Quote:
Originally Posted by Less
Only Curious but, how old was Churchill when he took on his rather responsible task?
Surely it shouldn't be about age, it should be about ability, the man for the job, there at the right time and able to carry the work through no matter what.
Earlier in his life he made monumental mistakes but when needed he seemed to manage o.k.
It should not be a question of age as much as capability for doing the job, the 59 year old that people are thinking about isn't capable of much responsibility, there again neither am I.
At least I know it.
 |
You are quite right Less, it should be about ability, but the question that Gayle posed for us was 'What is the optimum age to stand for parliament'.........that being the question, I had taken that the ability to do the job was a 'given'.
I don't know what age Churchill was........from what I remember of him he always looked like my grandad........the the arena of politics has changed beyond all recognition since his day......and I wonder how he would have coped in the current political situation.
I think that a good candidate should have gained life experience, and ideally should live in the area that he represents.....I would even say that he /she should have been brought up in the area or have strong family links to the area......and although I would want my candidate to have enough years under their belt to have gained life experience, I would want them to be young enough not to alienate the younger voters by rigid attitudes.......outmoded ideas......lastly I would want a candidate that had a good work ethic and integrity........who wouldn't be bleating(like Kitty Ussher) 'I did nothing wrong'.
I think this is a pretty straighforward wish list of attributes.....now whether it is achievable is another question altogether.