This is my speech on the government’s bill to increase the number of Ministers who can be paid a salary. I have taken the Hansard record of my remarks and have added to the speech, as I was kept to a short time limit.
This Bill is an opportunity for the Government to think more widely about how the tasks of Ministers can be made a bit easier, how the chances of success can be enhanced and how the public can feel that they are getting more out of their Ministers who are being paid for the jobs that they are doing. There is plenty of scope to improve the clarity about what the Ministers are meant to be doing, how well they are doing it and how they are mentored and supported in their jobs.
When I was the executive chairman of a large quoted company, it would never have occurred to me that it would be good practice to go into the office one day, without having alerted any of my senior colleagues, and tell them that I had decided to swap them all around just for the sake of it. I did propose that I was going to make the sales director the finance director and the engineering director the sales director, and that I was going to sack somebody else, all on the same day. I would not think that that would have a happy result. Even more obviously I would not have sent out the newly appointed senior executives to talk to the press and customers about what they were going to do in their new jobs before I had talked to them at length about the changes that were needed, and before they had talked to their new staff and got on top of the issues.
Successive Prime Ministers have been quite wrong to have these big clear-out days as some assertion of power, Those whom they sack will never like them again and quite a lot of those whom they appoint are given jobs that they do not want or understand, so they also harbour a grudge about the experience of the reshuffle. We need something better than that. The newly appointed are expected by Parliament and the media to be instant experts in their new roles.,
We need senior Ministers mentoring and looking, in private, at the performance of more junior Ministers. Leading Cabinet members should be mentored and their performance reviewed by the Prime Minister and other Cabinet members perhaps by the Deputy Prime Minister. All other Ministers should be mentored by their departmental ministerial heads.
Aims should be few in n umber, challenging to achieve, and linked to the main goals of the government. The Home Secretary for example should be expected to smash the gangs, and have as one of her targets big reductions in numbers of illegals entering the country. The Health Secretary should have targets to boost NHS numbers of treatments and consultations and get waiting lists down.
I wonder if it is not time to be a little bolder and change the language. Why do we call most of our Ministers junior Ministers? People think it a privilege, necessity or requirement to see a Minister, so we do not need negative language to undermine the Minister’s authority before the meeting begins. Surely each is either a Minister or a Cabinet Minister. A Cabinet Minister is a super-Minister with strategic obligations and ultimate responsibility for the departments in which the other Ministers are working. That could be extremely helpful from the point of view of working out the structure.
I think that we need only two main types of Minister: heads of department or Cabinet Ministers paid a higher salary; and other Ministers paid the Minister of State salary. I think the Parliamentary Secretary salary is still quite low given the magnitude of many of these jobs and the responsibilities that they entail. Some Parliamentary Secretary jobs do not amount to much and can be absorbed b y the Minister of State supervising or working with them. Each Ministerial job needs to be a defined area of powers, duties and expertise, with clear targets to assess achievement. The way to decide how many Ministers are needed is to map the powers and duties the government wishes to exercise first, to see what is the right number of Ministerial commands.
I would strongly recommend that we consider some kind of performance review system. One of the things that made reshuffles so particularly difficult for many of my ministerial colleagues when we were undergoing them was that they had absolutely no idea whether the Prime Minister and the Whips thought they were doing well or badly and whether they were going to be promoted, demoted or shuffled sideways. Sometimes, they were sitting there with their phone for a day or so while the reshuffle agonisingly went on and were not even rung up and told that they were just going to stay put—which might have been good news, a relief or a disappointment. On performance, therefore, we need a system where they are mentored, assessed and allowed to say that they need better resources or more support.
As a general rule, it would be much better if we did not change Ministers so often. Looking at the Governments of the last 25 years—Labour, Coalition or Conservative—there has been an in-and-out far too frequently. I would have thought the norm should be that you appoint somebody for a four to five-year Parliament as a Minister. If they then do very well and you want to promote them, that is a bonus; if you have to manage them out because they are so dreadful, you do so only after giving them chances to improve and trying to help them do a better job, and then you do it in an orderly and sensible way. There would be a bit of movement but you would not have these blow-up days when everybody is put at risk. Knowing a Minister’s past, wishes and expertise would enable more suitable appointments to be made, to reduce the unacceptably high loss rate most governments have experienced through loss of Ministers for past or recent conduct.
