Mister M Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Which is a good thing. The ideal Prime Minister should be one who has received the best education possible and has connections with big businesses so he can have some influence on how they affect the economy. You wouldn't employ an uneducated, unqualified candidate in any other area of life, so why would we want a thick working class chav as prime minister instead? But the best education for a Prime Minister isn't necessarily one that money can buy. Of course people who have been through the schooling that Cameron (and others before him) has had tend to have tremendous self confidence. And you're right, having this type of education means that you more likely to have connections to others in similar fortunate circumstances (look at how many other Etonians there are in his cabinet). However having connections with big business opens up possibilities of conflicts of interest, and corruption. Your statement about "thick working class chav" as Prime Misisters says everything about you not the ability of someone who hasn't had the best education money can buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stepman Posted October 27, 2011 Author Share Posted October 27, 2011 But the best education for a Prime Minister isn't necessarily one that money can buy. Of course people who have been through the schooling that Cameron (and others before him) has had tend to have tremendous self confidence. And you're right, having this type of education means that you more likely to have connections to others in similar fortunate circumstances (look at how many other Etonians there are in his cabinet). However having connections with big business opens up possibilities of conflicts of interest, and corruption. Your statement about "thick working class chav" as Prime Misisters says everything about you not the ability of someone who hasn't had the best education money can buy. What a lovely subtle twist at the end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Cameron is controlled by the bankers. Are you sure that you don't mean the Jews? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stepman Posted October 27, 2011 Author Share Posted October 27, 2011 Are you sure that you don't mean the Jews? Same thing INNIT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Well if you know your history, yea, the way you put it, it is kind of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Same thing INNIT. Are you one of those freaks with a Jew problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampersand Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 The then present government should have remained in power until another party gets an overall majority. It is the only fair way to do it. That should not be the case now that this unelected government is in however. The problem with that is that Parliament had been dissolved to enable the election to take place - on the day of the General Election we don't technically have a Government - The country is run by the civil servants using existing policy until a new Government takes over If I remember correctly Belgium recently went over a year without a Government as the main parties couldn't agree on a coalition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 I would sooner have someone who was well educated but from a non priveleged background. Someone who knows what it is like to have to get a job and a mortgage etc. Someone who understands real life rather than someone who was property speculating with taxpayers money like Cameron was . How did you feel when Blair was PM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 The then present government should have remained in power until another party gets an overall majority. It is the only fair way to do it. That should not be the case now that this unelected government is in however. They got less seats than the Tories....why should they stay in? Genuine question.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 About as many people voted for the Conservatives in 2010 as voted for Labour in their landslide of 1997. If anything, it seems unfair on the Conservatives and the majority that voted for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.