Who will be the next decent UK PM?

[renton]

A slightly rhetorical question.

I was inspired by the other thread here:

What is it that makes a "decent" PM - well obviously it really depends on the outcomes for which they are ultimately responsible during their administrations. That in turn will be the synthesis of the person's own personality and background, the times they live through and the systems and mechanisms around them that help or hinder their decision making and (as importantly) decision implementation.

Looking through a number of 20th Century PMs and there is a clear trend to how they climb the greasy pole: University educated - mostly Oxbridge in economics, the arts or latterly the PPE course - a few years of "real" work before becoming serious about politics. Some local politics and winning a seat in the commons, cabinet experience or shadow cabinet experience being an absolute must, and then the big prize.

It's a fairly narrow range of generalised experience that has yielded highly variable results. More specifically you have Attlee who worked as a barrister for a little while, then did volunteering and some University lecturing, McMillian did a fair chunk of soldiering and worked for the family publishing business, Wilson who was one of Oxford's youngest Dons, Heath was a Civil Servant (as was Wilson during WW2), Callaghan was a tax inspector and Union Official, Thatcher a Chemist, Blair a barrister, Brown was a College lecturer and Journalist, May in Financial services and Johnson with his infamously lax Journalism career. David Cameron is almost a stand out from that potted history in that he went straight from Uni into being a SPAD for the Tories, Eden similarly was very much a creature of party politics with only his war service to punctuate it. In most cases their "other" careers were basically short and they were selected to fight elections for seats relatively early. Attlee, Eden and McMillian all had WW1 service, Heath and Callaghan in WW2 (Wilson was in the Civil Service during that time)

So on the face of it, it's not a hughly wide experience, especially considering it takes both Parties into account. What is interesting is how similar the path still looks in 2022 than it did to Attlee in 1945, in a very different world. Their collective hinterlands occupy a fairly narrow set of occupations and educational experiences. The next one will either have been briefly an accountant and think tank director, or someone with 10 years in Financial Services. The next, next one will be either one of those or someone with a couple of decades as a lawyer (which makes Starmer a bit of a standout).

Is it the case that the kind of career trajectory that made for a suitable PM in the 1950s when the fastest international mail service was still a flying boat, doesn't necessarily cut it in 2022? When Technology is on an ever accelerating trajectory, The changing nature of 21st C capitalism and the rise of massive tech companies, automation and AI and the impending end of the fossil fuel era that has sustained Western economies through the last 2 and a bit centuries. How does an Oxford PPE, and a few years of work and lots of Party work fit you out for dealing with those issues on an individual level?

In terms of systems - At the top level, the PMs who tend to be looked on in a brighter light also tended to have more reliable cabinets. Attlee was famous for his chairman ethos to being PM, allowing other strong personalities in his cabinet to shine, Similarly with Wilson,  Blair's first term included a lot of relatively broad thinkers and serious people, before his "presidential" instincts and psycho-drama with Brown became dominant. Cameron ran everything with Osborne out of 10 and 11 Downing Street. May had a nest of vipers.

You can also consider that the UK's FPTP and the bizarre setup where the lower legislature acts as de facto Executive branch with an emaciated revising chamber creates a tyranny of the majority, where the PM can enforce any decision they like with little ability to prevent it. There is no doubt to me that the previous cabinet style government had acted as a break on the genesis of poor decisions. Thanks to the modern public perception of how we elect leaders, I doubt the cult of personality around executive style PMs is going to go away soon. How then do you create a counter balance where there can be real debate as to how and what decisions are made? How do you try and create an atmosphere where decisions are made holistically, rather than pandering to the next News cycle?

If PMs are simple play dough squeezed into a shape by the system of government around them, does that mean that until there is major reform of all government systems, Party structures as well and even the educational routes taken by candidates - that each PM is in fact, simply doomed to being worse than the one before?

 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

44 minutes ago, renton said:

A slightly rhetorical question.

I was inspired by the other thread here:

What is it that makes a "decent" PM - well obviously it really depends on the outcomes for which they are ultimately responsible during their administrations. That in turn will be the synthesis of the person's own personality and background, the times they live through and the systems and mechanisms around them that help or hinder their decision making and (as importantly) decision implementation.

Looking through a number of 20th Century PMs and there is a clear trend to how they climb the greasy pole: University educated - mostly Oxbridge in economics, the arts or latterly the PPE course - a few years of "real" work before becoming serious about politics. Some local politics and winning a seat in the commons, cabinet experience or shadow cabinet experience being an absolute must, and then the big prize.

It's a fairly narrow range of generalised experience that has yielded highly variable results. More specifically you have Attlee who worked as a barrister for a little while, then did volunteering and some University lecturing, McMillian did a fair chunk of soldiering and worked for the family publishing business, Wilson who was one of Oxford's youngest Dons, Heath was a Civil Servant (as was Wilson during WW2), Callaghan was a tax inspector and Union Official, Thatcher a Chemist, Blair a barrister, Brown was a College lecturer and Journalist, May in Financial services and Johnson with his infamously lax Journalism career. David Cameron is almost a stand out from that potted history in that he went straight from Uni into being a SPAD for the Tories, Eden similarly was very much a creature of party politics with only his war service to punctuate it. In most cases their "other" careers were basically short and they were selected to fight elections for seats relatively early. Attlee, Eden and McMillian all had WW1 service, Heath and Callaghan in WW2 (Wilson was in the Civil Service during that time)

So on the face of it, it's not a hughly wide experience, especially considering it takes both Parties into account. What is interesting is how similar the path still looks in 2022 than it did to Attlee in 1945, in a very different world. Their collective hinterlands occupy a fairly narrow set of occupations and educational experiences. The next one will either have been briefly an accountant and think tank director, or someone with 10 years in Financial Services. The next, next one will be either one of those or someone with a couple of decades as a lawyer (which makes Starmer a bit of a standout).

