'Ed Balls is a perfectly decent man (shock horror)' blog discussion

Cheque_Book_Charlie

I agree with Martin Lewis on this point - not specifically about Ed Balls but the very real danger that we spend so much time abusing politicians that we forget what they do for us.

I know that some of them are vanal and shifty and the expenses scandle doesn't help with this (I was hopping mad like most over that). A healthy dose of critical assessment of what they say and do, like in most walks of life is, only sensible.

This does not mean that everything they say and do is completely self serving. The really beneficial work doesn't get the headlines so a rather skewed view of their work is inevitable.

Given that to be in politics one needs influence, consensus and strong power base suggests that politicians must have considerable skills of persuasion and a not a little charisma. They also have to be motivatd, ambitious, dedicated and have stong self belief.

You might not like their politics, or indeed everthing they do, but I suggest we have a long hard think about how well, if at all, we could do their job and show a bit more respect. They are after all running the country so we don't have to.

Flyboy152

kar999 wrote: »

...... so that just leaves all the other ex-privately educated and/or millionaire champagne socialists including the Milliband Marxists.... or has the Jack Straw debate distracted the thread from the others?

Another one who hasn't bothered to do their research. :wall:

Flyboy152

Cheque_Book_Charlie wrote: »

I agree with Martin Lewis on this point - not specifically about Ed Balls but the very real danger that we spend so much time abusing politicians that we forget what they do for us.

I know that some of them are vanal and shifty and the expenses scandle doesn't help with this (I was hopping mad like most over that). A healthy dose of critical assessment of what they say and do, like in most walks of life is, only sensible.

This does not mean that everything they say and do is completely self serving. The really beneficial work doesn't get the headlines so a rather skewed view of their work is inevitable.

Given that to be in politics one needs influence, consensus and strong power base suggests that politicians must have considerable skills of persuasion and a not a little charisma. They also have to be motivatd, ambitious, dedicated and have stong self belief.

You might not like their politics, or indeed everthing they do, but I suggest we have a long hard think about how well, if at all, we could do their job and show a bit more respect. They are after all running the country so we don't have to.

A very important pint, but I think they need to show respect toward each other as well. Cameron is probably the least respectful politician I have ever seen.

moggylover

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I am retired and spend quite a long time each day with Parliament Live on as a default TV channel. What I see is Politicians - particularly from the Labour front benches - demonising their opponents. When someone like Andy Burnham sneers in Parliament at an article that Mrs Gove (unsure if this is Michael Gove's wife or mother?) wrote, then that is just slimy.

It's the politicians themselves who have instigated these personal attacks.

When you see Alistair Campbell (I know he's not an actual politician, but he is political) shouting down Simon Hughes on Questiontime about the closure of a local maternity ward ("But are you going to be opening the maternity ward") when it was actually closed by Labour, then it's unethical and self-serving.

I cannot remember every incident, but every day I see Labour politicians passionately claiming that the Coalition is doing the wrong thing when they had undertaken to get rid of the deficit within 7 years versus the coalition's 5 years. It is clear that if Labour were in power, they would have to take very similar difficult decisions, yet they denigrate the coalition's attempt to bring the Country under some kind of fiscal control.

I am not essentially right or left wing - very much a floating voter, but the more I watch of Parliament Live and Questiontime, the more I see Labour as liars, slimy, and self-serving.

But I don't think that is as one sided as you are suggesting. I also watch it a lot (Christ, some of us need to get a life:)) and I like to watch the posturing and body language on both sides: it says an awful lot more than their words ever do sometimes. Keep your eye on George Osborne when anything involving hardship (for the masses mind, not his cronies) is announced and see the gleefull look he is incapable of keeping off his face and then wonder whether you would let him loose anywhere near your kids piggy-bank let alone the purse of the Country:)

However, I do agree with Martin that politics SHOULD be about the policies and the ethos of a party and not about personalities and the constant media sniping on a personal level (to say nothing of that which goes on on MSE) is to my mind more of a way of distracting those not particularly politically savvy from the real matters that are being addressed.

WhiteHorse

Here's how it works.