This might start to work rather better. It takes four years for a Minister to read their way in, get used to working with their officials, and put in place the laws and the budget programmes they want to and then see the results of their labour—whereas most of us were never allowed to see the results of our labour because we were moved on to some other crisis point or difficulty before we had seen the whole thing through. You would not normally do that in a business.
I make these modest suggestions to the Leader. I hope she will pass them on to the Prime Minister, because I think government would be much better if Ministers were looked after and mentored but also expected to perform, and if we had a more orderly process for appointing and removing. It does seem that, with the current system, in all too many government cases, too many people are still selected who have bad histories that come to revisit them in an unfortunate way as soon as they become Ministers. It would be much better if more time were given to the selection, once you had set up an initial Government, and there were more conversations with people to find out what they were good at and wanted to do, and a bit about their background, to avoid embarrassment.
I have always found it crucial to success in a organisation to appoint people to posts they want to do, where they already have the expertise or where they will give freely of their energy and time to acquire the skills they need. The parties in my experience have often not done a good job at getting to know the people they have as MPs so they have failed to put more round pegs into round slots. Being a Minister is demanding and not a regular job. You are on call 7 x 24 every week, you work weekends and evenings as needed, you have to go the extra distance to get things done and to ensure the public’s wishes and interests are upheld. In response Ministers should not be prey to instant dismissal for no good reason, should not be left in the dark about what they is meant to achieve, and not be ignorant of how well or badly they are doing or are thought to be doing.
April 17, 2026
The current and recent ministers are so dire that choosing people at random with perhaps a basic IQ threshold level test to pass would give far better outcomes.
Might also be good if Chancellor’s like John Major has passed Maths O level, Health Secretaries, Chancellors and Energy Secretaries knew a bit about health care, real economics and Energy Engineering/Physics rather than just having PPE Oxon. degrees.
But the main problem is ministers motivations are rarely to serve the public they are usually service themselves or their mates or their group think delusions.
April 17, 2026
LL,
PPE from Oxford, now, who has one of those and is in disgrace now……oh, Ollie Robbins!
Perhaps it’s time for Cambridge to have a go…
April 17, 2026
I expect Robbins will pop up in the House of Frauds before long ….. a reward for taking the rap for Two-Tier.
April 17, 2026
David Maddox has all the messages – he told Downing St 7 months ago that he had been told that Mandelson had facile vetting. So they knew.
Liar Starmer says the vetting process did not work. It’s always ‘worked’ before.
April 17, 2026
‘Failed vetting’.
April 17, 2026
Maybe the messages are on McSweeneys phone …the one that got stolen
April 17, 2026
They’re now saying that he didn’t do anything wrong, everything was within the procedures and his given authority to override decision …..and not inform ministers
April 17, 2026
There are similar degrees at Cambridge and they have churned out loads of dire duff left wing economists and the odd spy.
PPE people about 5 decent ones that I can find:
The worst are perhaps – Ted Heath, Cameron, Mandelson, Reeves, Foot, Hague, Tony Benn, Hancock, Hunt, Hammond. Sunak, Balls, Eagle sisters X2, Ed Davey, Evette Cooper, Harrold Wilson…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_people_with_PPE_degrees
April 17, 2026
Many of the Lawyers have rather dire records too:- Blair, Hermer, Lammy, Starmer, Thornberry, Harman…
April 17, 2026
Don’t forget Dianne Abbot graduated from Cambridge.
April 17, 2026
This is all elementary good management practice plus some leadership. Most Labour ministers have zero experience of management, even fewer in private enterprise. They should be trained up and have a minimum of five years experience in private enterprise as a manager before being given ministerial positions. Such eligibility criteria would not guarantee success but it would raise the general standard.
April 17, 2026
Yes, a period of real work experience should be part of the selection process, and I don’t mean charity, public sector or journalism. Something where you need to build, make a profit, employ others and do arithmetic. I quite like the US system, where private sector people with expertise can be nominated for certain posts, on contract, but don’t sit in the house.
April 17, 2026
some people in good U.K. 7niversities studying things like quantum mechanics have NO ‘A’ levels at all.
I’ll let you guess which demographic.
April 17, 2026
Have they got the IB? In which case, to me at least, they look to have got a much more balanced (and possibly superior) secondary education than a student finishing with three (or even a bit more) A levels.
April 17, 2026
Indeed reading English I think. Not so good at basic cost of police officers arithmetic as I recall.
April 17, 2026
Mandelson too.
