Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    If it wasn't a bad egg move on his part then ask yourself why his relationship has been all but destroyed with his brother and his mother isn't speaking to either of them.

    It would be naive to believe that he ran for the leadership and broke his family apart in the process primarily out of anything but motivations for personal advancement. It is not in the nature of a human being to put yourself through so much stress and sacrifice so much time, energy, hair, relationships... anywhere near primarily out of a concern for other people's living standards when everyone concerned is fundamentally OK.
    "Hair" Had me laughing far too much.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Although it was a bit pathetic the way DM immediately hit on his brother, I mean, even if he meant it politically and not personally, his sense of timing wasn't exactly great. A nasty interpretation is that he's a bit of a **** and they were better off with Ed, even though Ed lacks his skills on camera.
    Ed balls loosing his seat was probably good for Labour in the long run.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    He was my favourite after Jarvis. FFS we're gonna get a leftist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why doesn't he run for leader in some Africa slum along with Dianne Abbot
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    It's not even time for policies. That's in July.

    Of course the media will focus on personality .. sometimes you have to vote out of personality because I wouldn't want an annoying undiplomatic person as a prime minister talking to putin and waging a war of words..

    Sometimes personality is important.
    The policies was more of a general point. As for personality I was arguing that it is more rewarding to judge a person by how they deliver and defend their point of view when under scrutiny rather than being harassed over petty things that is more to do with entertainment.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordGaben)
    The policies was more of a general point. As for personality I was arguing that it is more rewarding to judge a person by how they deliver and defend their point of view when under scrutiny rather than being harassed over petty things that is more to do with entertainment.
    Would you like a midget Prime Ministerial Candidate who watches child porn every Saturday and has four wives hidden at home?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    Would you like a midget Prime Ministerial Candidate who watches child porn every Saturday and has four wives hidden at home?
    I think security/criminal background checks on candidates is a different matter to what I am talking about
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordGaben)
    I think security/criminal background checks on candidates is a different matter to what I am talking about
    What about a transsexual Prime Minister? That's not illegal.

    Most people wouldn't want to be represented by one.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    What about a transsexual Prime Minister? That's not illegal.

    Most people wouldn't want to be represented by one.
    Well that's more of an issue within the party itself on whether they want to elect this person to be their leader. If this transexual candidate isn't representative they won't be elected. Nothing really to do with the media. It is abit unfair to say most people won't want to be represented by this person. UK is quite a tolerant place. Internationally we might have a problem.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordGaben)
    Well that's more of an issue within the party itself on whether they want to elect this person to be their leader. If this transexual candidate isn't representative they won't be elected. Nothing really to do with the media. It is abit unfair to say most people won't want to be represented by this person. UK is quite a tolerant place. Internationally we might have a problem.
    No, I think it's quite safe to say most people wouldn't want a transsexual PM.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    No, I think it's quite safe to say most people wouldn't want a transsexual PM.
    I personally wouldn't want one either but I'm not sure how others would respond. You are probably right but its not really related to my previous posts.
    This example is similar to the point I was trying to make:
    I could tell Ed Miliband wasn't a suitable leader by how he acted in the debates when he asked for everyone's name and awkwardly stared into the camera and by the fact that his policies were terrible. The number of kitchens he has or how he eats is pretty stupid. I do understand what you guys are saying about needing to find out their true character though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordGaben)
    I personally wouldn't want one either but I'm not sure how others would respond. You are probably right but its not really related to my previous posts.
    This example is similar to the point I was trying to make:
    I could tell Ed Miliband wasn't a suitable leader by how he acted in the debates when he asked for everyone's name and awkwardly stared into the camera and by the fact that his policies were terrible. The number of kitchens he has or how he eats is pretty stupid. I do understand what you guys are saying about needing to find out their true character though.
    No, I'm saying that I don't think most people would want a transsexual PM. I didn't mention my own opinion.

