Sports Vs Politics.

[padi56]

One of the few occupations where one actually has to be talented to succeed is sport, take cricket for instance, a game where one has to have a certain amount of ability to avoid being decapitated by a missile projected toward one at circa 90 mph. Even with football, one has to have a reasonable 20-20 vision in order to be able to see the goalposts which one is attempting to aim one's silly little ball between.

One also has to maintain a reasonable degree of personal fitness to continue eking out a living in one's chosen sport. Why even those projectionists of arrows, perhaps more affectionately known as darts players have forsaken their pints of lager when participating in their finely honed game. Although they still sport the traditional beer gut, I guess old habits die hard on the pub circuits.

Unfortunately the above doctrine doesn't necessarily apply to all vacations, take for instance politics. Where its more a case of who you know , as opposed to what you know . Politics is perhaps the only occupation on this planet, where incompetence is rewarded, and the only required qualification for entry into this elite club. Is attending public school, fronting up a union, being a failed lawyer, or in the odd instance, a jobs-worth council official.

Once admitted to this elite club, one is assured of a meal ticket for life. And even if the electorate decide that one is well past one's sell by date, one is assured of promotion by one's superiors. Whose ars#, one has been wiping for the past ten years. In fact, the bigger the fek up or total loss of confidence shown by the electorate, the greater the reward. In the good old colonial days one could be expected to make governor of Hong Kong, or at the very least, Lord chief justice. Contrast this with a premier league goalkeeper, how long would he survive after letting in a 100 goals in a game?, or a leg spin bowler who had allowed an Aussie batsman to score a double hundred off half a dozen overs of wannabe Shane Warne overs?

To be successful at sport, one has to perform well to survive, and by default is beholden on the publics continued voluntary sponsorship. Whereas politicos are accorded mandatory sponsorship with little or no competition. Even their audience are hand picked stooges with idiot cue cards, or in the case of the inner sanctum of the House of commons, a few heavily vetted spectators, closely guarded by armed custodians of justice. If a footballer or cricketer has a particularly bad game, he doesn't have the luxury of embedded journalists or team mates touring the TV stations, to convince the fans that he had an inspirational game. Or for that matter that history or god would judge his performance as being up there with the Bradmans, Peles, et all in a hundred yrs. time.

Perhaps if there were more spectator participation in politics, we would receive better representation, or at the very least less smashed TV screens. Picture the scenario at PM's question time, there we have Blair and his cronies on the pitch surrounded by a 100,000 drunken fans, who had travelled up for the grandiose penalty shoot out. Blair gets up to speak and is immediately pelted with everything from rotten apples to room clearer pellets, the rest of his team scrabbling to seek refuge under the benches to escape getting caught up in the shrapnel. And the opposition struggling to get into their asbestos suits as the anthrax rains down on them. The deafening roar of thousands of fans shouting, Boo, get 'em orf ref, gis our money back, 'ave his legs, send that black b@st@rd back to the jungle, etc, etc.

The entire area of Westminster would be under siege with rioting Millwall constituents running amok, those who had travelled down from Scotland displaying placards reading 'we wuz robbed' before disappearing through off licence windows, etc, etc, etc. not to mention stereo type males menacingly waving copies of the Sun whilst in advanced states of pregnancy and demanding refunds on their season tickets. The bare chested union jack brigade would be in full chorus with 'We'd rather have a monkey than a Blair'. And the Women's institute would be weighing in by peppering the exit areas with home made buns left over from the Queen's coronation. The politicians are always calling for greater public participation in our much cherished democracy. So maybe if any are reading this, perhaps they will come to the conclusion. That this may be the way forward to achieve, a resurrection of public interest, in their much maligned profession.

[Launch Mini]

What I say about politicians is simple...
You do not get the best possible candidates. If you are smart enough to get into politics, you are smart enough NOT to get into politics.

[dman]

Originally Posted by Launch Mini

What I say about politicians is simple...
You do not get the best possible candidates. If you are smart enough to get into politics, you are smart enough NOT to get into politics.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Launch Mini

What I say about politicians is simple...
You do not get the best possible candidates. If you are smart enough to get into politics, you are smart enough NOT to get into politics.

Thats so so, very, very very true.

Originally Posted by Launch Mini

What I say about politicians is simple...
You do not get the best possible candidates. If you are smart enough to get into politics, you are smart enough NOT to get into politics.

Since I work with politicos every day and have for the past seven years... I can honestly say that no truer statement has ever been made on this forum.