April 17, 2026
Olly Robbins PPE Oxon too.
April 17, 2026
Seeing as the ministers have no power over their departments i don’t think it really matters.
As Truss found out, any deviation from the narrative and you will be oysted.
The senior civil Serpents run the country with their own agenda, that’s how we get the Chagos fiasco. According to Guido the Foreign Office is sending a delegation to Mauritius to continue discussing the sell out. That says it all.
Reply Yes, because Hermer/starmer want them to go as they back this stupid policy. Cameron stopped the officials giving it away when he wasForeign Secretary.
April 17, 2026
The Covid-19 vaccine programme was an “extraordinary feat” says Barrones Hallet with her sick joke inquiry. Indeed £billions spend doing net harm. She claim it saved more than 750,000 lives – an absurd claim – has she got a maths O level or any grasp of statistics?
Get the Gov. to release the health stats. by Covid Vaccine status instead of refusing to then.
Note during Covid :- Waterford in Ireland had the highest vaccination rate in the world – followed by the highest incidence of Covid and the highest excess deaths. Stats from other countries also suggest the Covid Vaccines did net harm. Most recipients were never even at any real risk even had they been safe and effective.
April 17, 2026
I share your fury Lifelogic, but the Establishment is NEVER going to admit the true consequences of the poorly tested, experimental gene therapies (they’re not vaccines) or the true number of people who have been injured and killed by them.
As the German Inquiry has reported, the testing regime which normally applies to a vaccine was seriously curtailed, corners were cut and there was no data on their cancer-inducing properties because they were never tested for it.
The UK Inquiry is a farce.
April 17, 2026
A £200 MILLION farce! What respectable/honourable person would chair such an appalling farce. She is not even asking for the release of the anonymised health statistics for the vaccinated and unvaccinated that are being withheld with no sensible reason given. We know the reason just a we almost certainly know the reasons for the Epsom evasions.
https://spectator.com/article/epsom-betrays-the-truth-about-britains-politicised-police-force/
April 17, 2026
£200 million just the sick joke inquiry. £600bn+ for the vaccines and lockdowns.
April 17, 2026
Indeed and new technology “vaccine” too. The least these criminals can do is release the honest, broken down raw but anonymised statistics so we can see the real damage done.
April 17, 2026
I believe that it was a balance of risk LL and still maintain that belief. We (my wife and I) were clearly in the danger zone at our age. We had the vaccinations and we isolated. We were fortunate to have a nice garden and plenty to keep us occupied at home. It would have been very different being stuck on the 13th floor in a one bed flat with small children.
However, back to balance of risks, We were very much against any idea that our Grandchildren should be vaccinated, as being fit & healthy they were likely at no risk. So I don’t think vaccinations were the issue. Failing to identify those most at risk and not designing a strategy around them was the failing, as demonstrated by some NHS Trusts discharging elderly Covid patients straight into care homes without isolation rules – and allowing contract staff to visit multiple care home facilities, thus raising the risk of cross infection. By the Way, I don’t blame Boris for many of these problems, he had to listen to his “professional” advisors and (unfortunately) they failed badly I feel in not having a better plan and not sticking to the one they had.
April 17, 2026
WOW and this load of charlatans forced Boris to resign over a birthday party,
In his resignation letter Sunak said: The public rightly expect government to be conducted properly, competently and seriously. I recognise this may be my last ministerial job, but I believe these standards are worth fighting for and that is why I am resigning.
Yet all the scandals surrounding Starmer he’s still there like the house cat Larry with 9 lives, how much longer do the people of the U.K. have to put up with the constant lying to us of this back room lawyer , surely there must be some act of Parliament to remove this useless piece of s£&t along with is even more embarrassing useless government
April 17, 2026
Parliamentary procedures rely on “honourable men doing the honourable thing.” It’s one reason why MPs are referred to as Honourable and Right Honourable …. it’s a reminder of their requirement not to lie in the House.
There is absolutely nothing honourable about the charlatan in No.10, but unless Labour MPs get rid of him, he is there for the next 3 years.
I hope the Speaker censures him and humiliates him in the House, but I’m not holding my breath.
April 17, 2026
The Labour party want him to stay in office for now, so he can take the wrap for dire impending local elections. After that they want rid of him, if the Labour rules allow.
April 17, 2026
Thats actually a good plan
April 17, 2026
Well not now very long left for the appalling Two Tier Kier but three years for Labour I suspect – under Rayner, Miliband, Streeting God help us!
