Politicians are odd, aren't they?

Cleaver

Wheezy wrote: »

Spot on. And do we really expect politicians to stop and have a chat with each and every twit shouting at them?

Yes.

I expect any politician to stop and talk to someone who asks them a question, even if it's to say that they are raising an issue that they either cannot do anything about or to firmly say that they are wrong in what they are saying. They should listen to the people, even the 'twits' shouting at them on the street.

Walking past someone, grinning like a moron and not even acknowledging that they are there is rude, arrogant and disrespectful.

lemonjelly

Cleaver wrote: »

Yes.

I expect any politician to stop and talk to someone who asks them a question, even if it's to say that they are raising an issue that they either cannot do anything about or to firmly say that they are wrong in what they are saying. They should listen to the people, even the 'twits' shouting at them on the street.

Walking past someone, grinning like a moron and not even acknowledging that they are there is rude, arrogant and disrespectful.

Disagree. Time is valuable. If a person comes to me for advice on an issue I'm not qualified to advise on, I'll send em away. I don't believe I should sit & listen to them, give them hours to talk about a problem I can do little/nothing about. It is a waste of my time & theirs.

In addition, by your own logic, you should have made a personal response (or at least acknowledgement)to each contributor on the thread - yet you haven't?

Cleaver

lemonjelly wrote: »

The guy raised a local issue, which as degenerate correctly identifies is not a party political issue. It is a local council issue for the guy. If he feels so passionate about it, he is more than welcome to stand. However, if he can be identified, I'll bet a lot of money he would have very specific links to the tory party.

Maybe he should be raising it locally. Maybe he's an unhinged mental patient. Maybe he's genuinely raised it with councils, MPs and everyone else and this is a last resort. Maybe he's an undercover reporter. Maybe he's a Tory party plant. Maybe he's a terrorist. Maybe asking the Prime Minister about a local school issue is pointless. Maybe, maybe, maybe...

It shouldn't might who or what he might be. The least Brown could do was spend 2 or 3 minutes acknowledging his existence and listening to what he had to say, even if this ended with Brown telling him that this was a local issue he should bring up with his council. It was the sheer rudeness and fake smile that depressed me so much about this incident. I thought it was a great metaphor for what modern politics and politicians have become.

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

Disagree. Time is valuable. If a person comes to me for advice on an issue I'm not qualified to advise on, I'll send em away. I don't believe I should sit & listen to them, give them hours to talk about a problem I can do little/nothing about. It is a waste of my time & theirs.

In addition, by your own logic, you should have made a personal response (or at least acknowledgement)to each contributor on the thread - yet you haven't?

Does it take any longer to acknowledge with

''I'm terribly sorry, I can't address this here and now but please do write to your Labour candidate/MP'' than it takes to walk grinning and not answering to a car.

michaels

Poor Liz, she seems to see a political hack or journo round every corner - I wonder what line of business she could be in to be so sensitive...


Don't worry Liz - I am sure you skills will be in demand who ever is in no 10 in a months time.

LizEstelle wrote: »

... except that in the meantime, Mr Murdoch has his intended, juicy quote to splash in tomorrow's Sin...

Get real.

Cleaver

lemonjelly wrote: »

Disagree. Time is valuable. If a person comes to me for advice on an issue I'm not qualified to advise on, I'll send em away. I don't believe I should sit & listen to them, give them hours to talk about a problem I can do little/nothing about. It is a waste of my time & theirs.

Will you acknowledge their existence, politely tell them that you can't help and point them in the direction of someone who can? Or would you walk right past them, smiling like a moron and pretend they don't exist? I know which I'd do.

Let's say, for example, that you're Richard Branson. You have maybe 50,000 employees working for about 100 different Virgin Companies that all have their own Chief Execs and management structures. You're in a bar one evening, and a bloke wanders up to you. He's not being abusive or physcially threatening, but he works in one of your shops and he's fed up with it. He feels the rotas are unfair, that the place needs more staff and that his pay is rubbish for how hard he works. He's raised it with his supervisor, who he says doesn't care.

This guy shouldn't be raising this with you (the same way this guy shouldn't really be raising local school issues with Gordon Brown) as he should be talking to his manager of the management structure of his local company. But, like the guy with Gordon Brown, he's seen the 'man and the top' and wants to vent. There's actually nothing Richard Branson can do directly to help him, and he might know that the staffing, pay and rota arrangements in that business are actually spot on. He doesn't know any of the detail or background, so can't actually help even if he wants to.

But Branson will know that this guy sees him as the figurehead of the company and, although misplaced, has come to him to vent his spleen and get answers. If Branson has his head screwed on he spends 2 or 3 minutes placating the guy and giving him a bit of advice. Maybe to speak with his manager, or bringing it up via ths staff forum. Explain to him that there's nothing for him to really do, as he's not at that level. Basically, have the decency to be polite and decent to one of his employees.

The worst thing for Branson to do would be to get up from his stool, without even saying a word to the guy, turn his back and walk off without a word.

You see the analogy?

lemonjelly wrote: »

In addition, by your own logic, you should have made a personal response (or at least acknowledgement)to each contributor on the thread - yet you haven't?

We both know that that is a pretty ludicrous comparison. If I was voted in as an MP and it was my job to work for the people I would acknowledge every single conversation, e-mail and phonecall. In the same way, if I ran a company I would respond to any e-mail and phonecall from an employee and would happily talk to any employee that stopped me in a corridor somewhere, even if it was to politely tell them that I couldn't help them or was the wrong person to speak to.

lostinrates

Cleaver wrote: »

We both know that that is a pretty ludicrous comparison. .

I tend to thank every post on a thread I start to do just this, acknowledge the contribution. Unless its offensive.

Cleaver

lostinrates wrote: »

I tend to thank every post on a thread I start to do just this, acknowledge the contribution. Unless its offensive.

We all know that you're a rather wanton thanker.

lemonjelly

Cleaver wrote: »

Will you acknowledge their existence, politely tell them that you can't help and point them in the direction of someone who can? Or would you walk right past them, smiling like a moron and pretend they don't exist? I know which I'd do.

To an extent, but sometimes you have to be quite abrupt with some.

Cleaver wrote: »

We both know that that is a pretty ludicrous comparison. If I was voted in as an MP and it was my job to work for the people I would acknowledge every single conversation, e-mail and phonecall. In the same way, if I ran a company I would respond to any e-mail and phonecall from an employee and would happily talk to any employee that stopped me in a corridor somewhere, even if it was to politely tell them that I couldn't help them or was the wrong person to speak to.

Just because it may be ludicrous doesn't mean it isn't valid...:D

But I'm not sure it is ludicrous. Imagine expecting your PM to respond to every single person who shouts something at him. hen would he have the time to [STRIKE]ruin[/STRIKE] run the country?;)

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

To an extent, but sometimes you have to be quite abrupt with some.




Just because it may be ludicrous doesn't mean it isn't valid...:D

But I'm not sure it is ludicrous. Imagine expecting your PM to respond to every single person who shouts something at him. hen would he have the time to [STRIKE]ruin[/STRIKE] run the country?;)

When e was inside. My proposed response would cover a group of people, one simple turns ones head to make eye contact with more than one person.