You want to be an MP. You go before your local branch committee. Now bear in mind that what the local voters want and what local politico's want will be different. They will approve you if you can satisfy them that you will betray local voters by putting local party interests first.

Assuming that you are successful, your nomination goes before the national committee. The same criteria apply, only writ larger. They must be satisfied that you will put national party interests first, thus betraying not only the voters, but also your local branch.

You have passed all the tests. You are now are fully fledged hypocrite ... er ... candidate. So, getting elected says a great deal about you. And that's before you actually do anything at all.

avinabacca

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Here's how it works.

You want to be an MP. You go before your local branch committee. Now bear in mind that what the local voters want and what local politico's want will be different. They will approve you if you can satisfy them that you will betray local voters by putting local party interests first.

Assuming that you are successful, your nomination goes before the national committee. The same criteria apply, only writ larger. They must be satisfied that you will put national party interests first, thus betraying not only the voters, but also your local branch.

You have passed all the tests. You are now are fully fledged hypocrite ... er ... candidate. So, getting elected says a great deal about you. And that's before you actually do anything at all.

This post would be a lot more impressive, you know, if you actually knew what on earth you were talking about

WhiteHorse

avinabacca wrote: »

This post would be a lot more impressive, you know, if you actually knew what on earth you were talking about

The inside track.

Always interesting to shake the tree and see what drops out.

kar999

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Another one who hasn't bothered to do their research. :wall:

....and another one who hasn't bothered to read the post properly which never mentioned the word both...... :whistle:

"the other ex-privately educated and/or millionaire champagne socialists".

From the Times in 2004 ...
DAVID MILIBAND, the schools minister, and his brother Ed, the chancellor’s economic adviser, are set to avoid paying thousands of pounds in tax through an Inland Revenue loophole which the Labour party pledged to close.
The brothers, Labour’s rising stars, are poised to benefit after their family set up a scheme to share ownership of the family’s £1.3m townhouse in north London which was sold recently.

lowlylittlecog

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I am retired and spend quite a long time each day with Parliament Live on as a default TV channel. What I see is Politicians - particularly from the Labour front benches - demonising their opponents. When someone like Andy Burnham sneers in Parliament at an article that Mrs Gove (unsure if this is Michael Gove's wife or mother?) wrote, then that is just slimy.

It's the politicians themselves who have instigated these personal attacks.

When you see Alistair Campbell (I know he's not an actual politician, but he is political) shouting down Simon Hughes on Questiontime about the closure of a local maternity ward ("But are you going to be opening the maternity ward") when it was actually closed by Labour, then it's unethical and self-serving.

I cannot remember every incident, but every day I see Labour politicians passionately claiming that the Coalition is doing the wrong thing when they had undertaken to get rid of the deficit within 7 years versus the coalition's 5 years. It is clear that if Labour were in power, they would have to take very similar difficult decisions, yet they denigrate the coalition's attempt to bring the Country under some kind of fiscal control.

I am not essentially right or left wing - very much a floating voter, but the more I watch of Parliament Live and Questiontime, the more I see Labour as liars, slimy, and self-serving.

I really don't see that disgruntled Labour politicians attacking their opposite numbers means anything in the wider scheme of things.

The Tories spent their election campaign saying one thing and are now assuredly doing another. The Liberals championed the abolition of university fees until, oh dear, we really didn't mean it. Those things are more important to me than whether somebody says nasty things to their opposite number in Parliament.

There's no difference between the majority of politicians, whatever party they're in. Most are in it for themselves, (with some honourable exceptions, Frank Field comes to mind), and if Labour gets up your nose with personal attacks and you think the Coalition is nice because they only say soothing things, do not make the mistake of thinking that means that they care for anybody but themselves. Ed Balls is a case in point. He might be a charming man in private, but what on Earth would be the point of not being charming? Nobody would vote for you. He's in it for himself.

Oh, incidentally, the person who brought up the no doubt accurate story about Balls and his missus flipping properties; perhaps you should look at the current Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did much the same thing and is still in office telling everybody to tighten their belts.

23rdian

Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper had both of their homes covered by second home allowances as they took one house each.

So What you say?