Qualities of a Good PM

[AndrewJB]

Just putting aside who we have to choose from, what would you say are the qualities you'd want in an ideal PM? Here are mine (though some of them overlap):

1. Ethics - too much has been made in recent years about how politicians can't be trusted. Having a more ethically minded PM could reverse that, and perhaps set a standard by how future PMs could be measured. And for the ethics to be joined up, in that they inform Britain's behavior in the world as much as the government's within the country.
2. Vision - civil servants are there to do the day to day running of a country, so I'd not like to see a PM who merely responds to the day to day tribulations but one who has an articulated roadmap of getting us from where we are to where need to be. I might not agree with the vision, but at least I'd know where we're being taken.
3. Common Sense - a PM who isn't taken in by lobbyist BS, and who might act for the benefit of the country, even it it's against the short term benefit for herself. A PM who can see practical solutions to problems, without taking it to a focus group.
4. History / Memory - a PM with a reasonable understanding of history, and for whom ideas brought to him touted as 'new' and 'the best' might be considered against similar things from the past. Someone who can see a bigger picture, and understands historical trends.
5. Reason - a PM with the ability to see things for what they are, rather than what she might want them to be.
6. Hard Working - there are too many examples of 'part time leaders' out there. I'd like to see a PM who puts in a proper shift.

[Sidney1st]

I think most people want similar PM's, the only difference is the side of the political spectrum they want them to read the script from.

[AndrewJB]

I put ethics as the foremost quality. Other people might prefer 'leadership' for example - which I haven't included at all.

[lucs86]

You've also missed 'Strong' and 'Stable'. They don't mean anything but they'll win this election.

[Hipper]

I would think most MPs and certainly Prime Ministers are hard working. I doubt you can get the job without that.

I also do not think that a Prime Minister can be made into an ideal that we think they should be in this (or any) country because they have to act on the world stage, dealing with all sorts of dodgy characters - Putin, the Saudis etc.. Having ethics trying to work with these people is of doubtful use. Some deviousness and ruthlessness are required.

Indeed to get up the 'greasy pole' of any party you need some distasteful qualities which will in fact prepare you to deal with the less pleasant types they will meet.

Quite frankly if a Prime Minister appears to have the finer qualities you require I would suspect that is down to 'spin' and not reality.

[HatfieldClaret]

You'll do well to find someone who'll fit your criteria.

You've set the bar a bit high there.

[KateR]

whoever they are they are sure to divide the country as in the end they will be towing the party line and which ever party you wish to discuss all the other supporters will be against it. If they can't tell a lie they will never be PM so I think ethics while an admirable trait is one of little use, maybe a PM who does not tell to many lies would be nice but its down to whom you believe the most, for example I think JC has certain ethics, and they are ones I would never vote for.

[Rick_Muller]

Just putting aside who we have to choose from, what would you say are the qualities you'd want in an ideal PM? Here are mine (though some of them overlap):

1. Ethics - too much has been made in recent years about how politicians can't be trusted. Having a more ethically minded PM could reverse that, and perhaps set a standard by how future PMs could be measured. And for the ethics to be joined up, in that they inform Britain's behavior in the world as much as the government's within the country.
2. Vision - civil servants are there to do the day to day running of a country, so I'd not like to see a PM who merely responds to the day to day tribulations but one who has an articulated roadmap of getting us from where we are to where need to be. I might not agree with the vision, but at least I'd know where we're being taken.
3. Common Sense - a PM who isn't taken in by lobbyist BS, and who might act for the benefit of the country, even it it's against the short term benefit for herself. A PM who can see practical solutions to problems, without taking it to a focus group.
4. History / Memory - a PM with a reasonable understanding of history, and for whom ideas brought to him touted as 'new' and 'the best' might be considered against similar things from the past. Someone who can see a bigger picture, and understands historical trends.
5. Reason - a PM with the ability to see things for what they are, rather than what she might want them to be.
6. Hard Working - there are too many examples of 'part time leaders' out there. I'd like to see a PM who puts in a proper shift.

