What has gone wrong with the role of PM in the UK?
Discussion
Since 2016, the UK has gone through a rapid turnover of Prime Ministers — Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, and now Starmer — with most either resigning under pressure or losing power relatively quickly.
Why does the role seem so difficult to sustain in recent years?
Is this entirely down to the individuals themselves, or are there deeper structural or political issues (e.g. Brexit fallout, party instability, media pressure, economic challenges, the Blob) that make long-term success in the job much harder now than it used to be?
Why does the role seem so difficult to sustain in recent years?
Is this entirely down to the individuals themselves, or are there deeper structural or political issues (e.g. Brexit fallout, party instability, media pressure, economic challenges, the Blob) that make long-term success in the job much harder now than it used to be?
GTEYE said:
Since 2016, the UK has gone through a rapid turnover of Prime Ministers Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, and now Starmer with most either resigning under pressure or losing power relatively quickly.
Why does the role seem so difficult to sustain in recent years?
Is this entirely down to the individuals themselves, or are there deeper structural or political issues (e.g. Brexit fallout, party instability, media pressure, economic challenges, the Blob) that make long-term success in the job much harder now than it used to be?
You might find that all of those were Cons PMs.Why does the role seem so difficult to sustain in recent years?
Is this entirely down to the individuals themselves, or are there deeper structural or political issues (e.g. Brexit fallout, party instability, media pressure, economic challenges, the Blob) that make long-term success in the job much harder now than it used to be?
Getting rid of a useless Liebour PM seems to be a tad more difficult…
DaveGrohl said:
GTEYE said:
Since 2016, the UK has gone through a rapid turnover of Prime Ministers Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, and now Starmer with most either resigning under pressure or losing power relatively quickly.
Why does the role seem so difficult to sustain in recent years?
Is this entirely down to the individuals themselves, or are there deeper structural or political issues (e.g. Brexit fallout, party instability, media pressure, economic challenges, the Blob) that make long-term success in the job much harder now than it used to be?
You might find that all of those were Cons PMs.Why does the role seem so difficult to sustain in recent years?
Is this entirely down to the individuals themselves, or are there deeper structural or political issues (e.g. Brexit fallout, party instability, media pressure, economic challenges, the Blob) that make long-term success in the job much harder now than it used to be?
Getting rid of a useless Liebour PM seems to be a tad more difficult
It's difficult because
1. You represent a group which at best, 50% of people didn't choose
2. In this case 70% didn't vote for them
3. Therefore they either don't care or didn't choose you, so you've got perhaps 30 who already dislike you and 40% that are apathetic
4. Most people don't like most of the things Government actually does, tax, police, schools, NHS etc.
5. Most people think they know better
6. Most people are f
king idiots
Now combine all that and much more with social media, 24/7 news, smart phone videos and fking tictok and almost everyone is convinced everything is st.
I think the right question is 'Why would anyone want to be PM' given the absolutely state of most of the population!
TLDR: People are thick and they watch their phones all day!
1. You represent a group which at best, 50% of people didn't choose
2. In this case 70% didn't vote for them
3. Therefore they either don't care or didn't choose you, so you've got perhaps 30 who already dislike you and 40% that are apathetic
4. Most people don't like most of the things Government actually does, tax, police, schools, NHS etc.
5. Most people think they know better
6. Most people are f
king idiotsNow combine all that and much more with social media, 24/7 news, smart phone videos and f
king tictok and almost everyone is convinced everything is st.I think the right question is 'Why would anyone want to be PM' given the absolutely state of most of the population!
TLDR: People are thick and they watch their phones all day!
GTEYE said:
DaveGrohl said:
GTEYE said:
Since 2016, the UK has gone through a rapid turnover of Prime Ministers Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, and now Starmer with most either resigning under pressure or losing power relatively quickly.
Why does the role seem so difficult to sustain in recent years?
Is this entirely down to the individuals themselves, or are there deeper structural or political issues (e.g. Brexit fallout, party instability, media pressure, economic challenges, the Blob) that make long-term success in the job much harder now than it used to be?
You might find that all of those were Cons PMs.Why does the role seem so difficult to sustain in recent years?
Is this entirely down to the individuals themselves, or are there deeper structural or political issues (e.g. Brexit fallout, party instability, media pressure, economic challenges, the Blob) that make long-term success in the job much harder now than it used to be?
