View previous topic | View next topic

Ambition

Page 4 of 12
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

Alfred E Neuman
1315331.  Sun Mar 03, 2019 1:52 pm Reply with quote

Dix wrote:
Arguing about an opinion that you think someone holds leads to nowhere. The thing to do is to start with something like "you wrote xxx, I think it means yyy, could you please clarify" before you start attacking the yyy position.

There are unfortunately those who will do everything they can to avoid answering a request for clarification, because they are only here to troll.

 
GuyBarry
1315339.  Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:12 pm Reply with quote

@PDR: You've got the wrong end of the stick, sorry. I'll try to explain again later.

@barbados: Stop trolling.

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
GuyBarry wrote:
It seems quite reasonable to aspire to be a politician, or even an MP (if you can find a safe seat). But if you want to become Prime Minister you're at the mercy of all sorts of political factors which are simply outside your control.

Iím not sure how you believe that someone becomes the Prime Minister. Itís not by being a very good MP and making sure that there are no potholes in your constituency, itís about positioning yourself in the right place so that when an opportunity to advance within the ranks of your chosen party presents itself, youíre ready to grab it and climb the ladder.


Yes, absolutely.

Quote:
You very much have to have being the PM as your ambition or you will never be in that position. The fact that many others have the same ambition doesnít mean that you should just shrug and mooch along because itís statistically unlikely.


Sure. But I don't think that developing an ambition to be PM is healthy when you're 18 years old. When you're an MP, after a few years' service, that's a different matter. But if there are people leaving school who want to become a constituency MP purely so that they can put themselves in a position to be PM at some stage in the future, that seems entirely cynical to me. You should become an MP because you want to serve your constituents, not because you want to become Prime Minister later on.

 
barbados
1315342.  Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:29 pm Reply with quote

Hmmmm???
barbados wrote:
GuyBarry wrote:
PDR wrote:
We're not going to agree on this, Guy. It seems to me that you are more intent on telling people what they are allowed to aspire to, because they don't know whether they are suitable but apparently you do.


Where on earth did I say that? I dunno, people read some funny things into my posts.

here
Or did you mean something else when you said
Quote:
Why kid your pupils into thinking that they can do something that almost certainly won't happen?


GuyBarry wrote:


@barbados: Stop trolling.



Alfred E Neuman wrote:

There are unfortunately those who will do everything they can to avoid answering a request for clarification, because they are only here to troll.

 
franticllama
1315348.  Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:00 pm Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:

Sure. But I don't think that developing an ambition to be PM is healthy when you're 18 years old. When you're an MP, after a few years' service, that's a different matter. But if there are people leaving school who want to become a constituency MP purely so that they can put themselves in a position to be PM at some stage in the future, that seems entirely cynical to me. You should become an MP because you want to serve your constituents, not because you want to become Prime Minister later on.


Are the two things mutually exclusive?*
I can foresee someone leaving school today wanting to serve their constituents and believe that in doing so, they can become PM at some point.

*The current state of politics notwithstanding

 
barbados
1315349.  Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:13 pm Reply with quote

Is it worth mentioning William Hague?
Someone was had his eye on a certain Mrs Thatcher's job at 16.
While only getting half way in his aim, he was certainly driven by the ambition.

 
PDR
1315353.  Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:19 pm Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
@PDR: You've got the wrong end of the stick, sorry. I'll try to explain again later.


Don't bother. It's clear that you have no intention of trying to discuss the matter so there is little point in wasting bandwidth on it.

PDR

 
GuyBarry
1315364.  Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:05 pm Reply with quote

franticllama wrote:
GuyBarry wrote:

You should become an MP because you want to serve your constituents, not because you want to become Prime Minister later on.


Are the two things mutually exclusive?*
I can foresee someone leaving school today wanting to serve their constituents and believe that in doing so, they can become PM at some point.


Oh, so can I. In fact I can think of a couple of real-life examples.

The day after Tony Blair stood down as PM in 2007, he quit as MP for Sedgefield. Similarly in 2016 David Cameron stood down as PM after losing the referendum (having previously said he wouldn't), then resigned his seat in Witney shortly afterwards. No other retiring PM in my lifetime has done so; the custom has always been to return to the backbenches.

If I had been a constituent of Tony Blair's in 2007 or of David Cameron's in 2016, I would have felt hugely let down. People elect an MP to serve them for the entire parliamentary term. It's quite clear that both these men were primarily driven by personal ambition and not by a desire to serve their constituents. Tony Blair went off to make himself incredibly rich; David Cameron already was incredibly rich and went off to make himself even richer. I think it's safe to say that neither of them is held in particularly high esteem by the British public any more.

Quote:
*The current state of politics notwithstanding


Your footnote is quite telling. Don't you think that the current state of politics is, to a considerable extent, caused by the fact that there are so many politicians driven by personal ambition rather than a desire to serve the people who elected them?

To be Prime Minister should not be an ambition. It should be an honour.

 
GuyBarry
1315365.  Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:08 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:

Don't bother. It's clear that you have no intention of trying to discuss the matter so there is little point in wasting bandwidth on it.


