Men of the People?
13 May 2010
10 comments:
Mr Pudding welcomes all genuine comments - even those with which he disagrees. However, puerile or abusive comments from anonymous contributors will continue to be given the short shrift they deserve. Any spam comments that get through Google/Blogger defences will also be quickly deleted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most Visits
-
Last night, we lay down on sunbeds and watched Mrs Moon rise like a tangerine over The Aegean Sea. To capture the beauty of the scene fa... -
Chavs being chavvish. Just the other day, I spotted a male "chav" down by the local Methodist church. He was wearing a Burberrry ... -
So there I was standing in the kitchen of our son's terraced house. Something caught my eye outside in his little urban garden. It was a...
Another reason not to return to Blighty.
ReplyDeleteBOOBS No! Two reasons.
ReplyDeleteMy Anglo-awareness is functioning just enough to be able to discern from across the pond that these two fellows, whoever they are, are not considered "of the people" because they attended Cambridge and Oxford. Is that right?
ReplyDeleteOur own government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people" (according to Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address), but we certainly have our share of Ivy-League-educated millionaires in our Senate and House of Representatives, not to mention in our Oval Office. Mr. Obama is a Harvard graduate, as was John F. Kennedy. Both Bushes were Yale graduates. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar.
So what are you saying exactly? We shouldn't want our leaders to have the best education possible?
RHYMES An interesting response. In the case of our new twin leaders, it's not so much the education that bothers me, more their privileged upbringings. In the modern world, I would prefer leaders from more humble origins who have known what it is to battle for education and success. From a distance, I see Mr Obama as one such leader. He wasn't born to be Harvard, he had to fight against the odds to get there.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, YP; in order to truly empathise with the needs of the majority, there has to be some point of recognition of the problems and I fear that in the main, Cameron and Clegg do not have that. Whilst I will concede that no one knows what goes on behind somebody else's door and certainly Cameron has known personal grief, they have not, by nature of their ubringing had to ever consider how to feed their children, the indignities, hurts and degradations of unemployment, the postcode lotteries of schools and healthcare and so many other issues.
ReplyDeleteRobert, sociologists may wish to deny the fact and political correctness precludes us from uttering such things but here the class divide is very much alive and well. There is a huge chasm between those who live how they want to live and those who live according to how life dictates that they should live. That one group of people should be set in unelected rule over the others is wrong. With apologies to Wesley, 'No Con Dem nation now I dread.' x
I don't believe Messrs. Obama, Bush41, Bush43, Clinton, or Kennedy ever had to consider how to feed their children either. Obama was not quite as "privileged," but he played catch-up later.
ReplyDeleteIt all sounds like the green-eyed monster may have raised its ugly head.
That really is an American speaking.
ReplyDeleteYou'll be telling us Willy Loman survives the suicide and returns in the shower years later as a philanthropic billionaire next...
A good education is one thing, but going to Eton and so on is another!
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think there are probably no politicians nowadays who realise what the real world is like for the vast majority of the people - I would extend this beyond Tories and Cleggies, to 99% of MPs ... they seem to live on another planet as is often seen through their actions!
Luckily I'm out of the country and am taking the "a change is as good as a rest" outlook - especially as the change won't affect me :)
No Robert, it isn't the green eyed monster.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to explain because the psyche of the American people is very different to that of the English. I shall continue to uphold whatever government is in power because my position decrees that I do that, but, within the church we also have a duty to stand up for what is fair and good for all people.
I don't know whether you saw the footage of Gordon Brown leaving No 10 - a man who by his own admission has made mistakes as we all have; both he and his wife looked gaunt and ill. It was heart-breaking to see. Part of their inadequacy to deal with the situation was that they hadn't been schooled in how to present themselves, how to appear ultra-confident and how to suppress natural body language. It was evident in their dress, their language and their whole persona. They simply spoke from who they were and had a heart for real people - as so many of their ilk before them.
I have spoken to a lot of MP's before, during and after the election, prayed with some and hugged others and there is a deep sense of bewilderment and distrust, that covers all parties, at the way this has been precipitated and brought about. Perhaps in an American system, such irregularities would simply be swallowed up as 'one of those things', but on a tiny island like Great Britain, they impact greatly and the repercussions and hurts will cut deep for many years to come. And I've said too much. x
No green-eyed monster in my heart Robert. Shirley and I are comfortable as are our children. We are happy with our lives and proud to be English. What bothers me is the ordinary working people. Cameron has already condescendingly referred to them as "the poor". Historically there was a time when our country was always governed by the privileged classes but we seemed to have moved on. Another interesting and worrying point is that only 10% of the new ministerial team are women. Labour had flung open many more doors for capable women and the balance was much healthier.
ReplyDelete