PR is a way to temper the egos of these leaders who's overweening egos get too much room to avoid amelioration.

Short answer: YES. Either (a) have elections for Prime Minister (every four years or whenever a PM "leaves") or (b) curtail the PMs power.

The UK just needs a proper, fixed and modern constitution, abolishing the medival anachronisms of its current state and introducing proper checks and balances.

Prime minister as an insult! Well! Well! We have been getting something right all this time!

The issue I have with the way media deals with politics in this era, is that so little time is given to the nitty gritty of policy, and so much given to the shallow, myopic examinations of the people proposing them. It is the media's job to inform people, and informing the people requires a focus on what a person might be voting for, not whom. This, in and of itself requires a frank examination of policy, its intended effects, its potential side effects, any glaring holes in it, and of course, a discussion of whether or not a policy or manifesto will have positive or negative connotations for people, and to what degree those effects might bite. Yet, in recent memory, much of the press is full of accusatory nonsense having little or nothing to do with policy direction, and if dealing with it at all, only doing so in the shallowest possible terms! This isn't a media that effectively and comprehensively informs the people. By and large its main focus appears to be blindsiding the people by making things about who a leader or contender to that position might be, rather than what it is they truly believe, and what it is the party they lead, is trying to achieve. We saw this with Corbyn, to the biggest possible extreme. Here is a man who was looking to enact reforms across government, public services and right down to street level, had policies that were WILDLY popular with the electorate (as long as they didn't know whose ideas they were), and still are (so popular in fact that some of the big ticket ideas being floated by Starmer just now are just repackaged versions of the least difficult to institute policy ideas from the Corbyn camp of old, which is bloody ironic, considering all that has happened), and the press broadly had nothing insightful to say about any of that. Realistically, personality cultism is dangerous in any format, unwise to get on the bandwagon of, no one should be kissing rings, either on the hand or the arse, and that goes for MPs and the electorate alike. We need a focus in the media, and in campaigns, on policy, not the people putting them forward.

Seems every leader in the last decade and a bit has got more childish and immature than the last one. That said, the public have gone much the same way. Too ignorant to decide directions vital to their futures and discouraged from doing so by the constant misdirection and gaslighting by media.

A lot of people all over the country will say they voted for Boris last time, and didn't vote Labour because of Corbyn. If asked they probally wouldn't be able to name their own MP. Like it or not your average person votes for the party leader.

In Ireland they have a "Taoiseach" as their government leader, often named as the Irish Prime Minister, but Taoiseach does not mean Prime Minister, it means chief or leader. A Taoiseach actually can have very little power and a lot of power depending on who is in office. Charle Haughey was the closest Ireland came to a dictatorship style of leadership, and even he was booted out in 1992 and only served as Taoiseach for a period of around 7 years during 1979 to 1992, he did lose elections.

Really enjoyed this discussion. Thanks for posting.

Thank you for the video.

Oversight on awarding of government contracts seems like the most pressing concern and an area that needs stringent rules.

"unlimited power" - oh come *on* ... banks, corporations, business, donors - all have whopping leverage on our politicians. As you will know, guys.

I love your podcast, amazing work 👏

Britiain's leaders aren't in control. They know this, and the public knows this; furthermore, the leaders know that the public knows this. But no one does anything, because we've lost the ability to "aspire". We cannot see anything beyond our current model.

In my opinion the problem in Britain is that our system is at heart a medieval absolute monarchy modified to place the power of the monarch in parliament. As the power of the political parties has increased over who gets to stand for and what they vote for in parliament the power has become more concentrated in the party leader. The party leader is becoming a de facto elected absolute monarch subject only to a palace coup rather than the will of the people. The cult of the leader is a dangerous path, as Russia is currently displaying what happens as you follow that path and Germany in the last century reached the end game. Historically in these islands the last time we encountered a crisis of absolutism it resulted in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. We really need constitutional reform to initiate a system where power is better distributed within the nations and a written constitution that both distributes and limits the powers of government and prevents the concentration or extension of power without the permission of a supermajority of the people.

We need a government that asks us what priorities should be. So should we do away with non dom status? Should we tax BP and Shell more etc? Should we invest the money we gain in a health care system for all? We also need to make it illegal to lie to the public if an MP or a news outlet. Tony Blair should have never ever become a Knight. He needs to be in prison for lying to the nation never mind misleading parliament. The nation should be above parliament not the other way around.

Although we officially vote for who we would like to be our MP, I suppose we see their leader over them and are voting for them instead. And no doubt each of our PMs saw the winning of an election as their personal victory, and who can blame them? That must really go to their heads.

