There goes another one. The Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar announced this week that he is quitting at the age of 45, explaining: “I don’t feel I’m the best person for that job any more.”
He is just the latest in a spate of national leaders to stand down voluntarily when seemingly at the peak of their powers.
Last year New Zealand’s former prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, found she had “no more in the tank” aged 43.
Nicola Sturgeon went at 53 to spend “a little bit more time on Nicola Sturgeon the human being”, since being first minister of Scotland “takes its toll on you”.
Politicians at the very top are not the only ones calling an early end to their careers.
The number of MPs standing down from the Commons has now reached 100 and counting.
That is what might be expected ahead of a likely “change election” when the opposition is poised to take over from incumbents. A major cause for concern is the comparatively young age of many of those giving up and quitting so soon.
More on Jacinda Ardern
Related Topics:
From resigning prime ministers to departing MPs something must be going wrong if politics only holds such a passing attraction for people of talent.
Maybe the jobs of leader and people’s representative are more impossible than they have ever been in the social media age. Or perhaps the wrong people are going into politics at the wrong time. They are quitters not fighters.
Advertisement
“Poster Child” almost seems an apt description for some of those joining the exodus from Westminster: Nicola Richards 29, Mhairi Black 29, William Wragg 36 and Deheena Davison, 30.
Most of the MPs going prematurely have only known one government in their time at Westminster. The majority of those standing down have only been MPs since 2010 at the earliest. More than a dozen were first elected in 2017 and 2019.
The prospect of imminent or actual defeat has of course concentrated the minds of those handing in their parliamentary passes voluntarily. Two out of three who announced they are not standing again are Conservatives.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:26
‘I’m not the best person for the job’
Adverse circumstances higher up the food chain
Higher up the food chain, Varadkar, Ardern and Sturgeon were praised at first for going in their own time for no particular reason. It soon became apparent that they were in adverse circumstances.
Police Scotland’s Operation Branchform investigating alleged fraud by the SNP is still under way. Ms Sturgeon and her husband have both been interviewed under caution.
Meanwhile her party’s standing and support for Scottish independence have both headed south in opinion polls.
As his country’s youngest-ever prime minister, gay and from an Indian ethnic background, Mr Varadkar also embodied Ireland’s rapid liberalisation.
But this month, he and Dublin’s political establishment suffered the setback of resounding defeat in a double referendum attempting to modernise the constitution on “relationships” outside marriage and the role of women.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Mr Varadkar, from the right of centre Fine Gael party, owes his seven years in office to a series of pacts with the opposition Fianna Fail, which were largely designed to keep the republican Sinn Fein away from power.
A general election is due soon and Sinn Fein now tops the polls in the south under Mary Lou MacDonald. Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill is first minister in Northern Ireland.
Not like previous generations
Today’s quitter politicians certainly face some stark challenges but they are all going down without a fight, unlike many in previous generations.
William Gladstone and Harold Wilson both regained the premiership after losing it. Others like Ted Heath and Margaret Beckett stayed on for years after their glory days of power.
Most of the MPs going now plan to leave politics altogether. They complain that the pressures of the job have become intolerable. Some talk of worries for their mental health and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Pay is not the main issue. The government has accepted IPSA’s recommendation of a 5.5% increase taking an MP’s salary to £91,346 a year.
While it is true that wage inequalities have increased to the benefit of the very highest earners, MPs and ministers in the UK and elsewhere have more than maintained their differential above the average professional salary.
Some of those leaving now, perhaps with backgrounds in teaching or local government, say they are worried that they might not be able to earn as much. Some are announcing their intention to quit now hoping to be at the front of the queue for opportunities.
Being a minister in a failing government is not so attractive when it means an automatic six-month quarantine before taking up new employment.
Organised pile-ons and email campaigns
Mr Varadkar explained: “Politicians are human beings and we have our limitations.
“We give it everything until we can’t any more.”
He speaks for many of those calling it a day. They talk of the pressures of being on call 24/7. Thanks to the internet, constituents can contact them with less effort than ever and monitor their activities and apparent work rate. Organised pile-ons and email campaigns are a common hazard.
Far worse, a growing minority of the public regard MPs as fair game. At the extreme this has resulted in the recent murder of two MPs, Jo Cox and David Amess, and a number of other violent assaults.
Women MPs also have to deal with vile abuse and threats online every day. Some consider the male-dominated atmosphere at Westminster to be “toxic”.
Tony Blair was the first prime minister to have young children in Downing Street for a century. Since then Brown, Cameron, Johnson, Truss and Sunak have each taken families into Number 10.
As the demand for younger political leaders grows, so do their difficulties bringing up children. Some of the women leaving office, including Ms Ardern, talk of the personal and private pressures. Blair was the most successful British politician of his generation but says he would be “really worried” if any of his four adult children wanted to go into politics.
Plenty of nutters and demagogues
Mainstream parties are now having trouble finding candidates who look like decent, long-term prospects. There are always plenty of nutters and demagogues looking for an opening but sensible men and women willing to serve their country with a career in parliament are in short supply.
As a result, both the Conservatives and Labour are having to pick young candidates with local links. A significant number of these potential MPs have some knowledge of the ropes thanks to family connections to politicians and others in “the Westminster Bubble”, including journalists. They are not necessarily good long-term bets.