So, the question is, which of the 2 options you actually have actually fit your requirements the best? I think JC, you?

[COYC73]

I would like a Competent, Strong & Stable Prime Minister......I'm a lifelong Labour voter!
So I sh!t out this time with Corbyn....Gonna break a habit of a lifetime and do a bit of swing voting for the first time in my life this election!

[Hipper]

I've heard being a swinger can be fun.

[COYC73]

I've heard being a swinger can be fun.

It's like a box of chocolates....you never know what you're gonna get! Get your Keys in the bowl people.....!!!!

[starting_11]

If Labour and the union's hadn't f***ed D. Milliband over, you might have had a good few of those qualities listed.

As it happens, you'll now enjoy whinging about the evil Tories for another 20 years!

[BleedingClaret]

You've also missed 'Strong' and 'Stable'. They don't mean anything but they'll win this election.

They do
And Jezza is not

[Paul Waine]

Just putting aside who we have to choose from, what would you say are the qualities you'd want in an ideal PM? Here are mine (though some of them overlap):

1. Ethics - too much has been made in recent years about how politicians can't be trusted. Having a more ethically minded PM could reverse that, and perhaps set a standard by how future PMs could be measured. And for the ethics to be joined up, in that they inform Britain's behavior in the world as much as the government's within the country.
2. Vision - civil servants are there to do the day to day running of a country, so I'd not like to see a PM who merely responds to the day to day tribulations but one who has an articulated roadmap of getting us from where we are to where need to be. I might not agree with the vision, but at least I'd know where we're being taken.
3. Common Sense - a PM who isn't taken in by lobbyist BS, and who might act for the benefit of the country, even it it's against the short term benefit for herself. A PM who can see practical solutions to problems, without taking it to a focus group.
4. History / Memory - a PM with a reasonable understanding of history, and for whom ideas brought to him touted as 'new' and 'the best' might be considered against similar things from the past. Someone who can see a bigger picture, and understands historical trends.
5. Reason - a PM with the ability to see things for what they are, rather than what she might want them to be.
6. Hard Working - there are too many examples of 'part time leaders' out there. I'd like to see a PM who puts in a proper shift.

Hi AJB, you've got my vote for your list.

It's a tragedy of political systems - all of them - that politicians are always "climbing the slippery pole" and, if they are lucky enough to get anywhere near the top they also have to spend their time pushing others down the pole. It was only by the "fluke" of being nominated, when no one really wanted to nominate him and no one wanted him as leader that Jeremy Corbyn has ended up as leader of the Labour party. Equally, no one expected David Cameron to "throw in the towel" and for Theresa May to be the only viable leader of the Conservative party - and therefore become the PM.

A vicar's daughter ought to be able to tick the "ethics" box, though the nature of politics and the decisions governments need to take make it difficult for any government to be "on the right side" of everyone's ethical list all the time.

[Rick_Muller]

A vicar's daughter ought to be able to tick the "ethics" box...

You would think so, but she has been exposed as a lying wench though, and I don't trust her at all...

[AndrewJB]

Thanks for all the comments. I should say that I doubt any one person could fit all the criteria. It was more a list of laying out what I think might be good attributes, and ordering them from the most desirable down.

Hipper - I agree that most politicians are hard working. I was merely thinking of a few who have chosen to take a lot of holidays (George Bush Jnr, and the currrent Manitoba Premier spring to mind - the latter has taken to living thousands of miles away for weeks at a time in his foreign holiday home, working from there).

COYC73 - just because you've uttered the buzzwords perhaps you can tell me why 'strong and stable' (what does it mean?), and how you think Theresa May might be that. Switching from Labour to Tory seems a big move. It would be interesting to see how you think they'll look after your interests better.