April 17, 2026
Not much to argue with there John, unfortunately as we can see in the present administration, ministerial posts are filled via the old pals act rather than seeking the most competent.
Wes Streeting is Health Secretary yet has zero training in matters of health. How does he end up Health Secretary? On the Labour back benches are medically trained MPs including a surgeon, why are they not chosen? Go figure as they like to say in the USA. Hint, it may have something to do with the power of the unions….
April 17, 2026
Time in post does not necessarily create a good and effective Minister.
As an example, I give you Jeremy Hunt. Six years as Sec of State for Health and he left the NHS completely incapable of coping with a seasonal bad cold which the Government’s own assessment found was only significantly dangerous for 1% of the population ….. effectively those who were already knocking on Heaven’s door.
You will not get good Ministers unless the standard of MPs is improved. If you look at the MPs of previous decades (up to Blair, it’s ALWAYS Blair) MPs tended to be middle aged or older and had some experience of life. You may not agree with their views, but they were not wet behind the ears.
It is now stuffed with young, inexperienced but “telegenic” media-wannabees. We need minimum standards set for someone to apply to become an MP. There should be a minimum age set … I suggest an absolute minimum should be age 30 and they should not be eligible for any kind of Ministerial appointment in their first term.
Anyone who has gone down the Oxbridge, SpAd route and is clutching a PPE Degree should be automatically barred.
April 17, 2026
Perhaps we need minimum standards to be eligible to vote.
Same with jury service. Some jurors get into trouble because they share details of the case on social media, when all they are doing is acting commensurately with the level of their intelligence. Blame the system that selects them in the first place.
April 17, 2026
commons library.parliament.uk 03/11/2020 ‘House of Commons trends: The age of MPs’.
politicshome.com 05/11/2024 ‘What do we know about the 2024 cohort of MPs’.
‘In 2024 there are 20 MPs aged under 30 and 20 MPs aged over 70. This is similar to the 2019 intake but is relatively high compared to elections between 1979 and 2010. In that period the number of MPs under 30 or over 70 rarely exceeded single figures’.
Now the question is ‘Who are the most efficient/dangerous/useless (choose your pick) MPs, the below 30 or the above 70?’
Do I want a ‘youngster’ likely to be computer-aware (AI, LLMs, ‘bottom-up knowledge’ of internet and web services, …) or an oldie just able to let their younger assistants (possibly) do the work for them?
Do I want my new MP able to send me proper reports of their work with actual references I can check myself or my previous MP just able to forward me the letter they had received from the ‘Minister in charge’?
I certainly know which I prefer.
April 17, 2026
The age is not the point Hefner. It’s the inadequacy.
What you prefer is irrelevant to us, This is Britain and nothing to do with you.
April 17, 2026
It’s about life experience …. not the ability to push buttons on a computer.
April 17, 2026
My experience of younger people is that they hand over all their data to AI and social media with no consideration for what it is being used for.
They may be aware of its existence but not its risks.
An MP should be able to research and decide. A 70 year old or an under 30 year old should be able to d that but then applying the research based upon experience a 70 year may be a better bet,
April 17, 2026
Spare us the ageist bullshit.
The 70 years olds are of the generation that designed and developed the computing data and tele communications technologies your computer-aware “youngsters” benefit from, including neural networks from the 90s and hypermedia in the 80s and 90s that are the foundations of your AI and web.
Not to say the 70+ year old MPs are from engineering professions but steroetyping capabilities based on age is as hypocritical and stupid as basing political ability on what degree someone took.
April 17, 2026
True. And the 90+ invented computerisation, they went to the moon on 124k.
Nobody could write a letter today with 124k at their disposal.
April 17, 2026
Having met a couple of SPADs the only special about them is the capacity to get into the role as a special advisor having zero knowledge about even the most basic features of life.
The most ridiculous example being a SPAD being among the final four selected for PPC in a rural constituency telling the members at the husting she, supports the culling of badgers because when they bite cattle they pass on TB which is very bad for the farmers?
She didn’t get the gig.
April 17, 2026
If you look at MPs as a class you have a very poor pool of talent. When they do get some talented MPs like JR they are alas largely ignored.
The Tory MPs even preferred John Major to remain leader (even after his ERM fiasco) in the “no change no chance” leadership election. Thus burying the party to Blair’s landslide.