    If you think it is stupid how people concentrate on how he eats, why do you think the way he looked at the camera in the debates is evident of a man who is not a 'suitable leader'?

    And you've mistakenly lumped me in with the other posters on this thread - I couldn't care less what the PM's true character is. As long as he hides any Mr. Hyde- like characteristics and doesn't let them get in the way of his policy-making, I really don't care. What is genuinely important, though, is how he is perceived by those who work with him, including other world leaders. If he can't eat a sandwich, then sure he may cope just fine with running a government, but to assert that as an argument for the irrelevance of personal appearance is to ignore the more human side of politics, and a man who looks and acts clumsy will not be respected as much as someone who looks like a statesman.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    No, I'm saying that I don't think most people would want a transsexual PM. I didn't mention my own opinion.

    If you think it is stupid how people concentrate on how he eats, why do you think the way he looked at the camera in the debates is evident of a man who is not a 'suitable leader'?

    And you've mistakenly lumped me in with the other posters on this thread - I couldn't care less what the PM's true character is. As long as he hides any Mr. Hyde- like characteristics and doesn't let them get in the way of his policy-making, I really don't care. What is genuinely important, though, is how he is perceived by those who work with him, including other world leaders. If he can't eat a sandwich, then sure he may cope just fine with running a government, but to assert that as an argument for the irrelevance of personal appearance is to ignore the more human side of politics, and a man who looks and acts clumsy will not be respected as much as someone who looks like a statesman.
    I guess it goes back to the idea that he was perceived as strange and awkward. I was pointing out that you can get this impression by making a simple observation yourself, you don't need to intrude into his personal life to figure that out. The way he debated appeared very well rehearsed and not genuine.
    Character and personality is important when it links to how the PM acts under pressure, gets their point across to peers and comes to a final decision.
    Whilst I agree about with who would be respected more, I wouldn't consider the statesman to represent the 'human side' of politics but more the rehearsed, less genuine and polished side. As a leader that might be desirable when in government, it just irritates me in debates.
    What you said about some aspects of character not mattering if it is suppressed and not linked to policy-making is true and a point I raised in a previous post was about media intrusion into the personal life of politicians sometimes being more for the purpose to entertain. I originally said that leaders should be able to cope with this but shouldn't have to if the press are after irrelevant details and harassing family members.
    As for the transexual PM scenario, it depends on how this person would be perceived amongst international leaders in countries that might not be as tolerant as ours which concerns me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordGaben)
    As for the transexual PM scenario, it depends on how this person would be perceived amongst international leaders in countries that might not be as tolerant as ours which concerns me.
    I don't exactly remember Wurst winning the Eurovision last year as the peak of our tolerance, considering more than two million people switched off before he/she sang alone.

    Watching Gogglebox and what they said about Wurst would be a nice start, albeit not a representative one.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shawn_o1)
    would love to see a woman lead the Labour party full time
    The last time people thought like that, we created the devil.




    Maybe this time, we should judge a leader based on their qualities, and not what lies between their legs.
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    He was my favourite after Jarvis. FFS we're gonna get a leftist.
    Yvette's still in the running and she's firm right.

    Boring as hell but she gets my vote over Burnham, even if his makeup is always perfect.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Yvette's still in the running and she's firm right.

    Boring as hell but she gets my vote over Burnham, even if his makeup is always perfect.
    All of them left are boring. She gets my vote because Burnham wants to swing to the left ("beating heart of labour" is clearly code" and Liz is inexplicably annoying.

    Burnham's face does have an almost artificially handsome feel to it. Wasn't aware it was makeup lol.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    My mate keeps telling me that the only person who will get to lead Labour is someone who gets the Unite vote/union backing due to funding, internal politics etc. This was obviously the case back when Miliband won the leadership contest but do the Labourites on here agree it is the same now?

    Or has the party learnt their lesson and moved on?

    Earnest question here btw.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 16, 2015

2,856

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.