KateR - honesty is a big issue because the British public mention it time and time again as one, and really they have good reason. The referendum debate on both sides was full of lies and deceit, and there are countless glaring examples of politicians promising things and not delivering - just in the last few years. People are obviously tired of it. For me the only things getting in the way of a politician being honest is their willingness to say just about anything to win votes, and an agenda for power they know the public won't fully agree with. Of these the first thing illustrates a weakness of character; bad in an MP but dangerous in a PM. The second is full blown corruption of character. So Ethics for me remains the foremost attribute I'd like to see in the next prime minister.

RIck_Muller - I think it's too early to start judging the candidates yet; but yes it would be interesting to perhaps add to the list and then when the time draws closer have a debate over how much of these attributes they all embody.

Paul Waine - I think there are ways to fix these issues to a degree. Firstly make the political parties a lot more democratic, and accountable to members. Make it possible for ideas to move more rapidly from the bottom of a party to the top - debated and amended at different levels. And it has to be less about the leader, and more about the group. When you look at party meetings (whichever party) from the 50s it's generally a long table of people (though back then mostly men) on the stage. Now it's just one person. We've already had several PMs who have been described as 'dictators' within their parties. If we want a democracy, then we need to have democratic ideals running through the various strands of it. That to me means diminishing the power of / and attention given to, party leaders. If the direction of the party is set primarily by the members the leaders would become implement-ers, and cease to be as important.

Just in terms of your last comment on ethics, there are already rules around ethics in the Houses of Parliament, but I think more can be done that most people would agree are improvements. More transparency around lobbying and private interests. More transparency period. How we fund politics. There should be no ethical conundrum with any of this.

[Hipper]

Another key factor not mentioned yet is appearance.

A bald headed man (or woman!) it seems will now never make PM - Kinnock, Hague, Duncan-Smith. Hague in particular seems highly competent and I suspect we've missed out there. Male leaders seem to be indentikit types these days - fortyish, full head of hair, fit in appearance - check out Blair, Clegg, Cameron, the Millibands.

It may not be a desirable trait but it does seem a necessary one, perhaps even the most important.

[Lancasterclaret]

Paul Waine - I think there are ways to fix these issues to a degree. Firstly make the political parties a lot more democratic, and accountable to members. Make it possible for ideas to move more rapidly from the bottom of a party to the top - debated and amended at different levels. And it has to be less about the leader, and more about the group. When you look at party meetings (whichever party) from the 50s it's generally a long table of people (though back then mostly men) on the stage. Now it's just one person. We've already had several PMs who have been described as 'dictators' within their parties. If we want a democracy, then we need to have democratic ideals running through the various strands of it. That to me means diminishing the power of / and attention given to, party leaders. If the direction of the party is set primarily by the members the leaders would become implement-ers, and cease to be as importan

Thats the Labour party now. Bet its ace if you are a Labour member, but its going to result in a massive Conservative landslide?

Pure Ideology over winning.

If you are not in power, you can say anything you want, and it won't make a difference. You have to compromise to win, whether you like it or not.

[AndrewJB]

Thats the Labour party now. Bet its ace if you are a Labour member, but its going to result in a massive Conservative landslide?

Pure Ideology over winning.

If you are not in power, you can say anything you want, and it won't make a difference. You have to compromise to win, whether you like it or not.

I think this is the general direction Labour are going in, but they aren't there yet. The Green Party is much further down that road, with co-leaders, and a manifesto decided on by the members. What has left Labour in some disarray recently is that internal battle between centrists and those who want greater democracy. Already - if the leaked manifesto is anything to go by - it appears that the progressive side is winning. Considering the previous regime oversaw electoral defeat, a near wipe-out in Scotland, and a big drop in membership - then these changes are (in my opinion) overdue. It's not as you suggest 'pure ideology over winning' - because of course Labour members want to win. However the party has to stand for something, and even the Tories would not win without some sort of ideology. When the manifesto is published next week we can consider whether or not it's realistic and will benefit most of the electorate, or whether it's extreme and will only benefit a minority.

[AndrewJB]

Hipper - good point. And a sad one. How likely are we to see a PM who is disabled, for example?