EU - I'm in a quandary

I suggest the in lot put their paper up and I put mine up then the undecided can read both and see which one has been the most truthful during this last few months
www.express.co.uk/news

practical where. Is the evidence of Cameron pushing for Turkey to be admitted now? Each time it has been mentioned he has said how it will be at least ten years before Turkey will be fit to join and even then it may well not happen. Just like the leaked papers' supposedly show Merkel wishes to give them all visas ! All untrue.

I saw another report that the civil servants in London saw what a fool Boris was so they ran London and he was just the figure head.

If we vote out and then the taxes go up and there are cuts and Osborne had said nothing he would still be castigated for not warning people. Alistair Darling is also of the same opinion as Osborne - it stands to reason that if there is a downturn and less taxes are received then cuts will be needed and taxes raised - money does not grow on trees. But most Brexiters seem to think that it will be worth a couple of years of pain to be out of the EU.

Where's your evidence that Cameron is pushing for Turkey to enter the EU now?

More scaremongering! Talk of 'spite' and 'rich boys' is childish.

This should never have been about a Conservative Party squabble. This is about something far more important. In 30 or so years, Cameron, Osborne and Johnson will be history, but the UK will still be living with the consequences of this referendum.

The financial markets have already reacted to fears of BREXIT and it's quite likely that the situation will get worse. Millions has already been taken out of the stock market and the pound is falling against other countries. How do you suggest the government plugs the black hole?

whitewave welsh he echoes my opinion of Johnson exactly. Well in 10 days time we will know. Just watch him manoeuvre and manipulate.
When we come to manoeuvre and manipulate he got a long way to go before he matches Cameron and Osborne who are now being spiteful because they are not getting what they want.
Osborne going to put tax up and all he can throw at us if we don't do as he wants, Cameron is pushing for Turkey to get in the eu NOW, and to sack May because she wont advise staying in. The spite of these rich boy's when they don't get what they want is unbelievable.

The curse of party politics gone mad - be a yes man or leave.

The Peter principle

Ww,

So have I! However, it's as much to do with personality as education or background. Over the years, I have sometimes been totally gobsmacked by some appointments to senior roles. I am firmly convinced that a successful organisation depends as much as anything on the layer below leadership. A good leader is wise and delegates to people who know what they're doing and can accept constructive criticism. I fear that what we're witnessing (and have witnessed) are governments with an ideological message, who don't listen to 'experts' and only appoint 'yes' men and women.

I have worked with a couple of people like you describe - muggins did the hard graft and they took the praise!

An essential "don't" was somehow missed out in that post - "those who have only that gift don't stay there for long."

The gift of the gab has got many people into a job. When they get there, any lack of actual ability to do it becomes clear so those who have only that gift stay there for long. You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Those who do have the ability to do what the job requires also have to have the ability to write convincing essays and theses to get any paper qualifications needed, and the confidence to succeed at interviews so as to be hired.

Elegran I just found the whole article fascinating how these different skills were encouraged at a young age and then built on so successfully by these people.

I agree with your last comment, DD It is relevant to the "supply of candidates who know what is what and which things matter" problem, and is not confined to any one party. There is so much spinning and counterspinning going on that the milk in the canteens at Westminster must be turning into butter.

Welshwife I suspect it may not be a direct result of the school, but a combination of various factors.

"Why are these people at Eton to start with?
Because their parents have the money to send them.
Because their parents went there and it is a family tradition.

"Why did their parents have the money?"
Because they inherited it from wealthy ancestors.
Because they are successful business people or entrepreneurs.
Because they are/were successful politicians/courtiers.

"What made the parents successful or their ancestors wealthy?"
Drive, initiative, enterprise, decisiveness, a degree of ruthlessness.

"What characteristics do the pupils inherit?"
All those their parents show.

" What characteristics do the pupils see are valued by their familes and peers?"
See answers to the previous two questions.

"What characteristics does a successful politician need"
See answers to the previous three questions.

But they will still need to understand the nuts and bolts of the economy and society and how to fit ALL sections of the country to work together and not all pull in different directions. Being electable is not enough, they need to be able to do something constructive once elected.

Traditionally, that was the role of the Civil Service, who would advise Government ministers on what was achievable (apparently it was a bit like 'Yes Minister' ). These days politicians employ special advisers, who don't have the breadth of knowledge of senior civil servants and are paid to find a way of making ideologies work. Civil Service top appointments have also become political.

Leadership has become dependent on spin and oratory and highly partisan. It is driven more by keeping a political party in power than making decisions which are the best of many options for the good of the country.

Sorry, this OTT - back to the op...

welsh he echoes my opinion of Johnson exactly. Well in 10 days time we will know. Just watch him manoeuvre and manipulate. Not sure he's got the Commons though. It is the Tory Shires he will court.

ww, I think you mean the 'grandes écoles', which are very generously funded by public funds are are highly competitive. Although they're free for the students, that doesn't mean that parents haven't spent money on extra tuition and activities (such as spending time abroad to learn a language) for their offspring to attend them.

I will say it again - you don't get more diversity by stifling one source of it, you get it by encouraging other sources.

Can I refer anyone who thinks I was saying that Eton turns out the only people in the country who are "suitable" for a post in government read my posts again. I was advocating having more and more people aware that they are suitable, and capable of running a country and having expectations that they can do it. There may still be only a small percentage who actually want to, but it would be from a wider pool. I still don't see where the elitist bit applies to what I posted.

At 11:22:15 I compared Westminster/cabinet to Wimbledon. Neither of these Ws are single hurdles to be leapt over in one jump on leaving school (any school) They are both parts of a system of tiers. Tennis players win tiers of contests, until they are on the centre court contesting the chamionship. MPs are selected by constituancy committees and then again by the votes of the public. If they reach Parliament, they may be selected to take more responsibility and subsequently to lead a party and so on to become PM of a government in power.

Somewhere I said " Leadership is specifically taught in public schools, but the ability to lead is innate in many people. However, it flowers better if nurtured. I did not say that ONLY one type of schooling breeds leaders. There are state schools which do, but there is no overall policy to develop future leaders of society." If they are missing out because (to continue the tennis analogy) they know the strokes but not how to win a game, then then they need to learn that! If it a skill necessary to get elected, then it will help them get elected to develop it.

But they will still need to understand the nuts and bolts of the economy and society and how to fit ALL sections of the country to work together and not all pull in different directions. Being electable is not enough, they need to be able to do something constructive once elected. Class warfare is bad, from whichever angle - and I read a great deal on here about one version of it. There are more shades of prejudice than one, and more parts of the jigsaw than the straight edges that make the headlines.

I thought that it might just explain why so many politicians came from the same school when as has been pointed it it is disproportionate to the number of children in school or even Private/Pubic schools.
Questions had been put as to how these children were trained to be leaders etc.

So?

gu.com/p/4hqxc/sbl

This explains a little as to how Eton works.

Perhaps there wouldn't have been war in the Balkans, mass genovide, ethnic cleansing, etc. if they had a trade deal or were in the Euro?

Interesting thought

Your mum's got a good point there whitewave. A very good point.

Was there ever a suggestion in elegran's posts, whitewave, that she thought those Eton schoolboys who were 'trained' to be leaders in running the country were, by definition, "suitable"? Or did she just imply that they got the jobs because they expected to, because they were brought up to expect it, because they were trained for it, and because of advatageous 'links' to various people?

My impression is that she was just describing what is, not passing judgment on whether this system is sacrosanct.

Good post Seaside.

Poor Jeremy.