Getting rid of a useless Liebour PM seems to be a tad more difficult
I’m not sure he’ll even go after. Liebour know full well there’ll be no second term so to replace him could only hasten the chances of an early General Election, and they absolutely don’t want that.
Remember when we all got terribly excited at Brown and that "awful woman"?
And he was telling the truth….
My view is that it is linked inexorably to Brexit.
There were two sides to this other that than the in/out option. There was the ideological side and the practical side. Ideology is all very well and needed to provide a framework against which policy is set. But those policies need practical implementation and there was a realisation in the years that followed the vote that implementation was unfeasibly complex and not always possible to deliver the promises made. In other words, the ideology couldn't fully be delivered.
I think the biggest mistake made was keeping the process of our extraction from the EU within a single party. It should have been a cross-party endeavour with each major aspect of the process overseen by two ministers from both the remain and leave camp. That way, the reality of the implementation would have been exposed to all parties eliminating the ideological based criticism from opposition parties about the apparent ineptitude of the government - they would have been involved so better able to recognise the practical challenges that existed.
Brexit created a scenario that is unprecedented and something in which no politician or civil servant had any experience of, not even something similar. So they had to figure it out as they went in along in the gaze of public scrutiny and the far right handwringing - the very thing Brexit was supposed to suppress.
That aside, I do think the general level of political acumen has declined sharply over the past two decades. There was a time when you could watch Question Time and regardless of the parties represented on the panel, consider that all knew what they were doing. You had respect for their views even if you didn't agree with them. That is no longer the case or at least less obvious.
Either way, we need to regain some form of stability. We've not had a full-term Prime Minister for a decade and that instability leads to skittish markets which affects us all.
There were two sides to this other that than the in/out option. There was the ideological side and the practical side. Ideology is all very well and needed to provide a framework against which policy is set. But those policies need practical implementation and there was a realisation in the years that followed the vote that implementation was unfeasibly complex and not always possible to deliver the promises made. In other words, the ideology couldn't fully be delivered.
I think the biggest mistake made was keeping the process of our extraction from the EU within a single party. It should have been a cross-party endeavour with each major aspect of the process overseen by two ministers from both the remain and leave camp. That way, the reality of the implementation would have been exposed to all parties eliminating the ideological based criticism from opposition parties about the apparent ineptitude of the government - they would have been involved so better able to recognise the practical challenges that existed.
Brexit created a scenario that is unprecedented and something in which no politician or civil servant had any experience of, not even something similar. So they had to figure it out as they went in along in the gaze of public scrutiny and the far right handwringing - the very thing Brexit was supposed to suppress.
That aside, I do think the general level of political acumen has declined sharply over the past two decades. There was a time when you could watch Question Time and regardless of the parties represented on the panel, consider that all knew what they were doing. You had respect for their views even if you didn't agree with them. That is no longer the case or at least less obvious.
Either way, we need to regain some form of stability. We've not had a full-term Prime Minister for a decade and that instability leads to skittish markets which affects us all.
dundarach said:
It's difficult because
1. You represent a group which at best, 50% of people didn't choose
2. In this case 70% didn't vote for them
3. Therefore they either don't care or didn't choose you, so you've got perhaps 30 who already dislike you and 40% that are apathetic
4. Most people don't like most of the things Government actually does, tax, police, schools, NHS etc.
5. Most people think they know better
6. Most people are fking idiots
Now combine all that and much more with social media, 24/7 news, smart phone videos and fking tictok and almost everyone is convinced everything is st.
I think the right question is 'Why would anyone want to be PM' given the absolutely state of most of the population!
TLDR: People are thick and they watch their phones all day!
Possibly one of the best posts on PH ever. I think points 5 & 6 are spot on.1. You represent a group which at best, 50% of people didn't choose
2. In this case 70% didn't vote for them
3. Therefore they either don't care or didn't choose you, so you've got perhaps 30 who already dislike you and 40% that are apathetic
4. Most people don't like most of the things Government actually does, tax, police, schools, NHS etc.
5. Most people think they know better
6. Most people are f
king idiotsNow combine all that and much more with social media, 24/7 news, smart phone videos and f
king tictok and almost everyone is convinced everything is st.I think the right question is 'Why would anyone want to be PM' given the absolutely state of most of the population!
TLDR: People are thick and they watch their phones all day!
In this current time an alarming number of people are unable to run a car / their home / family properly and certainly not a business but feel compelled to tell everyone what’s wrong with the country….beggars belief!