Ianucci re-writing history. Corbyn didn't "clear out the Blairites". He literally appointed Hilary Benn, Angela Eagle, Owen Smith, Heidi Alexander to the shadow cabinet.

A central issue is that the unwritten British "Constitution', as you call it, reads like a mid-19th century Lewis Duckworth Methods of Parliament for 'Gentlemen'. In other words a set of norms that is completely inapplicable to the 21st century and thus not worth the paper it is not written on.

Being 70, lifelong learning, understanding, observation, experience and re-examination 247 365. Politics is perpetual conflicts of interests, so to find order politically is paradoxical and utterly ironic due to the perpetual motion of disparity, even when a pseudo order prevails it is entropological and perpetually flawed. What to do?

Corbyn didn’t clear them out. They all refused to play.

I will NOT be voting for Labour because of Keir starmer's stance on brexit. I've also stopped my membership to Labour because of Keir starmer. I have always voted Labour. I even voted for Michael foot. I believe in Labour but I don't believe in Keir starmer.

I'm surprised how the UK has not spiraled into anarchy, as yet....

corbyn didnt clear out anyone unfortunately

The need for leaders to keep potential „usurpers“ out of their team is common right across business as well, and probably so ingrained in the characters of those who strive for the top job that it is inevitable. However, there is a tiny few who, probably because they themselves are so clever, are able to run a team of strong people. In my 45 years of military service and then industry I worked under four of these individuals. The rest were a collection of rogues, incompetents, and psychos. 😉

One person with the power to do whatever they fancy is not a good system. In our current system for example, we have absolutely no recourse to diminish the power of the prime minister in the same way as those in the US do through midterms. Their system isn't perfect by any stretch, but that part of it is enviable. I think a more proportional parliament is more favourable, as this will force the PM to actually command the confidence of the house rather than just command the confidence of their own party, as this renders the democratic input of anyone who didn't vote for the governing party effectively meaningless. The PM has got too presidential, and I think that's natural, and so I think our system needs to change to reflect this.

When does Campbell think this halcyon age of honest leaders with integrity happened? Every time I hear him I can't help but think RIP David Kelly.

PR until all of the Uk including Scotland has a say in Westminster's Government

30 years doing telly, you’d think Alastair Campbell would know not to let his microphone rub against his buttons all the time…🙄

Allister will forever be Blair's master of spin

What on earth are they talking about? Like, preoccupation before party wasn't a thing before Tony Blair??! What about Margaret Thatcher? Or "the Quiet Man" Ian Duncan Smith"? Or the Grey Man John Major - wasn't he even criticised and even satirised at the time for being bland and devoid of personality? Preoccupation with personality isn't really isn't a recent development with Blair and Johnson. However, personality doesn't mean you're good at the job, as Johnson proved.

yes

We must have PR, whatever its shortcomings, we can't carry on with 2.5 parties.

Alistair Campbell, now that's a man who would know. Would his boss been able to go into Iraq had he not possessed absolute executive authority? Combined with zero effective checks or balances on his power? Of course not. But it does astonish me that you try and rehabilitate this old monster. Not to mention all the respectable types that nod along like the last 20 years never happened.

It is fantastic to listen to highly competent people discussing a subject they really know about.

I don't think you can talk about "rule breaking" without talking about the invasion of Iraq. This also speaks to the question of what constitutes "dictatorship": the majority of the population was clearly opposed to the war. An illegal war that cost the lives of 600,000+ Iraqi civilians. Blair set the model for what followed, and once it seemed clear that a UK PM could break International Law and get rewarded for it (Middle East Peace Envoy?!) then clearly nothing was off the table. Johnson eventually got caught out because he was stupid. We'll leave aside Truss, eh?

War criminal

Dictatorial? Yes. I wouldn't call that presidential but you use the term differently. (I'm Dutch, am in the UK, have previously lived in the US.) Keir Starmer is basically a control freak who wants to please people and who wants people to like him. He doesn't like having strong people around him. Labour would do much better if indeed folks like Sadiq Khan would be pushed more into the limelight. The MP here where I am (Portsmouth) is a Labour shadow minister and he needs to toe the line so much that I feel that he often comes across as bland. Is he? I don't know. Hard to tell. London's position is different, so Khan at least gets the chance to shine a little. (I've attended the annual State of London debate a few times, with Khan. I've also attended a London Assembly meeting once when Johnson was mayor, but not present.) I vote Green, by the way. I used to vote Lib Dem.

