aibu to wonder why someone who worked as PR for ITV can now run the country?

[southeastastralbeing]

?? explain!

It does happen, hence the debate on this thread.

I think it is a good question. It's not about Cameron being posh or not, it's really about is PR work for ITV sufficient experience to run a country? I think it is, because it's not about Cameron on his own, there is a whole team and party to guide him.
Also his PR skills are useful in selling his policies to the public. Image is all important nowadays, so being in the image industry is what parties require.

Ed Miliband has a lot to prove, obviously.

If it is about the whole team and party does it really matters who gets elected? Sounds like an apologist comment to me.

I don't really think it does matter who gets elected. I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference. I think Blair didn't have much choice about a lot of things.

Well that kind of goes against your argument of what a mess Brown made.

Brown and Blair same old same old, that's why Brown followed Blair. David Miliband would have done the same, but with a different smile. What matters is not to elect the wrong party. We need a party that is for the people and that listens to the people. That is why it was important not to vote for Brown and Labour.

Brown deregulated because the banks told him they didn't want to be regulated. These are his words

"In the 1990s, the banks, they all came to us and said, 'Look, we don't want to be regulated, we want to be free of regulation.' ... And all the complaints I was getting from people was, 'Look you're regulating them too much.'

They would all have done the same.

Brown made a mess because he followed socialist philosophy. It was bound to end in disaster, it was just a matter of when.

You really frighten me a little claig.

They chose Brown to lead the party because Labour had no alternative. There was such a dearth of talent on their front bench, that Brown, with all his PR inadequacies, was by far the best of a bad bunch. They hoped they could con the public and convince them that they had nothing to do with the financial crisis. They thought the best thing was to go for it, and pretend to the public that Gordon had "saved the world". They used the age old socialist trick - if you're going to tell a lie, tell a big one. But Mrs. Duffy didn't fall for it, she said "but Gordon", and that's why he called her bigot - he realised the game was up.

Well you and Mrs Duffy can have Cameron.

"It's not about Cameron being posh or not, it's really about is PR work for ITV sufficient experience to run a country?"

Agreed, and to add to that - is the experience he has had been successful?

The answer to the last question is a definitive no. He has been rather unsuccessful, made bad decisions and also made enemies.

It is actually character we are discussing - his values, his integrity, his authenticity. Think Obama described him as a lightweight. I couldn't agree more.

Yes the country is lucky to have Cameron. Unfortunately Mrs. Duffy has returned to Labour. She attended the Labour conference and gave her backing to David Miliband.

Politicians can't really win, can they? If they spend most of their lives in politics they are accused of living in a Westminster bubble - if they have other jobs first they are accused of not having enough experience in politics.

I'm not sure that the experience or inexperience that they have had really matters too much, because they are surrounded by advisers, who are more experienced than them.

But yes I think character matters. We can only judge by what we see. I think Cameron has got integrity. But then again, there was a time, when I thought Blair had it, so I am not a great judge.

I couldn't agree more that he seems to thrive in being in a difficult position judging by his sneering hyperactivity in the Commons the other day when the cuts were being announced. And that is exactly why I would question his values.

I don't think the OP's point was about experience in terms of politics. It was about someone who is drawn to the superficial and presentation [not to mention someone who has known only immense privilege] and whether they are the right qualities for Prime Minister.

cometh the hour, cometh the man.
departeth the shower, cometh the man
That's why we have Cameran.

As is saying the team and the people around him are what counts....

Blimey Claig poet you are not.

Cave in when the going gets tough? What I was referring to was the distasteful backslapping and jeering when Osbourne put 1m out of work. Yes, I find that very distasteful and it makes me question the character and judgment of such individuals who revel in others' misfortune and are smug with their power.

Also, 'sort this country out' - this rhetoric is preposterous. I dispute a lot of the broken Britain crap, its just a political tool. There is a deficit, like there is everywhere in the Western world. Don't see many other countries doing this. Oh wait......Ireland.

So can we have a list of (a) acceptable previous jobs for a PM to have had and (b) unacceptable previous jobs for a PM to have had? Or maybe a Venn diagram?...

I may not be a poet, but Brown did blow it

Do you really believe that the shadow cabinet puts its economic policy in the hands of Alan Johnson? It is his team that counts. He just makes jokes at the despatch box. He jabs his finger and says that cuts is what the opposition came into politics for.

All previous jobs are acceptable for a PM. Being a roadsweeper is acceptable. That's democracy, it's the people's choice. There are teams of experienced advisers to help whoever is the leader.

He was quite good at the despatch box.

You misunderstood him if you thought that was what he meant with that comment. He was questioning the values of the people in the Tory party, who enjoyed putting the poor in their place.

Of all this talk about shrinking the state, there is a valid argument that they will end up growing it because of their policies.