Seven PMs in 10 years, what's gone wrong with the UK?

[supercrone]

As an outsider, it's kind of fascinating to watch. The PMs span both parties, so you can't really blame one party or another. What's the problem guys?

Personally I think runaway house price inflation over the last 40 years is to blame for a lot
of it.

All politicians happily watched house prices rise so that people felt wealthier and spent money in the economy without building social housing or trying to limit it in any way. We’re now in a situation where house prices take up such a large proportion of people’s income that income taxes and NI cannot rise, council tax cannot rise etc and elderly people are trapped in houses they can’t either live in or sell.

I was taken by surprise by Kier Starmer, I thought he would be far more charismatic and persuasive especially given his legal background as a barrister, but he just wasn’t.

He was very flat in his public delivery. That matters. It may sound superficial but you need to perform on the world stage, whilst also getting on with the ‘doing’.

I do agree on the salary thing. If you look at private companies, they pay £££ to get the right candidate for CEO. MPs salaries are way lower which means they aren't doing it for the money. Sadly I think in a lot of cases they are doing it for power instead, hence the infighting.

Contrariwise, I don't agree. There is zero evidence that a companies performance is linked to the pay - either absolute or relative - of the C Suite suits.

Correlation is not causation. Something we should all have learned in Year 1.

No one got rich on a backbench salary alone. But they’re paid just fine, plus all the perks. I think they should be allowed second jobs too, like Rayner’s done.

How many second jobs would you allow?

https://mpdata.uk/register-of-members-interests/second-jobs

Do you mean like a third or fourth? Depends on the jobs.

While actually serving as an MP ?

Zero. No danger of any misinterpretation.

If MPs want the freedom to have second jobs, then they can pay for it with a limit of 2 terms.

We really shouldn't be breeding career politicians anyway.

Or 16?

If Angela Rayner gives 16 speeches for money each time, is that 16 jobs?

Yes.

Is that ok with you?

I agree with @SerendipityJane , they should not have 2nd jobs

Why pay to hear her speak, when she will do it for free as her job ?

Okey dokey.

Dunno. I wouldn’t bother listening to her speak in any circumstances, but for the paid gigs you’d need to ask whoever’s hiring her.

The economy - it's a known demographic effect of an aging population and brexit only made it worse as did covid. Brexit and covid also made public poltical discourse more fraught and divisive and given attacks on MP more dangerous for public figures.

Public discourse on downside on immigation - which we need for workers - been stiffled for decades under guise of racism. Putting neded immigration - needed by employers like NHS - into areas of low resources - most obviously housing leads to tension instead of a public discussion about trade off it's stiffled which actually makes it easier for actual racists to use public disatifaction.

Public discouse on many things is stifle - look at NHS does wodners but also lets people down and has for a while - but can't be discussed. I think it fear - I do think brexit public having chose "wrong" to many piolticians - without it being made a binding refudneum made that fear worse.

However Stamer issue are not doing the planning in opposition - I said that last election on here and loyal supporters shouted in down - pointed out I was in wales lobour run for decades and doing worse - I was a poltical plant .

Sunak - issue was lack of discipline in Tory party - not the UK population. Boris - was a mess and both main parties were to blame there as well as public- Corbine not looking like a choice. Terssa May was handed a posion chalice - and that down to Cameron Boris and Brexit.

TBH there a lack of poltical idea and concesus - that's partly a lack of talent in all the main parties - which I think modern media does play a role with - and it's an issue wider than UK.

However we are not killing each other on the streets - we are selecting new leaders within the poltical framework we have - I'd argue that's a sign of our system actaully working. There is this narrative being pushed now - pops up on her other places on line in interviews - that we are an ungovernable country - we are not - we are just facing some big problems and working out to to proceed as we always do.

I don't disagree with you that most people don't want to or can't work to the current state pension age. The reason we need to increase it is because we can't afford it as it currently stands. People need to make more provision for themselves so they can retire at whatever age they choose but need to be able to pay for themselves.

I don't know what age people died at when the state pension was introduced but I know it was alot younger. Mainly because lots of things hadn't been invented yet and so people died quicker from things they can now prevent or fix. Now because people are living much longer they are claiming it much longer. They only way to fix it is to increase the age so they get it for less years again.
That highlights another problem - we often keep people alive for many years but without a good quality of life. In the past these people would have died but now we keep artificially prolonging their life. Thus the pension bill is too high.
They are already reducing it by keeping personal allowances the same for many years and thus it will get taxed soon.

The other problem we have is with the current welfare system people who can't work till state pension age are just claiming other benefits.
Whether we like it or not we need a system that says - at 70 you get state pension. Prior to that you look after yourself and the only welfare available is something really basic. This would force people to save for their own retirement.

Not to be mean, not to be cruel, not to be nasty but because this is all the UK can afford now based on our current finances. What we 'want' does not matter - it is what we can 'afford'. That's the only way we are going to fix this mess. (Yes we need growth and investment as well and perhaps one day the UK might be able to pay out more again but for now this is where we are)

This is nothing - you should see some of the other threads on subjects such as cutting welfare of how much should we spend on SEN children.
Rather than taking accountability for ourselves as adults and agreeing we should be paying for ourselves and looking after our own children, the thread will descend into 'Oh so you want to cut how much we spend on SEN children who will never be able to hold down a job and contribute back to society. How dare you. We should still give them the best education possible whatever the cost, even though we can't afford it as a country and even though they will never be able to contribute back. You are a monster, you are the devil, you are hitler. You want to bring back the workhouses, you want them gassed etc' So the conversation is shut down and nobody can say well removing all emotions 'yes we are broke, yes these kids won't ever be able to contribute to society so yes of course we should feed them, give them a roof over their head etc but that's all we can afford at the moment. Due to lack of finances we can only spend money in areas that will generate growth to fix the economy'

The entitlement is through the roof. The trouble is lots of people will not accept that the UK is pretty broke now and living way beyond it's means. Even the ones that say they understand don't want things that affect them changed, only things that affect others. We just need to change things and people need to step up. We also need alot more front line police because yes it's going to be messy and chaotic for a while.

Now watch the reactions to this post.........

I can not disagree with anything you have written there

I do strongly feel that keeping people working longer is removing opportunities to people joining the work force and what sort of culture does it say we live in when we will have people dying on the job with increasing regularity

To remove the 'cradle to grave' that we have lived with since the Beveridge report post WWII is inevitable and the baby boomers took far more than their share from the deal. I am not in that cohort but have benefited on their coat tails

It is such a mess and I don't disagree with your analysis. I would like a culture whereby older people (post 55) move into a training capacity to pass skills along to the next generation as a phased exit from the workplace. Although AI may render us all on the scrap heap. Economics for the insane maybe, but I have to tell you having worked for over 40 years I can't do this for much longer.

The other problem we have is with the current welfare system people who can't work till state pension age are just claiming other benefits
Whether we like it or not we need a system that says - at 70 you get state pension. Prior to that you look after yourself and the only welfare available is something really basic. This would force people to save for their own retirement

But not everyone is able to save for retirement. Even those who can will only manage a modest pension or savings. If they get ill or have an accident which means they can't work, what then? People live in abject poverty, unable to participate in wider society? That helps nobody, not those who can't work nor those who do.

This is what the right wing want so they can pay less tax; back to the days of workhouses, abject child and elderly poverty and with that a substantial rise in crime as people would have no choice.

I had hoped that the UK was better than that but it seems many really do want this.

Brexit and the billionaire media tycoons that encouraged people to vote for it. Has made us so much poorer.

It's basically because successive PMs have focussed too much on what the media seems to think of them and not enough on doing what is right for the country.

Either you can be a "journeyman" politicial who rocks the boat as little as possible and does very little in terms of actual policy in order to hope you get relected because you don't piss that many people off, or you can be a conviction politicial who does stuff because it is the right thing to do for the country, even though a lot of people might not like the taste of the medicine.

If you are going to be that conviction politician then you need a fair bit of luck, plus you need to get your policies in at the beginning of the electoral cycle so there is a change improvements start to happen by the end.

Thatcher was pretty lucky in the respect she was a conviction politician, but managed to get re-elected due to the Falklands War (before that she was quite unpopular and heading for a defeat).

Basically no one since Thatcher has tried the conviction politician route (maybe Truss but we didn't get long enough to find out there), it's a gamble and the country has to get to a very bad state before it can work.

Whether we are currently at that state or not, I don't know.

This why nothing changes -because a few are sick and disabled and cannot work we end up propping up everyone - why are people blind to the fact that we are in debt, not covering all these pensions and benefits and unless it’s reduced WILL have people in abject poverty

Brexit, Social Media and 'Cancel Culture'.

Each time UK politics get weird, France is like: hold my vin rouge.
We had 8 PMs in 10 years, including one who resigned 3 weeks after being appointed and was then appointed again.
And with elections next year, the worst is yet to come.