Wednesday, 29 July 2009

The Benefits of a Small Team

Yes, it's true that those who aren't in Cameron's clique will feel excluded and it's true that he may well miss something important by relying on too small a coterie, but the occasionally frustrating Howard Denton is spot on here:

Cameron is successful because he has surrounded himself with people he can trust and depend on. These are the tried and tested methods that any successful leader will use. Both Thatcher and Blair had small teams they depended on as did Harold Wilson before them. All were successful leaders.

(Note: I don't agree with pretty much anything Bliar did, but he was successful at being a leader.)

The only problem with this is that politicians are, pretty much to a cunt, self-important, overweening, jumped-up, cock-sniffing arse-biscuits who feel that everybody, including the Alpha Male, has to listen to their words of wisdom. So in politics, eventually this perfectly sound and effective policy will lead to briefings, whispers, rebellion and an increase in "inclusion". And then, as we saw with Blair most recently, it all goes to hell in a handbasket.

Politicians, eh? Loathe them or kill them, you can't do anything useful with them.


Mark Wadsworth said...

It's tricky. Sorting out policies is a doddle, you don't need a committee for that.

But sooner or later everybody gets stabbed in the back, so the smaller your inner circle, the fewer the number of stabbees who are really going to have it in for you in future.

That's part of what did for Thatcher. By the end, nearly every MP was an ex-Minister or ex-something or other and they all bore a massive grudge; a grudge far bigger than those who had been excluded from the onset.

Michael Fowke said...

If we ignore all the politicians, won't they just get bored and go away?

Mitch said...

We could butcher them for organ transplants.

Anonymous said...

I have a recipe for Politicien et crapaud soupe avec des croûtons de merde, but, alas, the toads are hard to come by.