Single people in their 20s and early 30s cannot know where their lives are heading. Those now leaving parliament after a few years presumably took a wrong turning when they became MPs. The electorate that has been paying to train them will not get the benefit of their expertise in future.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Most ex-prime ministers still have something to offer in the public realm. But they choose to do it away from the crumbling palace of Westminster. Theresa May is the latest to say that she can better concentrate on what she cares about by leaving the Commons.
Few linger long once they have been elected. The average tenure of an MP is falling. The average age of MPs is around 50 compared to 57 in the US House of Representatives and 64 in the Senate. Admittedly the US has its unique problems of gerontocracy, but elsewhere in the English-speaking world it ought to be possible to get more use out of our mature politicians.
As things stand we are all caught in a vicious cycle. The quality of those seeking to govern is diminishing; that in turn breeds disrespect for politicians, which makes the job less appealing than ever.
As Leo Varadkar put it: “We give our all until we can’t anymore.”
Sir Keir Starmer has insisted the “vast majority of farmers” will not be affected by changes to Inheritance Tax (IHT) ahead of a protest outside parliament on Tuesday.
It follows Chancellor Rachel Reeves announcing a 20% inheritance tax that will apply to farms worth more than £1m from April 2026, where they were previously exempt.
But the prime minister looked to quell fears as he resisted calls to change course.
Speaking from the G20 summit in Brazil, he said: “If you take a typical case of a couple wanting to pass a family farm down to one of their children, which would be a very typical example, with all of the thresholds in place, that’s £3m before any inheritance tax is paid.”
The comments come as thousands of farmers, including celebrity farmer Jeremy Clarkson, are due to descend on Whitehall on Tuesday to protest the change.
And 1,800 more will take part in a “mass lobby” where members of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) will meet their MPs in parliament to urge them to ask Ms Reeves to reconsider the policy.
Speaking to broadcasters, Sir Keir insisted the government is supportive of farmers, pointing to a £5bn investment announced for them in the budget.
Advertisement
He said: “I’m confident that the vast majority of farms and farmers will not be affected at all by that aspect of the budget.
“They will be affected by the £5bn that we’re putting into farming. And I’m very happy to work with farmers on that.”
Sir Keir’s spokesman made a similar argument earlier on Monday, saying the government expects 73% of farms to not be affected by the change.
Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs Secretary Steve Reed said only about 500 out of the UK’s 209,000 farms would be affected, according to Treasury calculations.
However, that number has been questioned by several farming groups and the Conservatives.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:28
Farming industry is feeling ‘betrayed’ – NFU boss
Government figures ‘misleading’
The NFU said the real number is about two-thirds, with its president Tom Bradshaw calling the government’s figures “misleading” and accusing it of not understanding the sector.
The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) said the policy could affect 70,000 farms.
Conservative shadow farming minister Robbie Moore accused the government last week of “regurgitating” figures that represent “past claimants of agricultural property relief, not combined with business property relief” because he said the Treasury does not have that data.
Agricultural property relief (APR) currently provides farmers 100% relief from paying inheritance tax on agricultural land or pasture used for rearing livestock or fish, and can include woodland and buildings, such as farmhouses, if they are necessary for that land to function.
Farmers can also claim business property relief (BPR), providing 50% or 100% relief on assets used by a trading business, which for farmers could include land, buildings, plant or machinery used by the business, farm shops and holiday cottages.
APR and BPR can often apply to the same asset, especially farmed land, but APR should be the priority, however BPR can be claimed in addition if APR does not cover the full value (e.g. if the land has development value above its agricultural value).
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Mr Moore said the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Treasury have disagreed on how many farms will be impacted “by as much as 40%” due to the lack of data on farmers using BPR.
Lib Dem MP Tim Farron said last week1,400 farmers in Cumbria, where he is an MP, will be affected and will not be able to afford to pay the tax as many are on less than the minimum wage despite being asset rich.
A split is emerging in the cabinet, with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson revealing she will join several of her colleagues and vote against the bill to legalise assisted dying.
Ms Phillipson told Sky News she will vote against the proposed legislation at the end of this month, which would give terminally ill people with six months to live the option to end their lives.
She voted against assisted dying in 2015 and said: “I haven’t changed my mind.
“I continue to think about this deeply. But my position hasn’t changed since 2015.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:41
Details of end of life bill released
MPs will be given a free vote on the bill, so they will not be told how to vote by their party.
The topic has seen a split in the cabinet – however, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has yet to reveal how he will vote on 29 November.
Ms Phillipson joins some other big names who have publicly said they are voting against the bill
These include Deputy PM Angela Rayner, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds.
Advertisement
Border security minister Angela Eagle is also voting against the bill.
Senior cabinet members voting in favour of assisted dying include Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Science Secretary Peter Kyle, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Transport Secretary Louise Haigh and Welsh Secretary Jo Stevens.
The split over the issue is said to be causing friction within government, with Sir Keir rebuking the health secretary for repeatedly saying he is against the bill and for ordering officials to review the costs of implementing any changes in the law.
Sky News’ deputy political editor Sam Coates has been told Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff, is concerned about the politics of the bill passing.
He is understood to be worried the issue will dominate the agenda next year and, while he is not taking a view on the bill, he can see it taking over the national conversation and distracting from core government priorities like the economy and borders.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Details of the bill were published last week and include people wanting to end their life having to self-administer the medicine.
It would only be allowed for terminally ill people who have been given six months to live.
Two independent doctors would have to confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge would have to give their approval before it could go ahead.