Johnsons “genius” ( or rather, Cummings’) was to run as the opposition….

One thing you can generally say without exaggeration is that MPs these days and ministers do not seem so bright. It seems the brightest ideas you hear are not from govt but outside. Noone really in parliament seems to be able to articulate what exactly needs doing to fix this complete mess. Maybe starmer is keeping his powder dry but as hitchens said, if he's intelligent he does a very good job of hiding it.... Meanwhile Tories ministers actually seem pretty stupid. Gullis, Patel, Truss, badenoch. They really seem incredibly dim. Do we need to pay more to attract the best???

Labour is finished in Scotland. Time for independence

Why do you wear headphones?

No but they would like to be but they are all too unstatesmanlike.

tbf Corbyn's first shadow cabinet was pretty varied across the party, it only shifted left when they all resigned after Brexit.

The winner takes all of FPP is undemocratic.

Any corruption should mean they are removed from office. Governments are voted in on thier policies to ensure sustainable development and improvement within our society. Currently this is not happening. If any Governments do not meet the needs of the people they need to go.

To the guest comedy writer’s extraordinary remark that Corbyn ‘cleared out the Blairites’ - you will find that had that occurred then Corbyn would have effectively split the entire party - which is arguably what will happen anyway. An astonishing remark and utterly baseless in fact, the truth is that whether you like him, loathe him or are ambivalent to him, Corbyn was in no way ruthless at all, had he had been so i suspect he would not have endured a coordinated undermining of his leadership from his own benches. It is staggering the amount of misinformation and frankly out and out falsehood thrown around. To the substance of the debate thus far, i think that it is all too clear for the observer of such matters - namely, the political landscape that indeed the main two political offerings are extremely light on politicians of the presence and calibre of yesteryear. I think the Tories have a better bunch but that is hardly a compliment given the low bar inside the parliament today. The likes of Tony Benn for example and Alex Salmond and Edwina Currie and you could on and recall the adversity inside the chamber especially at PM Q’s and TV debates and radio debates and compare to now and see very starkly just how diminished and debased the entire political offering has become. The sedate atmosphere is linked to this wider narrative of woke and so actively not offending anyone which amounts to thought control and control over expression, whichever way you look at it and that is to the detriment of what is supposed to be a chamber stuffed full of people that believe in something which has morphed into effectively a chamber full of script readers. To the point of comparison to the Presidential system it seems to be necessary to have a PM that is i think a leader and commanding and confident but you cannot get anything done without at least 50 odd very credible cabinet types who are by equal measure very capable doing the media rounds and at the despatch box whilst bossing their respective departments....is that asking too much? Evidently so, and i think that it is very vital indeed that blue collar folk that once sat in the house are basically abandoned in favour of university folk which has coincided with decay generally in the country. One point to AC is that i don’t think Blair at all had all the talents as opposed to people sympathetic to his persuasion and so you could cite Clare Short and Robin Cook over the war but i think that belief is incorrect. Whatever you think of him could you not say that George Galloway is incapable at being in the cabinet? Could you say Diane Abbott is not also? The people in the Labour Party that were much more aligned to John Smith before his death were effectively sidelined as the AC and TB project took shape. In conclusion, you need a decent leader as i say who is competent in listening and certainly a decent orator and sharp intellectually at the despatch box and in debates and ruthless in decision making less emotional and procrastinating and you want i think a large dose of cunningness and of course, you need to be into something. You need to believe in something that actually matters and frankly, the objective is a policy agenda that is achievable and reflective of what the peoples needs are and i think that is light years away from what is on offer now and the single one thing that has put off capable and frankly superior types (such as the writer of this) is the fact the electoral system discriminates towards the main parties and if that changes - i think you will see a far superior offering as even some public figures look to enter the fray and i think that would be welcomed by the public and no more harmful than the sedated chamber of script readers that effectively get zero done and it is manufactured rage dancing on the head of a needle when they the two parties are effectively rather similar.

Armando , nothing will bring the Labour Party back in Scotland 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 especially not Brown 👋

The editing was a bit whack. The cuts were quite noticable.

Nothing in recent times exceeds Blair’s dodgy dossier.

What does this waffle matter? The corporations run this island, the prime minister & his minions are only the front for these corporate interests.

Answer to the title: yes and no. Yes The PM is too presidential and often surrounded by unelected employees rather than cabinet ministers with power. No PM in thrall to lobbies who finance their campaign.

There's a horrible noise glitch on one of the guests in this one, its just this annoying noise. Occasionally it stops when its sources microphone hits hit button though.

goes back far further than blair. i'd say thatcher.

