« The deficit & monetary policy | Main | Inequality, capabilities & happiness »

March 15, 2010



You know the answer; of course there aren't.
I do wonder, though. Assuming the idea of being a politician is relatively prominent at an early age these days, to what extent is "aiding my electability" a factor in these guys' marriage decisions?
"Darling, I'm sorry, I only married you for your PR value"

chris c

I'd like to think the point is that the party leaders think the electorate are so stupid, and the electorate recognises that in a fairly tacit manner, that there's an unspoken agreement that outside of people on the internet very mistakenly thinking they DO know something about military procurement and climate change, the rest of the electorate have decided that the battle will be won on whose missus is wearing the prettier dress or gives out the simpler muffin recipe.


And no picture of (say) Carla Bruni. You're letting yourself down.


i am not certain that mr brown's temper tantrums should disqualify him as pm; the kind of crises that leaders of states have to deal with will generally allow time for a therapeutic tantrum in order to calm down before making important decisions. on your other points i fully agree - and i find it sad that your three aspects of quality in a leader are rarely themes for media interviews with candidates.


"Indeed, a common complaint about both is that they take advice only from a small coterie of close advisors, and are too influenced by the press. Knowing more about their wives does not assuage these concerns."

Since the wife is likely to be one of those 'close advisors', surely it's better to know something about them?

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad