The pension for life thing is a myth - ex prime ministers get an allowance for expenses incurred (see Former prime ministers: what support do they get from the state? | Institute for Government) but it is not a pension.
Admittedly most of them seem to make full use of this fund.
The one I would object to is Truss, and Johnson is probably taking the piss but, then, he always did.
John Crace had it right this morning.
And for a prime minister, Starmer had always seemed curiously uninterested in politics. So much so that you wondered why he had ever become a politician. It probably just felt like a normal career progression.
My thoughts entirely.
Agree, but I had sort of hoped that was actually a bonus in terms of effectiveness.
And, as I have said before, I don’t think he was ineffective in the role - but he often got the politics bit somewhat wrong and that definitely hampered him.
Extemely unpopular in his constiuency also.
Seems strange they kept voting for him then. Various people considered standing against him during the last election but the general consensus was that unlike Farage Vs Binface it wouldn’t get the result, or enthusiasm from either constituents or the press, to make it worth the effort. I don’t doubt what you say, it’s just strange.
Not really - people vote for the candidate of the party they favour, few seem to understand that the idea is to vote for your local representative based on what they will do for their constituency.
In fact most people vote for the candidate of the party who’s leader they like the most - even further from how the system is supposed to work.
The vote was going down each election. He got a boost (as did all the Chicken Coup MPs) in 2017 but the writing was on the wall. Became PM with a reduced majority.
System was created before parties. Useless system now but you could have a hybrid system where you vote for individuals and parties.