StevieBee said:
My view is that it is linked inexorably to Brexit.
There were two sides to this other that than the in/out option. There was the ideological side and the practical side. Ideology is all very well and needed to provide a framework against which policy is set. But those policies need practical implementation and there was a realisation in the years that followed the vote that implementation was unfeasibly complex and not always possible to deliver the promises made. In other words, the ideology couldn't fully be delivered.
I think the biggest mistake made was keeping the process of our extraction from the EU within a single party. It should have been a cross-party endeavour with each major aspect of the process overseen by two ministers from both the remain and leave camp. That way, the reality of the implementation would have been exposed to all parties eliminating the ideological based criticism from opposition parties about the apparent ineptitude of the government - they would have been involved so better able to recognise the practical challenges that existed.
Brexit created a scenario that is unprecedented and something in which no politician or civil servant had any experience of, not even something similar. So they had to figure it out as they went in along in the gaze of public scrutiny and the far right handwringing - the very thing Brexit was supposed to suppress.
That aside, I do think the general level of political acumen has declined sharply over the past two decades. There was a time when you could watch Question Time and regardless of the parties represented on the panel, consider that all knew what they were doing. You had respect for their views even if you didn't agree with them. That is no longer the case or at least less obvious.
Either way, we need to regain some form of stability. We've not had a full-term Prime Minister for a decade and that instability leads to skittish markets which affects us all.
I would also add since the financial, followed by the proceeding years of low wage growth and austerity, people have become far more disillusioned.There were two sides to this other that than the in/out option. There was the ideological side and the practical side. Ideology is all very well and needed to provide a framework against which policy is set. But those policies need practical implementation and there was a realisation in the years that followed the vote that implementation was unfeasibly complex and not always possible to deliver the promises made. In other words, the ideology couldn't fully be delivered.
I think the biggest mistake made was keeping the process of our extraction from the EU within a single party. It should have been a cross-party endeavour with each major aspect of the process overseen by two ministers from both the remain and leave camp. That way, the reality of the implementation would have been exposed to all parties eliminating the ideological based criticism from opposition parties about the apparent ineptitude of the government - they would have been involved so better able to recognise the practical challenges that existed.
Brexit created a scenario that is unprecedented and something in which no politician or civil servant had any experience of, not even something similar. So they had to figure it out as they went in along in the gaze of public scrutiny and the far right handwringing - the very thing Brexit was supposed to suppress.
That aside, I do think the general level of political acumen has declined sharply over the past two decades. There was a time when you could watch Question Time and regardless of the parties represented on the panel, consider that all knew what they were doing. You had respect for their views even if you didn't agree with them. That is no longer the case or at least less obvious.
Either way, we need to regain some form of stability. We've not had a full-term Prime Minister for a decade and that instability leads to skittish markets which affects us all.
said:
It's been observed the electorate didn't really give two s
ts about Europe until Brexit. It became an issue, it was invented. And now we live in a quick fix world where our feeble brains get upset if change doesn't happen quickly enough.
Quite frankly, it's pathetic.
StevieBee said:
My view is that it is linked inexorably to Brexit.
This. And the increasingly bat st Tory membership who kept voting for people who are clearly incompetent. Until they got to Sunak who might have made a go of it in a John Major way but was too late.The issue we now have is that SKS is a less competent version of Sunak. But careful what you wish for, if he goes we could be stuck with bat s
t Labour style...W12GT said:
dundarach said:
It's difficult because
1. You represent a group which at best, 50% of people didn't choose
2. In this case 70% didn't vote for them
3. Therefore they either don't care or didn't choose you, so you've got perhaps 30 who already dislike you and 40% that are apathetic
4. Most people don't like most of the things Government actually does, tax, police, schools, NHS etc.
5. Most people think they know better
6. Most people are fking idiots
Now combine all that and much more with social media, 24/7 news, smart phone videos and fking tictok and almost everyone is convinced everything is st.
I think the right question is 'Why would anyone want to be PM' given the absolutely state of most of the population!
TLDR: People are thick and they watch their phones all day!
Possibly one of the best posts on PH ever. I think points 5 & 6 are spot on.1. You represent a group which at best, 50% of people didn't choose
2. In this case 70% didn't vote for them
3. Therefore they either don't care or didn't choose you, so you've got perhaps 30 who already dislike you and 40% that are apathetic
4. Most people don't like most of the things Government actually does, tax, police, schools, NHS etc.
5. Most people think they know better
6. Most people are f
king idiotsNow combine all that and much more with social media, 24/7 news, smart phone videos and f
king tictok and almost everyone is convinced everything is st.I think the right question is 'Why would anyone want to be PM' given the absolutely state of most of the population!
