The UK government has a job vacancy that is becoming available with increasing frequency at present. It wishes to recruit a new Prime MinisteCandidates must understand that it has been so long since we had a good Prime Minister that no one knows precisely what such a post holder would look like, but they will be able to tell it when they see it.
The characteristics that will prove a person's suitability for office will be;
- charisma,
- conviction,
- competence,
- coherence and
- consistency.
These will be evidenced by:
- certainty as to the goals;
- unflappability in the face of crisis;
- communication skills at an extraordinary level, so that everyone from the state to the country understands what is happening, why it is happening, when it will happen, what the desired outcome is, who will benefit, and how they will feel that benefit.
This, then, will require vision that others can not only understand, but also support. This will require that the post holder realise their own goals as an epiphenomenon of their achievement for others, achievement for whom will be more important than anything they may gain, at least during, and maybe even after, their period in office.
The successful candidate must, therefore, have an extraordinary altruism, the sense of achievement from which will be reward enough in itself, because the task they are to undertake will, almost by definition, be thankless.
Applicants must provide the names of 80 referees, all of whom must be members of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Thereafter, they must win the support of the voting panel, most of whom do not share the convictions of those referees who nominated them, because those referees are unlikely to have conviction, and the interview panel, who will vote on the appointment, will be possessed of it. This is the first of many contradictions that the candidate must prove they can resolve.
In their application, candidates might like to explain how they will:
- Manage the consequences of conflict in the Gulf, including;
- economic recession or depression,
- food shortages,
- energy shortages,
- the imposition of rationing, and
- the necessary reallocation of available resources, income and wealth within the country to ensure the survival of all within it.
- Manage the process of climate change whilst the above is happening.
- Negotiate claims for independence from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
- Rebuild relationships with Europe whilst pretending that there remains a special relationship with the USA.
- Manage the threat from neo-fascism.
- Restore British enterprise and workplace security.
Candidates will also be expected to provide an economic briefing. They must explain:
- Their economic priorities in specific terms.
- The nature of money and the government's role in its creation.
- The function of government debt.
- The government funding cycle and how it works.
- The government's relationship with the City of London and how it will be managed.
- The true constraints on government spending.
- The role of the Bank of England.
- The priorities of the tax system, how it should be managed, and the challenges it faces.
- How they would order priorities in the light of their answers.
The emphasis within this section will be upon understanding, and not presentation.
Application forms are available on request.
Good luck!
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Are you thinking of applying?
No
But your advice does need to be heard at the very top of Government. I suspect there are some people following your blog who could help to make this happen. It’s time for them to do just that.
Hello.
I am a weapons-trained bipolar Aquarian, with an unshakeable belief in my own abilities. Unafraid of challenges, I spit in the eye of those who insult me.
Looking for validation. gsoh.
Please send an application form.
To be fair, we cannot expect one person to command all those briefs; applicants should be expected to bring with them a whole cabinet of colleagues and of course the special expertise of civil servants. The trouble is that, at the moment, it can be difficult to know who they could rely on for their cabinet, when so many experienced and knowledgeable individuals will have been removed either by ill-advised prime ministers of by constituency electorates.
Why can’t we expect opinion and knowledge on all that?
I do not see why not.
I had never heard of Lord Foulkes but he was on television yesterday arguing – unconvincingly – that the Prime Minister should not resign. A Wiki search revealed Foulkes as an ex-MP and ‘Friend of Israel”. The recently appointed head of MI6 was reported as having some connection/relationship with Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. Sir Kier Starmer is reported as saying “I support Zionism without qualification” (The Times of Israel, 2 April 2020 reproduced 12 May 2026.)
I am utterly opposed to Antisemitism but are these people British patriots?
Fully agreed Richard.
We must remember that leadership is also the execution of power.
So, how is that power to be used? If we are silent on what we think that power should be used for, then what fills the void? Whose needs fill the void, whose worldview, objectives? Who will the power be used for?
We need to know what leaders will do for us – we put them there, they are accountable to us.
The situation we have now is that a leader was put where he is by making promises and then he decided to accept the world as he found it and reneged on the promises. The people he was executing or rather restraining his power for were the same people who bought him clothes and accessories plus some days out with the wife. The Prime Minister looked cool and presentable for sure – but has done naff all, hence his and our present predicament.
So yes please New Next Leader – tell us what you are going to do and stick to it. And no gaps please. And please do buy your own sodding clothes, accessories and jollies.
Your job description confirms my feeling, which has been coming on for some time, that no sane person would want thejob.
@Sue H. No sane person would stand as a MP, let alone want to be PM. Fifteen years ago I was approached to put myself forward as a candidate, but one look at the process of getting elected persuaded me that I was nowhere near crazy enough.
I tend to agree
Polly Toynbee onmce tried to persuade me to stand
The late Michael Meacher, and John McDonnell, both persuded me I would be wasting my time.
They must also not be otherwise influenced by money or pressure from foreign governments or big business
A great list.
Clearly NOT the list that gave us David Cameron, Theresa May, A B de Pfeffel Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, or Keir Starmer.
My wife and I are both members of affiliate organisations so will get votes in any formal contest (unless it’s a stitch-up coronation). I know who I wouldn’t vote for, even as the lesser of ?? evils but will there be anyone I could vote for (possibly with the aid of a clothes peg, applied nasally)?
Rachel Maskell MP on why she wants rid of Keith, on BBC this morning ‘there is still no sign of change in the economic orthodoxy’ – ish. Are some mainstream MPs beginning to realise there HAS to be another way?
While I agree with your assessment of the qualities required of any future Prime Minister, and I’ll stick to the Labour Party for the moment since they are in power. I believe this , at least for the Government, is missing the elephant in the room, which, with the help of the M.S.M, they seem to be doing their best to ignore. Which is of course the present day policies of that Party. As Jimmy Reid said many years ago, and further commented on last week by the General Secretary of Unite the Union, Sharon Graham, who said, “The Labour Party have deserted the workers, so the workers have deserted the Labour Party”. Unless these policies are altered, drastically, and since they had the opportunity to do so if they had elected Jeremy Corbyn, I don’t see that happening, so in essence it will make very little difference to the course they are now taking, which will result in even greater losses at their next electoral test, and as also commented on by Ms. Graham, to their possible eventual extinction as a political party.
One question that no one in the MSM (or anywhere else) should be asking is: Starmer makes much of how he “changed” the Labour Party. He’s always saying “I changed my Labour Party”. So, in what demonstrable ways have those changes contributed to governing the country? Have those changes actually made the Party better? If so, how?
Starmer said “if you don’t like the changes I’ve made, the door is open and you can leave”. 280,000 party members (53%) did exactly that.
And well before that, in 2015 while in opposition, Reeves made it clear that Labour was no longer a party for those drawing social security.
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/anger-after-reeves-tells-benefit-claimants-labour-is-not-for-you/
On that issue alone, she was being truthful. At that point the members elected Corbyn, but the party bureaucracy soon dealt with him and purged the membership of his supporters by force or persuasion.
The chaos the party faces now, has been the result of relentless deliberate choices. Nothing has gone wrong except that the general public have seen through it, and are still waiting for coherent alternatives (present company excepted).
Thank you, everyone.
Further to Joe’s comments about M, the new head of MI6, I can shed some light.
Her grandfather was a Red Army soldier turned Nazi war criminal and collaborator and later co-opted by the western allies. The family changed surnames to hide that history.
Metreweli was appointed above three more senior MI6 officers, all with field experience, and Barbara Woodward, the former ambassador to the UN and a China specialist. Why? In her role as Q, sic, she led cooperation with the US, including Silicon Valley, and Israel. The US and Israel lobbied for her appointment as they wish to increase the US and Israeli tech reach into Britain, not just national security, but health and other public services.
Interesting
I believe Israel has been organising and collecting levers to use against every aspect of politicians and other individuals with access to power and influence, to use to obtain what it wants by coercion or persuasion.
In the King’s Speech tomorrow is the intention to give companies such as Palentir full access to NHS patient records.
This sounds like ‘reach’ too far into the population’s personal information.
