Last weekend, the Devil’s Kitchen was discussing the matter of Emily Benn. Suffice to say, I share his disgust at the blatant attempt by the Labour party to impose some sort of dynasty upon the UK electorate – not least because this is the party that is supposed to be opposed to such things. They have, after all, set about bankrupting the aristocracy with punitive death duties designed out of pure spite and malice to do nothing more than beggar the inheritors of Britain’s estates. So when I see bylines like this:
At just 19, Emily Benn is following in the family business. And if a general election is called this year, she will be the youngest ever candidate to stand for Parliament
I am appalled at the rank hypocrisy. There is, however, another aspect; one that I discussed on DK’s comments; that of age and experience. Emily Benn knows nothing of life, yet wishes to impose legislation on the rest of us. At fifty, I realise that some of the beliefs I held dear during my twenties and thirties were erroneous. I work for myself and live with the consequences of not working. Self-employment is a feast or famine existence. I live and work in the real world, I have seen first hand the effect of Labour policies and that is why I am now so opposed to them. Had I been a politician at the age of nineteen, I would have been disastrous.
Those of us who grow up, realise that socialism is a nasty ideology. Those who don’t, remain socialists. I wonder if Emily Benn will follow in that family tradition, too.
Some commenters to DK’s piece pointed out that in the world of football, if you are good enough, you are old enough. This is all very well, but footballers aren’t going to affect everyone else if they screw up. Also, we have enough with career politicians who have never worked in the real world making up legislation and busy-bodying about, poking around in our lives and telling us what to do; how much to eat, not to smoke, and how much we should drink – without adding a know-nothing teenager who wants to carry on the family tradition to the mix.
I’m sorry, but what the fuck? Who is this whipper snapper to tell the rest of us how to live our lives – because, should the electorate be stupid enough to vote for her, that is exactly what will happen. She is barely out of school and has never worked in the real world where she has had to face the consequences of her actions or mistakes; the real world where screwing up can cost you your job – or worse, as in mine, your liberty. Given the role that she wishes to follow; at nineteen, she will never be good enough, no one can be.
Other jobs have entry bars that require a level of pre-qualification – simply being elected by people too stupid to appreciate the consequences really isn’t sufficient. When I decided to become a driving instructor, I had to have held a driving licence for three years. In order to do my current job, I need real world experience as a trainer an assessor and, importantly, out on the track doing real work – I simply could not do it without. Why should politicians be any different? Why should they feed from the taxpayer funded trough just because daddy and grand-daddy did?
No, sorry, not good enough. Not even close.
“Some commenters to DK’s piece pointed out that in the world of football, if you are good enough, you are old enough.”
What a pathetic analogy. Sport is objective. There is no wishy washy selection panel deciding if you are good enough. if you score goals you’re in, if you don’t you’re out. Millions are at stake and there is no room for sentimentality.
As a general rule, I dislike sporting analogies. You make a good point regarding objectivity. It adds to my dismissal on the grounds of the effect on the populace. If a football club wastes millions on a lemon, they lose, but no one else suffers. A politician making legislation affects the lives of sixty million people.
I believe that they should spend a few years working on the receiving end of half-baked incompetent legislation and bureaucracy before being let lose to make more of it.