The obvious candidate at the time to Blair was Milburn and i think he was a talented politician but so often people (via their biases) conflate the capability of a politician with the politicians beliefs and policy agenda - the two are not the same and this comes back to the point of a PM not using all the talents and i think Blair and AC did not use capable and talented politicians because they were too much like the former Labour party - the sort of folk who created the thing and it seems inevitable that you will get in some guise or other that actuality manifest itself with new political offerings. The compliment to Blair is that he was and perhaps still is superior to the current crop in presenting his agenda and that sort of reptilian slipperiness is very useful in deceiving voters basically. It is a real tragedy that competence was not equalled by the necessary progressive and humane policies.

It just appears incompetent. Not presidential. The only thing I can see that they are competent in is lying, misleading and lining the pockets of themselves and friends. Rishi, who is not perfect should of been the leader much sooner and unfortunately he now has no hope after Truss.

You will keep following them tho won't you !!!!

Evidently not

Campbell has blood on his hands. He facilitated the death of millions in Blair’s war. In a fair world, Campbell would be in The Hague.

Prescott was not ‘powerful’ total joke.

I would say their all weak ,

Q ? can anyone overule Civil service.... Nothing gets done in uk outside London lol

The system is becoming more presidential they are not dictators because the people who govern us are elected, doh. Of course when we get to the video it’s about being presidential not dictators. Cheap clickbait headline to suck listeners in.

I find very troubling when journalists etc try to normalise Alistair Campbell he should be a pariah and not given a platform.

Nope, it's the papers that are too powerful.

Alistair Campbell talking about honesty and honour is... a bit rich. As bad as Brexit can be argued to be, it's a flicker compared to the national shame we continue to bear for our role in the Iraq War. Hundreds of thousands dead, millions of lives curtailed or forever changed for the worse As one of its key architects, Campbell has nothing to contribute to discussions concerning 'good' government, let alone international politics. His presence is toxic and I don't know why he's on your show

00:53 public opinion was against mass replacement migration but we got it.

You guys need a REAL Constitution. You need a REAL Republic. As long as the monarchy and the old anachronisms of the ancient system are still "The Law" these MPs will never be held accountable. Then you can deal with the problems that the US has whereby people break the law and the constitution all the time but they have enough money to never face a consequence. But at least on paper there is a way to rally people around the agreed upon rules and have a real public discussion about the way the system works. The fact you can have the 6th largest economy in the world with all of the magic and mysticism of the Westminster system is mind boggling.

I think the host has a very flattering frock and i thought the host conducted proceedings very admirably. The facts are that firstly - I myself, would wipe the floor with any of the members of parliament today. Second, the very same ‘rogue’ Johnson as AC describes won the Mayoralty and i think AC was basically jealous of some rich toff taking a little shine off the Blair fame of winning elections from outside his core vote. The fact BJ wasted his majority and opportunity to effect meaningful change is only further to synergise the Blairites period. Also, i think it is undeniable that Angela Rayner has very tremendous potential and hair and is alluring. Now, it is enjoyable to rib AC just as it is to rib Kelvin McKenzie. I noted AC is preparing a book and i think the question must be posed why it is so necessary to have been to university in order to enter parliament? I think AC is humane and effectively human and he has value to add in strategy and i accept that because it is true. I think Ed Balls is underrated and his wife and i think you could have a Blairite type of offering but you should also have some accommodation for the blue collar folk and that means the Abbotts and Galloway’s and i think Rod Liddle and this only an occur if the electoral system reflects such offerings potential of getting elected becoming translated into seats via vote share. Finally, AC said he was hopeful and less hopeful going forward. I think an opportunity will arise in time and so frankly i think people that are not that far apart on policy matters that much broadly - should by a process of logic and pragmatism create a new and credible offering and I for one think civil liberties should be very prominent and social and economic disparities reflected in meaningful policy offerings. A credible manifesto should be condensed, clear, credible and sincere and reflective of public need.

Even with the current dip in crypto currency's I'm glad I can smile 🙂back at my portfolio of $78,160 built from my weekly trading I have received my sixth withdrawal which is every 14 business days per trade all thanks to my Advisor

Exactly, Investing in today is priceless because tomorrow isn't promised, trading Bitcoins, gold, silver and stocks secure a better Tomorrow

Alastair Campbell really? He has British blood on his hands and you people are promoting him.

POLITICS IS FINISHED. IT DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE. WE NEED MERITOCRACY NOW.