Is it the case that the kind of career trajectory that made for a suitable PM in the 1950s when the fastest international mail service was still a flying boat, doesn't necessarily cut it in 2022? When Technology is on an ever accelerating trajectory, The changing nature of 21st C capitalism and the rise of massive tech companies, automation and AI and the impending end of the fossil fuel era that has sustained Western economies through the last 2 and a bit centuries. How does an Oxford PPE, and a few years of work and lots of Party work fit you out for dealing with those issues on an individual level?

In terms of systems - At the top level, the PMs who tend to be looked on in a brighter light also tended to have more reliable cabinets. Attlee was famous for his chairman ethos to being PM, allowing other strong personalities in his cabinet to shine, Similarly with Wilson,  Blair's first term included a lot of relatively broad thinkers and serious people, before his "presidential" instincts and psycho-drama with Brown became dominant. Cameron ran everything with Osborne out of 10 and 11 Downing Street. May had a nest of vipers.

You can also consider that the UK's FPTP and the bizarre setup where the lower legislature acts as de facto Executive branch with an emaciated revising chamber creates a tyranny of the majority, where the PM can enforce any decision they like with little ability to prevent it. There is no doubt to me that the previous cabinet style government had acted as a break on the genesis of poor decisions. Thanks to the modern public perception of how we elect leaders, I doubt the cult of personality around executive style PMs is going to go away soon. How then do you create a counter balance where there can be real debate as to how and what decisions are made? How do you try and create an atmosphere where decisions are made holistically, rather than pandering to the next News cycle?

If PMs are simple play dough squeezed into a shape by the system of government around them, does that mean that until there is major reform of all government systems, Party structures as well and even the educational routes taken by candidates - that each PM is in fact, simply doomed to being worse than the one before?

 

Yes.

[ICTJohnboy]

6 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

Yes.

 

I guess that's the long and the short of it.

[scottsdad]

Keir Starmer

Spoiler

 

[Mark Connolly]

[BFTD]

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes to get another PM who isn't just chasing the approval of their party and/or the electorate. It certainly won't be happening this year, nor any time before 2024, barring some hugely unexpected changes in personnel. The problem is that, if you end up with a True Believer with Big Ideas that they're prepared to force past public/private resistance, you can end up with Margaret Thatcher, or worse.

I doubt they're always going to get worse over time, but there's a definite quality threshold when you're putting out fires to shore up the opinion polls, or keep your colleagues' knives in their scabbards.

Edit: of the currently sitting MPs, who does P&B think would make the best Prime Minister? Forgetting about anybody not in the Conservative or Labour Parties, as they've as much chance as Ad Lib in 2015. Or any Lib, for that matter.

Edited August 9, 2022 by BFTD

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Mick Lynch

[coprolite]

Dec (out of Ant and Dec) 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Gary Lineker

[HTG]

Given the limited lifespan of the UK, it's very unlikely there will ever be another decent one. 

Had the Tories not signed themselves over to UKIP, Rory Stewart might have attempted competence - probably as much as can be hoped for. 

Competence in the Labour Party has gone into hiding. 

[AyrshireTon]

Won't be one, unless the Kingdom of England gets its collective finger out after the rest of us have gone.

Until then, we're all stuck with whichever colour of Tory party that England votes in.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

8 hours ago, coprolite said:

Dec (out of Ant and Dec) 

Great. Another one on the far right.

[Ziggy]

Jo Swinson

[tamthebam]

It's the one who signs off the Dissolution of the Union 

You could say possibly Keith. He's that boring and wouldn't do much which could be seen as decent compared to Boris 

[BFTD]

On 10/08/2022 at 20:11, Ziggy said:

Jo Swinson

Decades from now, on her final day at work before retirement, Jo Swinson's colleagues will throw a surprise farewell bash in the canteen, and at some point the guy charged with watching the door for her arrival will cry, "that's the UK's next Prime Minister on her way!"

[carpetmonster]

7 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Decades from now, on her final day at work before retirement, Jo Swinson's colleagues will throw a surprise farewell bash in the canteen, and at some point the guy charged with watching the door for her arrival will cry, "that's the UK's next Prime Minister on her way!"

If Jo did nothing else, she got me to spark a bottle of awfully fancy beer when Nicola was giving it big licks. Wishful thinking, but maybe I'll crack this on Boris' last day. 

 

[San Starko Rover]

There won’t be one, the UK will be consigned to the dustbin of history by either Scottish Independence or Irish Reunification.  

[Richey Edwards]

17 hours ago, tamthebam said:

You could say possibly Keith. He's that boring and wouldn't do much which could be seen as decent compared to Boris 

Anyone else would look decent compared to Boris. In the same way David Hopkin made Jim Duffy look decent.

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, Richey Edwards said:

Anyone else would look decent compared to Boris. In the same way David Hopkin made Jim Duffy look decent.

 

[Granny Danger]

On 10/08/2022 at 20:11, Ziggy said:

Jo Swinson