Just imagine what could be done with it? Paralysis for anyone challenging the Zionist ambition.
Agree with the qualities – more likely to find them in a team.
Ref: Starmer, hanging on possibly because he knows, once he is gone, there is a good chance of a one-way ticket to the Hague – for complicity with genocide.
Perhaps the next LINO leader would want to “clear the decks” and what better way than shipping some of the current gov crew to the Hague (there are probably half a dozen that should be in the dock). How did we get here? Starmer & his mob spend more time supporting Israel and worrying about anti-semitism (agaionst 0.4% of the population) than the concerns of 99.6% of the population and the daily racism against (20%?) those that don’t conform to the native pantone colour of these isles or indeed adhere to a fatih that is not christianity. Col Smithers provides a good example of the focus & actions of what passes for the current “gov”. They governing in the interests of the 99.6% that’s for sure.
Figures suggest that the City of London contributes about 22% to the economy. I presume that this is largely unproductive. It therefore does little for the ordinary people of this country.
I got my first job in 1961 with a large electrical engineering company in Manchester employing about 20,000 people in that factory alone. There were three similar sized electrical engineering companies in Britain at that time. None are left and yet rival European firms, namely Siemens and Philips still thrive. The work was highly skilled and provided reasonable security. None of us expected to be made redundant at the drop of a hat.
Surely a caring government should be making an effort to provide a similar environment for its citizens in this day and age.
And here come the policy pitches, from:
The Labour Growth Group https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk/ (Streeting, Yuan Yang)
Tribune https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/may/12/labour-economy-mps-tribune-group-keir-starmer (Louise Haigh, Yuan Yang – she is in both groups)
They make interesting reading, but show no awareness on what money is or where it comes from, and don’t dump the household analogy and both yield sovereignty to “the bond markets” who they say have to be placated, rather than dominated. So no real change from neoliberalism, just a bit more redecoration of the Titanic’s 2nd class cabins.
No mention of PR.
And Jess Phillips has resigned. No show without Punch. She’s a Streeting fan.
Perhaps we should view them as the next lot of temporary, left-leaning and utterly disposable “pledges”. Been there, done that, they lied. No thanks.
I’ll be very disappointed if someone lets this opportunity go by without turning the process into a third rate TV show . But if not, at least we know there will be another chance in a year or two!
PMs are starting to last as long as football managers. It’s crazy to think that Ursula von der Leyen could well be officially congratulating her 5th PM on their appointment. If nothing else that shows things are not well with our political system.
Since 4 May 1979, from Thatcher onwards, to today, we have had ten prime ministers in just over 47 years. Two with terms over ten years, two between 6 and 7 years, but six less than four years. In that period, the average lifetime of a prime minster is 4 years and 8 months, so somewhat less than a full five-year parliamentary term.
Thatcher and Blair winning three consecutive general elections is very much the exception, but those long periods in office colour our perception of what success looks like. Winning a second consecutive election is just not that common. Before Thatcher, if you ignore minorities, Wilson did it in 1964 and 1966 and twice in 1974, and Attlee in 1945 and 1950, and Asquith twice in 1910, and but that is it since 1900.
On picking a Prime Minister: extract from thoughts of C Northcote Parkinson (from an era in which the notion of a female PM was a bit of a challenge to the chaps who sorted these things out).
Thanks
Where is Clive Lewis in all this? I’ve long admired his stance.
See the post from him I put on here a couple of days ago.
David Byrne says:
Richard, thank you for your extensive analysis. My thought is that courage and selflessness on the part of a leader bestows upon that person the prefix ‘great’. A fearless fight should prioritise addressing injustice:
-denouncing poverty; homing the homeless; legislating against exploitation.
5 achievable and planned steps could comprise, calling out the disgraceful, right wing media aka The Ministry of Enlightenment and Propaganda; removing from office the unsupportive ‘chancers’; taxation of the wealthy; increasing social benefits; immediate legislative support for wide-ranging skills training.
Just do it now Sir Kier and then check with ‘Barnsley Man’ to test the degree of success.
It would be a start.