April 17, 2026
How to choose competent ministers when the Prime Minister is incompetent himself. But the musical chairs method of appointment does not only apply to elected politicians but to the civil service too. They are moved around before they have acquired any expertise. No wonder nothing in the UK works properly.
April 17, 2026
Pulleeze Lord John, you don’t think we are so simple minded as to think more Ministers makes for better government. This is merely a vile ruse to buy favour and influence for the incumbent Prime Minister at our expense.
You present the old falsehood that business skills translate into good government. Maybe in some fantasy world. But in reality politics has its own logic and success factors that are concerned with impressions, illusions, back door influence, party over country, personal gain and getting elected no matter what. Competence and good financial management come nowhere near the skill set for the ambitious politician.
All this bill is concerned with is more jobs for the boys and girls.
April 17, 2026
Before you can choose good Ministers you have to have good Mos ie choose good candidates. The political choosing machines have failed miserably and must be trashed.
April 17, 2026
Using the business analogy, I would say the role of a Minister was as head of Marketing.
All other business roles are fulfilled by the Civil Service.
April 17, 2026
This is the problem. That is NOT the job of anybody in Government or in the House.
They have full responsibility for all decisions AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES.
The Civil Service are the SERVANTS. They used to sign documents ‘I am, sir, your obedient servant’.
Perhaps British people have forgotten how to treat servants. With curtesy, with consideration, furnish them with clear instruction and check the outcome.
April 17, 2026
Lord Redwood, your speech implies that appointments to Ministerial positions are based on talent or experience, they are not they are political appointments to reward/assuage the various factions in a party.
The American system where secretaries of state are appointed from outside the intake of MPs (Senators/Congressmen) allows for experts to e appointed (although the latest intake seem to be sycophants rather than experts). Perhaps we should explore that way of working.
Imagine a Prime Minister not being able to shepherd his party by shackling faction heads and rabblerousers with collective responsibility.
April 17, 2026
Our system is better, any potential PM needs to ensure that ‘the cattle on the premises’ from which he draws his Government are of the HIGHEST QUALITY.
That means that the people have the best representatives as a by product.
Allowing politicians to ‘appoint’ whomsoever they like leads to the disaster in Ireland where the Canadian Shawna Conan uses unacceptable tactics against the population who can’t sack her.
April 17, 2026
LA : “Allowing politicians to ‘appoint’ whomsoever they like leads to the disaster in Ireland where the Canadian Shawna Conan uses unacceptable tactics against the population who can’t sack her.”
Like our PM appointing the unelected Lord Hermer as Attorney General?
April 17, 2026
Good speech, but basically it is just good practical common sense which any good successful company applies on a daily basis.
April 17, 2026
Excellent advice My Lord. It takes at least a year to really know what is going on within your ‘Department’ (whatever that is) and what are the key drivers to success. You might think you know but you probably don’t. You also need to spend some time listening and watching before coming to any (public) conclusions. If you are lucky, you will have someone above you who is willing to give you that time and who trusts you to get things done within agreed timescales. In the early days you are very dependant on your new Team and initial impressions are not always correct.
Of course in the private sector there is just the one team to manage and there needs to be mutual respect but also an understanding that everyone needs to perform or there will be penalties. In the public sector it seems to me there are often two teams to manage and one of them has it’s own agenda, which may be to simply wait you out, whilst carrying on exactly as before.
April 17, 2026
Watching the news this morning, I’ve been struck as to how far Keir Starmer has tried to stretch the concept of “plausible deniability”. Of course it could simply be gross incompetance but even I don’t really believe he is that stupid.
PS – Hopefully Olly Robbins finally meets his Civil Service career Armageddon. It may not his fault on this occassion but it is very much deserved from his inept (deliberate?) handling of the initial Brexit negotiations under the Europhile May.
April 17, 2026
So the state has decided it knows better than me how to invest my pension money.
Part of the very little it has not already taken from me in tax.
I hope the state rots in hell.
April 17, 2026
Let’s make that happen.
April 17, 2026
I saw that, wonder what impact the Lords voting it down a second time will have if anyand what impact this policy will have on the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund .. will it be forced to “invest” in crap government schemes.
April 17, 2026
If Sir Olly Robbins lied to the PM ….can we trust the brexit withdraw deal he negotiated
Are ministers truely in the dark, never asking questions from their top civil servants ?
April 17, 2026
Keir Starmer, 2020: “When they made mistakes, I carried the can. I never turn on my staff and you should never turn on your staff.”