TLDR: People are thick and they watch their phones all day!
In this current time an alarming number of people are unable to run a car / their home / family properly and certainly not a business but feel compelled to tell everyone what s wrong with the country .beggars belief!
Tlandcruiser said:
I would also add since the financial, followed by the proceeding years of low wage growth and austerity, people have become far more disillusioned.
Just about thisThe political class serve an agenda that is not designed to improve the living standards of the average voter and the PM is their front man or woman. The PM spouts a bunch of lies to get elected, or appointed as party leader, knowing that things will not actually improve but pretending otherwise. They get found out and unpopularity makes their party discard them to replace them with another figurehead and the cycle begins again.
Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 21st April 07:59
I think the knowledge that at least some of the recent ones have been accepting cash/gifts/hospitality from anyone who'll stump up hasn't helped.
I doubt Churchill would have refused a bottle of good brandy, but either the lobbying/bribery was better concealed or it was less widespread.
I doubt Churchill would have refused a bottle of good brandy, but either the lobbying/bribery was better concealed or it was less widespread.
dundarach said:
It's difficult because
1. You represent a group which at best, 50% of people didn't choose
2. In this case 70% didn't vote for them
3. Therefore they either don't care or didn't choose you, so you've got perhaps 30 who already dislike you and 40% that are apathetic
4. Most people don't like most of the things Government actually does, tax, police, schools, NHS etc.
5. Most people think they know better
6. Most people are fking idiots
Now combine all that and much more with social media, 24/7 news, smart phone videos and fking tictok and almost everyone is convinced everything is st.
I think the right question is 'Why would anyone want to be PM' given the absolutely state of most of the population!
TLDR: People are thick and they watch their phones all day!
But all six points have always been the case. Point 4, most people do like these things and usually want more / better but most people don't have the first idea just how large, complex and expensive these things are to deliver and manage and don't want to pay for them. 1. You represent a group which at best, 50% of people didn't choose
2. In this case 70% didn't vote for them
3. Therefore they either don't care or didn't choose you, so you've got perhaps 30 who already dislike you and 40% that are apathetic
4. Most people don't like most of the things Government actually does, tax, police, schools, NHS etc.
5. Most people think they know better
6. Most people are f
king idiotsNow combine all that and much more with social media, 24/7 news, smart phone videos and f
king tictok and almost everyone is convinced everything is st.I think the right question is 'Why would anyone want to be PM' given the absolutely state of most of the population!
TLDR: People are thick and they watch their phones all day!
The only thing that's changed radically is social media and to a lesser extent, 24/7 news. More people in more of their self reinforcing bubbles being fed algorithms that reinforce their view everybody thinks like them, which of course is nonsense.
That, plus the pervasive effect that since 2008 wealth has steadily floated upwards and more and more of the middle class feels poorer than they have done before. I put a lot of it down to the general polarisation of wealth, rising expectations and the reality that for much of the Western world, the good times for the majority are now behind us. We need someone to blame, hence the Brexit (the EUs fault), Popularism (Brown people's fault), and the rise of more extreme parties (it's 'their' fault, and we have the simple and obvious answers).
It’s not the pm.. it’s all mps.
Politics attracts PPE graduates at best. The number of MPs that have held any responsible job in the private sector seems to decline every year. Actual high achieving people, the sort we need for MP’s, wouldn’t get out of bed for 90 K and a lot of abuse
Said it a million times half the number and double the pay. Then we might get a few people worth picking a Prime Minister from.
Politics attracts PPE graduates at best. The number of MPs that have held any responsible job in the private sector seems to decline every year. Actual high achieving people, the sort we need for MP’s, wouldn’t get out of bed for 90 K and a lot of abuse
Said it a million times half the number and double the pay. Then we might get a few people worth picking a Prime Minister from.
W12GT said:
dundarach said:
It's difficult because
1. You represent a group which at best, 50% of people didn't choose
2. In this case 70% didn't vote for them
3. Therefore they either don't care or didn't choose you, so you've got perhaps 30 who already dislike you and 40% that are apathetic
4. Most people don't like most of the things Government actually does, tax, police, schools, NHS etc.
5. Most people think they know better
6. Most people are fking idiots
Now combine all that and much more with social media, 24/7 news, smart phone videos and fking tictok and almost everyone is convinced everything is st.
