Pelle Posted February 3, 2010 Author Share Posted February 3, 2010 Well, I think it might have to do with being married/having a relationship is giving the picture of having a stable private life and not risking to get into trouble or risking scandals for a woman/man in a very important position. A single PM maybe would put himself more in the fireline for the media. Fooling around and all that which some maybe don't want a PM to do. On the other hand, that could well happen to a married one too. Enter Bill Clinton. But I think that would be the main concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Given the current situation I think the British public would be willing to consider a candidate who's single because they murdered their wife/husband, rather than have Gordon Brown. But really, I can't see any problem at all with it. It's about politics, policies and personality, not who he/she has nagging in their ear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Having said that, I wonder how many candidates / MP's would get married (at all/quicker than they normally would) for the sake of their career - probably an awful lot of them. It is a factor, probably not for many Villatalk members but there are enough votes out there for whom it would be important for their PM to be seen to have "strong family values" (what ever that means). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 3, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 3, 2010 This is like the John Terry business. Thing is, I don't care AT ALL about the sex lives of footballers or politicians. If an elected representative has actually broken the law, or is guilty of financial impropriety, that's a different matter. But what he or she does in the bedroom has no bearing on his/her job. Especially when the tutting and judgement is being conducted by a loathesomely hypocritical tabloid press. Single, married, straight, gay - it's no more relevant than football team supported or taste in music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 3, 2010 Moderator Share Posted February 3, 2010 Well this is a close one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 But what he or she does in the bedroom has no bearing on his/her job. Whilst that is true (for me as it is for you), I also think that how they conduct themselves with regards to others does (especially in terms of an office of state). If someone can treat people close to them (I'm referring to a situation where someone is cheating especially if it is involving one of their colleagues or friends) with such disregard then it isn't a great leap to think that they may treat those who voted for them with equal, or more, disregard and contempt. I don't care about the sexual antics of politicians but I do care that they are lying little shits. Sorry that should have read 'whether they are'. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 3, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 3, 2010 But what he or she does in the bedroom has no bearing on his/her job. Whilst that is true (for me as it is for you), I also think that how they conduct themselves with regards to others does (especially in terms of an office of state). If someone can treat people close to them (I'm referring to a situation where someone is cheating especially if it is involving one of their colleagues or friends) with such disregard then it isn't a great leap to think that they may treat those who voted for them with equal, or more, disregard and contempt.Ah but, ah but. We only know what we learn through the media. And we (they) are very quick to judge. Take the John Terry case. Assuming that he was shagging Bridge's EX-girlfriend, then that circumstance is irrelevant. However, he cheated on his wife. Makes him a bad person? Maybe. But maybe they have an "open marriage", and she doesn't mind? Maybe SHE'S been shagging around for years and he finally cracked? Unlikely, maybe, but WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Ah but, ah but. We only know what we learn through the media. And we (they) are very quick to judge. ... Unlikely, maybe, but WE JUST DON'T KNOW. A lot of maybes there, Mike. On the whole I agree with you (especially about how the public tends formulate its judgement - or have its judgment formulated for it - about those in the public eye) but an election of a public figure is about judgement. We cannot know all of the parameters, we cannot be sure of all of the details of the past and we can't be sure of any of the future. We have to make a judgement. I'm not suggesting this applies to single people in terms of the question posed by Pelle, by the way. I'm talking about the integrity of those whom we choose for positions of power (and their integrity once chosen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Ted Heath was 40 years ago - neither him nor Jeremy Thorpe would be elected to lead their parties nowadays. Nowadays politicians will get married to avoid any awkward questions (*cough*ffion*cough*). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 3, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 3, 2010 It wouldn't bother me. Provided their policies appealed, I couldn't care less about the bloke's private life. Of course as Gringo says, I think you would be very unlikely these days to get many candidates that were unmarried, it sits nicely into the image thing (not that I think they'd all get married cynically across the board, but I think their party would favour the married man to the single man in choosing a leader). I also think you'd get a considerably different answer in the US, if you polled the entire nation (as opposed to just here). The US seems even more keen on image than we are, indeed it's long been said that any man entering the White House will almost certainly be married, appear wholesome, and be confidently Christian. It appeals to some demographics - 'One of us'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 was churchill married? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted February 3, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 3, 2010 I also think you'd get a considerably different answer in the US, if you polled the entire nation (as opposed to just here). The US seems even more keen on image than we are, indeed it's long been said that any man entering the White House will almost certainly be married, appear wholesome, and be confidently Christian. It appeals to some demographics - 'One of us'. In the vein of Heath: (though perhaps people see that he consistently ranks at or near the bottom of the table and say, "I'm not making that mistake again!") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I'd vote for a single, unmarried three-toed sloth if it was the only alternative to Gordon Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 3, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 3, 2010 was churchill married?Sure was. Clemmie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 3, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 3, 2010 I also think you'd get a considerably different answer in the US, if you polled the entire nation (as opposed to just here). The US seems even more keen on image than we are, indeed it's long been said that any man entering the White House will almost certainly be married, appear wholesome, and be confidently Christian. It appeals to some demographics - 'One of us'.There is a current U.S. campaign to try and and elect an openly atheist senator/congressman. Just one, any one, any party. Very long odds against, I would imagine. Would never be an issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I'd say this poll is pretty conclusive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturdaygig Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Lembit Opik. No problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimandson Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 No way, what if he was gay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I'm amazed Lembit hasn't pretended to be gay just to get another minute on another channel, then married a fish in Vegas to squeeze just a little tiny bit more publicity then shagged the fishes mother just to try and get on Trisha. Or pretended to date some Rumanian tranny's tranny brother or something. None of which would stop me voting for him if he actually had good ideas and not just an ego much much bigger than his mildly deformed face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts