Here is another Timed Listening Part 3 Type Practice Test for Cambridge Profeciency

Susan says that the one thing I do despise (intensely dislike) is the politician who tries to have things all ways (in this context, this means ‘hold every opinion that everyone could want them to have, rather than giving a single opinion’). Such a politician, she says, isn’t someone who says they haven’t made their mind up about something, it is a politician whose attitude is ‘actually, I think this’ (this is my actual opinion), but this opinion is unpopular with voters so I’m going to dress it up (hide the real nature of it by making it appear different from what it really is) and present it in a different way to the electorate (voters). Her point is that she intensely dislikes politicians who make their opinions appear different from what they really are when they are addressing voters, because they know that their real opinions would not be popular with voters.

The interviewer says that the disagreement may have resulted in her political future being closed off (it may have meant the end of her political career). She says that she felt this situation was the time of trial for her (a situation in which her qualities as a person and her beliefs were being tested). She says that if she had allowed her own political future to weigh with me (influence me. be a very important factor in my decisions) with regard to an issue she regarded as extremely important, it really wouldn't be worth having as a political future- she felt there would be no point in her continuing as a politician if her concern for her own career strongly influenced her regarding a very important issue. She says that to look at self-advancement (personal progress or success in a career) in its own right (as a separate, individual thing), it isn't worth a damn (it is of no value at all) - in other words, there is no value in succeeding in your career simply in order to be successful, you should care about other things too. Her point therefore is that the disagreement led her to conclude that she cared more about issues she had strong beliefs about than about becoming more successful as a politician.

She says that, although she agrees with the interviewer that colleagues supported her privately but not publicly, one or two did support her publicly. However, she told them not to because she wanted to act alone in this situation without embroiling (involving in a difficult situation) other people. She says that politics doesn’t always involve getting other people involved in such situations, and that this was an occasion when it wasn’t necessary or desirable. She says that, instead of involving colleagues, she made my doubts and reservations known and it was then up to my colleagues (it was my colleagues' decision, they could choose) whether or not to take her views into consideration. She therefore didn’t ask colleagues to support her, she told them what she thought and let them make up their own minds whether or not they agreed with her.

She says that when you take a stand on something (express a strong view on something, resulting in disagreement), your opinion of your colleagues is bound to be coloured (influenced) by whether they support you, oppose you or remain neutral. However, she says that politics is a kaleidoscope (a constant and quickly changing pattern) of changing alliances (situations in which people join together in agreement with each other), and so people you are strongly opposed to on one occasion can be people you are allied with (joined with in agreement) on another occasion. She is therefore sure that in the future there will be situations when some of those colleagues and I will swap (exchange) positions - instead of them not supporting her, she won’t support them. Her point therefore is that because of the nature of politics. in the future there will be times when she does not support the same people who did not support her at that time.

She says that she is not at all surprised that some colleagues thought she was bonkers (mad, crazy), because there are some politicians who think that you (by this she means politicians in general) should never rock the boat (do something that causes problems because it upsets the established situation or way of doing things), and should always put yourself first (consider your own interests more important than anything else), and she had done the opposite of both those things. She is therefore saying that she was considered mad because she had not conformed with common notions of what politicians should do.