »

Osbourne has a BA in History from Oxford, exactly the same same as me. He was in my year and was a total and utter nonentity - I can assure you he made no waves whatsoever.

He then went straight into politics.

However, unlike him, I've had several jobs in the real world, since graduating.

I'd like to know how someone who is no more qualified than I am, but who has never had a real job, and has far less understanding than I do of the 'real' economy, feels he is qualified to run our economy.

I would really, really like to know the answer to that question.

Martin, could you pass on best wishes from old classmate Carol thinking on I don't think that is her name, make that the feisty one that wanted to be a teacher.

carolt

Thanks Stevie. Actually, I was meek not feisty then. I'd be surprised if he knew me either - let's just say we hardly mixed in the same circles.

I don't believe the Bullingdon takes girls, and I didn't tend to hang around with the titled, either.

wymondham

Kohoutek wrote: »

If you think that people who have never had real jobs should not make high level policy decisions, then that excludes most of the Labour front bench from government, not to mention Cameron and Osborne.

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??