I think we're simply at cross-purposes. I'm talking specifically about political ambition. You're talking about ambition more generally. I'm in agreement with most of what you say otherwise.

 
barbados
1315369.  Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:33 am Reply with quote

I think the difference between the two ambitions Pete is one is driven the other is desired.
Your friend the pilot thought it would be great to fly planes, and decided at an early age the sort of plane he wanted to fly in a kind of romantic notion. As with that kind of thing, your ideas of what is "romantic" changes as you get older, you your goalposts move. Your oncologist freind however was driven by the desire to fix the thing that hurt the most, had her mother(?) died of a heart attack, she probably would have opted for cardiology. Of course we will never be able to prove it because it didn't happen that way, but I'm pretty certain we can call it that way from what you said.
There are two different kinds of ambition, and there is no reason not to encourage either.

 
PDR
1315370.  Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:29 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
PDR wrote:

Don't bother. It's clear that you have no intention of trying to discuss the matter so there is little point in wasting bandwidth on it.


I think we're simply at cross-purposes. I'm talking specifically about political ambition. You're talking about ambition more generally. I'm in agreement with most of what you say otherwise.


So you are suggesting that being a Mars astronaut is a political ambition?

PDR

 
tetsabb
1315381.  Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:05 am Reply with quote

Could we send the PM to Mars?

 
'yorz
1315386.  Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:12 am Reply with quote

Should we start crowdfunding to that purpose?

 
PDR
1315390.  Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:39 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:

If I had been a constituent of Tony Blair's in 2007 [...] I would have felt hugely let down. People elect an MP to serve them for the entire parliamentary term.


Again, in the case of Blair - if you'd been payoing attention you would have had no grounds for being "let down" (hugely or otherwise). Forstly he had made it plain before and during the campaign that he would stand down and hand over to Gordon during that term, and had no intention of ever serving the full term. Secondly had he just "retired" to the back benches he would have become a non-effective MP due to the convention that a retired PM doesn't heckle or gain-say his/her replacement. But by actually resigning his seat he gave his constituents the opportunity to0 elect a new, fully-effective MP. So this claim doesn't really stand up. The logical corrolary of this claim is that no MP should ever be allowed to resign mid-term, which is clearly bollox because employment contracts with those sorts of terms are illegal - it's called "slavery" even when it's time-limited. Everyone, no matter what the job, has the right to give notice and quit - MPs shouldn't be any different.

Quote:
It's quite clear that both these men were primarily driven by personal ambition and not by a desire to serve their constituents.


I can't speak for Camoron, but having actually met and talked to Blair (when he was building his grass-roots party profile in the 80s) I would have to disagree. he could have earned much more continuing as a barrister (his wife almost always earned more than he did), but he aspired to high office because he felt there was much wrong with our society that needed fixing, and there was much wrong with the labour party that had to be fixed before it could fix society. That's what drove him. Blair was very much a man on a mission, but the mission wasn't personal agrandisement, wealth aquisition or just megalomania AFIACS. Being in the role just attracted hecklers - most of whom hadn't a clue what they were talking about*. It would be my view, based on what I observed, that he always did what he did for what he perceived to be the best of reasons. That it came out badly in some cases would be evident only in hindsight.

Quote:

Tony Blair went off to make himself incredibly rich; David Cameron already was incredibly rich and went off to make himself even richer. I think it's safe to say that neither of them is held in particularly high esteem by the British public any more.


Well envy politics is common amongst the non-achievers who wallow in self pity rather than taking responsibility for their own destiny. Such people should be pitied, but not much else because they atre takers who refuse to contribute.

PDR

* mostly single-issue campaigners who focused on their one issue and refused to consider the effects on society, or the economy, as a whole and so can be safely ignored on the basis that they are complete brainless fruitcakes

 
PDR
1315391.  Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:41 am Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:
Should we start crowdfunding to that purpose?


Shouldn't we take responsibility for clearing up our own mess rather than just dumping it on Mars?

Besides, she's not a Martian national and I doubt they'd give her a visa.

PDR

 
PDR
1315392.  Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:47 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
I think the difference between the two ambitions Pete is one is driven the other is desired.
Your friend the pilot thought it would be great to fly planes, and decided at an early age the sort of plane he wanted to fly in a kind of romantic notion. As with that kind of thing, your ideas of what is "romantic" changes as you get older, you your goalposts move. Your oncologist freind however was driven by the desire to fix the thing that hurt the most, had her mother(?) died of a heart attack, she probably would have opted for cardiology. Of course we will never be able to prove it because it didn't happen that way, but I'm pretty certain we can call it that way from what you said.
There are two different kinds of ambition, and there is no reason not to encourage either.


We're probably agreeing here - I would classify them as one case of seeking something for themselves and the other of seeking something for others, but yes - they are both types of ambition. I did once ask Jenna what she'd have done had she found she couldn't do oncology and she said "either Geriatrics or General Practice, depending on what doors were unlocked at the time". I don't think she'd have regarded either as a failure.

PDR

 

Page 4 of 12
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group