April 17, 2026
I stand corrected, Sir Olly Robbins didn’t lie to the PM, he chose to override a vetting decision, which is within his power …..so why has he been ‘sacked’ ?
April 17, 2026
Evidence is that it was the political will of the PM that caused all the due processes to be undertaken and then disregarded.
April 17, 2026
@glen cullen – it now has to light that Olly Robbins didnt arrive in post until after the appointment of Mandelson.
April 17, 2026
”Permanent Under-Secretary, FCDO Robbins was appointed Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 8 January 2025 for a five-year term”
and
”Peter Mandelson was UK Ambassador to the United States of America from 10 February 2025 to 11 September 2025”
April 17, 2026
Socialism at its finest, today’s outburst buy a corrupting parliament
Yesterday in Parliament ” Labour wins vote to seize powers over private pension pots.” parliament betrays all those that want to take care of themselves once more.
In the July 1997 budget, Chancellor Gordon Brown raided personal pension plans, they never recovered.
You are not a Free Citizen- You are beholden to the State, you work for the State, any money you put aside is the Property of the State. The goal by this Parliament as preached by Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions, is that the State will provide you an allowance of their choice and all your wealth/earnings belong at all times to the State.
April 17, 2026
There is much wrong in the UK system of governance. Getting past the fact there are far too many MPs, and the fact they don’t like being held to account. The real flaw starts with the situation they have no connection with what is sometimes called their electorate. To become a candidate for election you are chosen by a ‘Gang Boss’ generally for your obedience to them. In return the Gang Boss provides the financial backing to stand in an election.
Those you wish to represent, that used to be called your electorate and those you serve had no part in the process. So, you get second rate political clones not representative government.
It is not mentoring that is required from embedded ideology masters, its accountability, the idea that Parliament on behalf of their electorate holds those with responsibility to account. There is no accountability just the bidding of the Gang Boss
April 17, 2026
The right way to think of the UK is that it is the UK.plc. That is how the rest of the World is working. They are working to achieve ways forward not retain ego. The next thing to accept is that all MPs are the members of the Board of that Company.
A Company Board, faces inquisitions and challenges daily. The Shareholders (in UK.plc, the electorate) have a voice. 5 Years for a board member without being challenged is a joke, an insult.
Lord Redwood, I disagree with the concept that the life of minister should be ‘made easier’(although I guess we are seeing things here from a different perspective). 5 years before being judged is still 5 times longer than it would be on the Board of a Company. Leading to 5 years of destruction at the behest of a Gang Boss
Yes, the PM should choose who is at the upper table with them up to a point, but as they are also generally the Gang Boss, they get to negate accountability and choose for the wrong reasons. The PM should propose candidates, Parliament should be the ones doing the approving/appointing.
In reality the whole thing, Government, Parliament is a mess, it is no longer fit for purpose and as it stands today the Government, Parliament are not the best ones to be the judge of anything. Pfaffing around at the perimeters will do nothing to change the metric, do nothing to make things work or be efficient – it’s just pfaffing.
April 17, 2026
We allowed that to happen. We are reaping what we sowed.
Now a do or die effort to recover control of the feral political class.
April 17, 2026
The spin –‘Rachel Reeves has said Britain will step up North Sea drilling to combat the energy crisis triggered by the war in Iran.’
Iran did not trigger any energy crisis that was not of Parliaments own doing.
April 17, 2026
All good stuff, Lord Redwood. But the first problem is the calibre of MPs who become Ministers. It seems most have little experience of the real world. My solution would be raising the age at which you can become an MP to 40, so you have to have experience in the real world. Second cut the number of MPs to 500, put the PM’s salary to £1 million a year, Cabinet Ministers to £750 k per year, and ordinary MPs to £500,000. That way we would get much higher calibre people, who might actually know how to run and control a department. Then shut down at least 90% of the Quangos, so the left and right hand are not going in different directions
Finally make 400,000 Civil Servants redundant and what can’t be done with the 150,000 left just is not done. That might force a real clear out of rules and regulations that hinder rather than help. You will say it can’t be done, where I will say it has to be done for the UK to survive.
April 17, 2026
@Keith from Leeds
UK population around 70 million with 650 MPs & up to 5 year terms, the USA around 350 million with 435 representatives serving terms of 2 years.
Which one ‘appears’ to function better?
I agree a lot less MPs, probably 350. A fully elected upper house and pay both Houses considerably more while demanding more.
In a professional competitive World, we need those at the height of managerial capabilities. What we don’t need is Political Ideologues that are putting ego before those that empower them and pay their wages
April 17, 2026
I can’t imagine that Deputy Prime Minister Lammy is qualified to do a performance review on anyone unless it’s to check how many air miles they have collected and been paid for by the taxpayer. Why do we need a performance review system? Anyone with half a brain can see they are failing.
April 17, 2026
We, the public, do the performance review.
April 17, 2026
I don’t usually post twice, but I wanted to add a couple of points, in addition to the others. First, we need a recall system for MPs, at least once per year, so they can’t just ignore voters.
Second, we need referendums on major policies, so Governments can’t follow nonsense policies.
Who voted for Net Zero? It is complete and utter nonsense, yet Governments and opposition, who support it, have never had to prove their arguments about climate change/net zero. Nor revealed the true cost!
Who voted for constant, uncontrolled immigration? Not the voters who are disgusted at being ignored.
Who voted for the stupid 20 mph limits, which make roads less safe, because you have one eye constantly on your speed?
Who voted for Quangos, which are just bottomless money pits! No one but Blair and his Ministers.
April 17, 2026
@Keith from Leeds – or we could just do what the Worlds Major democracy does have a General Election every 2 years. You are right, having those that high-jack the country to satisfy personal ego without asking is now more than just a fault line its an insult.
April 17, 2026
Maybe we just need an electorate that takes the vote more seriously.
April 17, 2026
Perhaps the flaw is once in Parliament a different attitude comes into play from what most people thought was its aim.
In essence as with everything in life it is those that pay the bills that should be the ultimate arbiter. Politics should be the same as everything else, consumer choice. When democracy is talked about the ultimate concept is for Government by the People for the People, turn it around that means those that are paying ‘all the bills’ gets input as to where their money is going.
The UK Parliament fights that; they don’t like being held to account having to answer to the minions. When in fact that is the very thing, they should be promoting pushing to the front. That MPs are servants of those paying the bills not some inept ‘gang boss’. Any fudge that seeks to create dictatorships just to make things ‘easier’ for Parliament and their appointed Government must be questioned. On the face of it seeking to bypass accountability at all levels should result in the loss of position.
Yesterday we saw Parliament vote to have them in charge of everyone’s ‘private pension’, have Parliament define how so-called ‘private’ money is invested. Once the bill is created were does it end up? A for instance, would be that Parliament can now dictate how people’s own money has to be spent say on supporting Ed Milibands NetZero projects, more facilities for the illegal entrants.
Then MPs want us to believe we live in a democracy, they refuse every one of the electorate the ones whose money it is to have a voice – at least not until the obscene and then to late 5 year term is up.
Until the basics of Democracy and accountability are in place the recruitment and retention of anyone has no meaning no reference point
April 17, 2026
From Guido
Mandelson’s Vetting Timeline Does Not Add Up With Starmer’s Claims
5th February 2026, Starmer gave a speech in Hastings where he said: “there was then… security vetting… which gave him clearance for the role“.
Now No10 maintains Starmer only found out Mandelson had failed DV this Tuesday (14th April)
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper’s team maintains she wasn’t told until The Guardian newspaper ran the story yesterday (16th April).
That then begs the Question of what type of Mentor would be needed to teach these inexactitudes? When these Individuals in the judgement of Parliament are the best of the best that the UK Parliament can come up with.
Nothing would beat a democratic mandate evolving out of a proper democratic place – with just in other democracies like the USA elections every 2 years. The 5 Year term experiment has failed massively and resulted in perpetual destruction
April 17, 2026
This is all elementary good management practice plus some leadership. Most Labour ministers have zero experience of management, even fewer in private enterprise. They should be trained up and have a minimum of five years experience in private enterprise as a manager before being given ministerial positions. Such eligibility criteria would not guarantee success but it would raise the general standard.
April 17, 2026
@Lifelogic
The Telegraph is now saying that Trump is an ‘utter disaster for the world’s oil and gas industry’ and ‘the US president has done more than anyone to accelerate the collapse of the fossil fuel industry’
From years back, I was arguing here how Trump was going to be bad for the world economy and our own as well as well as negative for the USA and the UK in other ways too. Now everything is properly unravelling.
(I know some extremely right-wing people from the City who were once big supporters of Trump and now think he’s nuts and terrible for the world and the UK in every sense)