I think the right question is 'Why would anyone want to be PM' given the absolutely state of most of the population!
TLDR: People are thick and they watch their phones all day!
Possibly one of the best posts on PH ever. I think points 5 & 6 are spot on.1. You represent a group which at best, 50% of people didn't choose
2. In this case 70% didn't vote for them
3. Therefore they either don't care or didn't choose you, so you've got perhaps 30 who already dislike you and 40% that are apathetic
4. Most people don't like most of the things Government actually does, tax, police, schools, NHS etc.
5. Most people think they know better
6. Most people are f
king idiotsNow combine all that and much more with social media, 24/7 news, smart phone videos and f
king tictok and almost everyone is convinced everything is st.I think the right question is 'Why would anyone want to be PM' given the absolutely state of most of the population!
TLDR: People are thick and they watch their phones all day!
In this current time an alarming number of people are unable to run a car / their home / family properly and certainly not a business but feel compelled to tell everyone what s wrong with the country .beggars belief!
John D. said:
W12GT said:
dundarach said:
It's difficult because
1. You represent a group which at best, 50% of people didn't choose
2. In this case 70% didn't vote for them
3. Therefore they either don't care or didn't choose you, so you've got perhaps 30 who already dislike you and 40% that are apathetic
4. Most people don't like most of the things Government actually does, tax, police, schools, NHS etc.
5. Most people think they know better
6. Most people are fking idiots
Now combine all that and much more with social media, 24/7 news, smart phone videos and fking tictok and almost everyone is convinced everything is st.
I think the right question is 'Why would anyone want to be PM' given the absolutely state of most of the population!
TLDR: People are thick and they watch their phones all day!
Possibly one of the best posts on PH ever. I think points 5 & 6 are spot on.1. You represent a group which at best, 50% of people didn't choose
2. In this case 70% didn't vote for them
3. Therefore they either don't care or didn't choose you, so you've got perhaps 30 who already dislike you and 40% that are apathetic
4. Most people don't like most of the things Government actually does, tax, police, schools, NHS etc.
5. Most people think they know better
6. Most people are f
king idiotsNow combine all that and much more with social media, 24/7 news, smart phone videos and f
king tictok and almost everyone is convinced everything is st.I think the right question is 'Why would anyone want to be PM' given the absolutely state of most of the population!
TLDR: People are thick and they watch their phones all day!
In this current time an alarming number of people are unable to run a car / their home / family properly and certainly not a business but feel compelled to tell everyone what s wrong with the country .beggars belief!
That line of thinking says everything‘s OK. The country is actually very well run, we have a competent PM, and we are all just imagining problems.
John D. said:
W12GT said:
dundarach said:
It's difficult because
1. You represent a group which at best, 50% of people didn't choose
2. In this case 70% didn't vote for them
3. Therefore they either don't care or didn't choose you, so you've got perhaps 30 who already dislike you and 40% that are apathetic
4. Most people don't like most of the things Government actually does, tax, police, schools, NHS etc.
5. Most people think they know better
6. Most people are fking idiots
Now combine all that and much more with social media, 24/7 news, smart phone videos and fking tictok and almost everyone is convinced everything is st.
I think the right question is 'Why would anyone want to be PM' given the absolutely state of most of the population!
TLDR: People are thick and they watch their phones all day!
Possibly one of the best posts on PH ever. I think points 5 & 6 are spot on.1. You represent a group which at best, 50% of people didn't choose
2. In this case 70% didn't vote for them
3. Therefore they either don't care or didn't choose you, so you've got perhaps 30 who already dislike you and 40% that are apathetic
4. Most people don't like most of the things Government actually does, tax, police, schools, NHS etc.
5. Most people think they know better
6. Most people are f
king idiotsNow combine all that and much more with social media, 24/7 news, smart phone videos and f
king tictok and almost everyone is convinced everything is st.I think the right question is 'Why would anyone want to be PM' given the absolutely state of most of the population!
TLDR: People are thick and they watch their phones all day!
In this current time an alarming number of people are unable to run a car / their home / family properly and certainly not a business but feel compelled to tell everyone what s wrong with the country .beggars belief!
I also believe the standards of the press are sinking lower and lower, the parasites love it and all want to be the first to break the big news story that another PM has gone... never mind what comes next.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff