Shopping & Style3 mins ago
A Kind Of Serious Question
43 Answers
Why would anyone want to be prime minister at the moment, or even in the last couple of years? I really can’t fathom it, it’s a thankless task, even a poisoned chalice, the stress must be unbelievable and I can’t imagine the ‘power’ of the office makes up, in any way, for the downsides.
So what’s the appeal?
So what’s the appeal?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Vagus. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If you don’t have the pre-requisite skills or resolution for it you quickly get found out.
Johnson despite a horrendous public and private life was appointed on jingoistic fever and very little else, a bumbling flag-shagger who took the buffoonerish antics of a flag-waving mayor into Downing St but didn’t change his demeanour and character to suit as befits the office of Prime Minister.
When finally pushed to resign for perpetual lying the next believed that she had the skills for the job when all indications otherwise showed her to be anything but competent in any role she’d ever had previously, with no clear sense of direction, no statesmanship, nor any idea of what she really stood for, as shown with the flip-flop tag.
Ignoring advice in one’s own party, the electorate and opposition(even when they have credible ideas and strategy) whilst being inept is a recipe for disaster.
So yes, if you do all that it’s a thankless task.
Some decisions are obvious yet aren’t taken, others incredulous that are. The last 3 weeks have proved Unfathomable and unprecedented.
When the UK and world markets needed measured stability we got knee-jerk recklessness.
A Pound in the gutter, mortgages doubling and crises at every turn…..but some on here reckon an alternative party in government would be worse??
Diabolical.
Johnson despite a horrendous public and private life was appointed on jingoistic fever and very little else, a bumbling flag-shagger who took the buffoonerish antics of a flag-waving mayor into Downing St but didn’t change his demeanour and character to suit as befits the office of Prime Minister.
When finally pushed to resign for perpetual lying the next believed that she had the skills for the job when all indications otherwise showed her to be anything but competent in any role she’d ever had previously, with no clear sense of direction, no statesmanship, nor any idea of what she really stood for, as shown with the flip-flop tag.
Ignoring advice in one’s own party, the electorate and opposition(even when they have credible ideas and strategy) whilst being inept is a recipe for disaster.
So yes, if you do all that it’s a thankless task.
Some decisions are obvious yet aren’t taken, others incredulous that are. The last 3 weeks have proved Unfathomable and unprecedented.
When the UK and world markets needed measured stability we got knee-jerk recklessness.
A Pound in the gutter, mortgages doubling and crises at every turn…..but some on here reckon an alternative party in government would be worse??
Diabolical.
Vagus
//All very (maybe) interesting, Fatti, but didn’t answer my question really.
I can’t imagine it’s just the power, especially at the moment, I’d call it stupidity//
Well for the most part of the last 12 years it depends on who the faceless super-rich want as the person who will implement policies and govern in a way that will maintain their wealth and power, hence it’s either oligarchs, media moguls, oil/energy company CEO’s or big business party donors.
The decisions made in the last 3 years alone by this Tory government prove that.
//All very (maybe) interesting, Fatti, but didn’t answer my question really.
I can’t imagine it’s just the power, especially at the moment, I’d call it stupidity//
Well for the most part of the last 12 years it depends on who the faceless super-rich want as the person who will implement policies and govern in a way that will maintain their wealth and power, hence it’s either oligarchs, media moguls, oil/energy company CEO’s or big business party donors.
The decisions made in the last 3 years alone by this Tory government prove that.
I think the appeal is reaching the pinnacle of political office, that has to be worth all the nonsense around it for those who aspire, and reach that level.
To be a politician at any level, you have to have an inbuilt belief that you are good enough to make a change, and that belief must increase exponentially with any, and all, realised ambition you have as well.
The problem is, as we know, politicians are like monkeys, the higher they climb, the more of their unpleasant parts we can see.
The difficulty now appears to lie in the Tory Party's unseemly haste to jettison their PM before he could do any more damage, without actually looking ahead carefully enough to see who was next.
That's why they followed America with Trump, and didn't get the person they wanted, just the other person, who wasn't the one they didn't want.
Of course, that's no basis for choosing a crossing warden, never mind a Prime Minister, and that's why we are where we are now.
And to tie that in with the Question - Ms Truss possesses all the desire and ambition needed to make the horrible job something to aspire to.
Sadly, she also lacks any of the basic requirements to do it even satisfactorily, never mind actually doing it well.
Ambition and belief motivate those who aspire to climb this greasy pole, but they need experience, political skill, management skill understanding, brains, wit, oversight, man-management, and an ability to convince the electorate that they are fit to be voted in for another term.
Of course, Ms Truss has the desire and the ambition, but sadly none of the other attributes, not one.
Desire and ambition make you want the job, they don't guarantee that you can do it once you get it.
To be a politician at any level, you have to have an inbuilt belief that you are good enough to make a change, and that belief must increase exponentially with any, and all, realised ambition you have as well.
The problem is, as we know, politicians are like monkeys, the higher they climb, the more of their unpleasant parts we can see.
The difficulty now appears to lie in the Tory Party's unseemly haste to jettison their PM before he could do any more damage, without actually looking ahead carefully enough to see who was next.
That's why they followed America with Trump, and didn't get the person they wanted, just the other person, who wasn't the one they didn't want.
Of course, that's no basis for choosing a crossing warden, never mind a Prime Minister, and that's why we are where we are now.
And to tie that in with the Question - Ms Truss possesses all the desire and ambition needed to make the horrible job something to aspire to.
Sadly, she also lacks any of the basic requirements to do it even satisfactorily, never mind actually doing it well.
Ambition and belief motivate those who aspire to climb this greasy pole, but they need experience, political skill, management skill understanding, brains, wit, oversight, man-management, and an ability to convince the electorate that they are fit to be voted in for another term.
Of course, Ms Truss has the desire and the ambition, but sadly none of the other attributes, not one.
Desire and ambition make you want the job, they don't guarantee that you can do it once you get it.
pimplyteen - // By what I've seen over the last 12 years it's all to do with personal glory, not the welfare of one's country. Plus, there's every chance of feathering my own nest. //
To be objective, I think that the personal glory and additional income on the speaker circuit are by-products of the job, not the reason for chasing it in the first place.
Anyone who wants serious money can earn it in dozens of ways that bring in far more than a PM's salary.
The notion of getting through a term as PM just to get the money afterwards sounds far too much like hard work, and anyone who is within shouting distance of the job will already have got some serious income streams lined up, if not already in place.
Boris could, and now will, earn ten times as much writing than he did as PM, something he is manifestly better at, so clearly he wasn't looking for the money when he put in for the role.
Margaret Thatcher was married to a millionaire, no need for glory or any money afterwards.
The list goes on ...
To be objective, I think that the personal glory and additional income on the speaker circuit are by-products of the job, not the reason for chasing it in the first place.
Anyone who wants serious money can earn it in dozens of ways that bring in far more than a PM's salary.
The notion of getting through a term as PM just to get the money afterwards sounds far too much like hard work, and anyone who is within shouting distance of the job will already have got some serious income streams lined up, if not already in place.
Boris could, and now will, earn ten times as much writing than he did as PM, something he is manifestly better at, so clearly he wasn't looking for the money when he put in for the role.
Margaret Thatcher was married to a millionaire, no need for glory or any money afterwards.
The list goes on ...
what Redhelen said but I'd add fame. Would anyone know the name of the minor novelist Disraeli 150 years later if he hadn't been PM?
The earnings of a PM tend to be dwarfed by the earnings of ex-PMs, so Redhelen is right to specify futureearnings.
"Power" is not that easy to wield, as Truss has just found, but the likes of Blair and Thatcher could do largely as they pleased. They were exceptional, though; most PMs are more or less constrained by economics, foreigners, bad weather and other irritants.
The earnings of a PM tend to be dwarfed by the earnings of ex-PMs, so Redhelen is right to specify futureearnings.
"Power" is not that easy to wield, as Truss has just found, but the likes of Blair and Thatcher could do largely as they pleased. They were exceptional, though; most PMs are more or less constrained by economics, foreigners, bad weather and other irritants.
