Who would we actually like as a leader?
Discussion
I read (and occasionally contribute to) threads here where the various negatives of leaders, political or otherwise, are voiced. There s plenty of disdain for Starmer, Badenoch, Johnson, Sunak, Farage, Corbyn and others (and rightly so in many cases) but there s never much discussion about who we WOULD like, or at least rate, as a leader.
For me, it s someone who has intellect, is fundamentally decent, statesmanlike and authoritative. Crucially they must also have been successful in their field - no career politicians for me.
Obama is perhaps the de-facto answer, but I have time for Mark Carney who has had a long and successful career before moving into politics. I wonder if Branson would be a good choice.
I do worry that fundamentally, simply wanting to be PM is enough of a reason to make someone unsuitable. But aside of that, who is your pick?
For me, it s someone who has intellect, is fundamentally decent, statesmanlike and authoritative. Crucially they must also have been successful in their field - no career politicians for me.
Obama is perhaps the de-facto answer, but I have time for Mark Carney who has had a long and successful career before moving into politics. I wonder if Branson would be a good choice.
I do worry that fundamentally, simply wanting to be PM is enough of a reason to make someone unsuitable. But aside of that, who is your pick?
Starmer seemed to fit the bill. After the mayhem at the end of the Tory tenure he seemed just the palate cleanser. Someone who'd risen to high position outside politics. Dull, dependable and stable. And he knew how to do things better because he'd been telling us so for years.
Well, so much for appearances.
Well, so much for appearances.
miniman said:
For me, it s someone who has intellect, is fundamentally decent, statesmanlike and authoritative. Crucially they must also have been successful in their field - no career politicians for me.
And that is the problem.Anyone with those qualities would not consider a career in politics. It's a hiding to nothing.
That's why you only have two types of politician now; The independently wealthy (who do it for a giggle) or the terminally dense (who do it because they could never hope to earn 90 washers a year, let alone £90k a year in any other job).
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would steer well clear.
Obama was a terrible leader, he did nothing, largely caused ISIS to rise caused the Ukraine war and created the worst of all worlds healthcare. If anything he symbolised what is going wrong with the west.
Jim Radcliffe would be a massive upgrade on the clowns we currently have. (This is not related to the current controversy.
Jim Radcliffe would be a massive upgrade on the clowns we currently have. (This is not related to the current controversy.
Randy Winkman said:
Nice bloke above. I dont really watch him much on TV but would Martin Lewis the money "expert" be any good?
All he does is regurgitate stuff he's read on the internet.He must wake up and wonder how on earth he got to where he is by simply telling people that rains makes you wet and it's a good idea to wipe your arse after you have had a dump.
snuffy said:
Randy Winkman said:
Nice bloke above. I dont really watch him much on TV but would Martin Lewis the money "expert" be any good?
All he does is regurgitate stuff he's read on the internet.He must wake up and wonder how on earth he got to where he is by simply telling people that rains makes you wet and it's a good idea to wipe your arse after you have had a dump.
swisstoni said:
Starmer seemed to fit the bill. After the mayhem at the end of the Tory tenure he seemed just the palate cleanser. Someone who'd risen to high position outside politics. Dull, dependable and stable. And he knew how to do things better because he'd been telling us so for years.
Well, so much for appearances.
It doesn't really matter who leads Labour, as the makeup of the party will saddle them with brain dead Union stooges in too many key positions.Well, so much for appearances.
Was thinking about this the other day. In my opinion, the country needs to basically be run as a business, a full audit carried out. Income and outcome looked at. Huge reduction in waste. A few unpleasant decisions made. The absolute state this country is in now will just lead to its collapse and that will benefit nobody.
Unfortunately, even if the right person did turn up to try and run the country, they would just be shouted down and blocked from putting the policies needed into place either by members of their own party or just the shouting minority in the media and on social media.
Unfortunately, even if the right person did turn up to try and run the country, they would just be shouted down and blocked from putting the policies needed into place either by members of their own party or just the shouting minority in the media and on social media.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff