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.
Image: Jacinda Ardern. Pic: PA
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.
Image: Nicola Sturgeon
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 will deliver a speech today defending the decisions the government made in the budget, following criticisms of sweeping tax rises and accusations the chancellor lied to the country about the state of public finances.
The prime minister is expected to set out how the budget, which saw £26bn of tax rises imposed across the economy, “moves forward the government’s programme of national renewal”, and set “the right economic course” for Britain, Downing Street says.
He will also confirm that ministers will try again to reform the “broken” welfare system, after Labour MPs forced the government to U-turn on its plans to narrow the eligibility for Personal Independence Payments (PIP) earlier this year.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer will give a speech later defending last week’s budget. Pic: Reuters
“We have to confront the reality that our welfare state is trapping people, not just in poverty, but out of work – young people especially. And that is a poverty of ambition,” Sir Keir will say.
“And so while we will invest in apprenticeships and make sure every young person without a job has a guaranteed offer of training or work, we must also reform the welfare state itself – that is what renewal demands.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
8:46
Sky’s Ed Conway looks at the aftermath of the budget and explains who the winners and losers are
The prime minister will add: “This is not about propping up a broken status quo. Nor is it because we want to look somehow politically ‘tough’. The Tories played that game and the welfare bill went up by £88bn. They left children too poor to eat and young people too ill to work. A total failure.”
More on Budget 2025
Related Topics:
Instead, he will argue it is about “potential”, saying: “If you are ignored that early in your career, if you’re not given the support you need to overcome your mental health issues, or if you are simply written off because you’re neurodivergent or disabled, then it can trap you in a cycle of worklessness and dependency for decades, which costs the country money, is bad for our productivity, but most importantly of all – costs the country opportunity and potential.
“And any Labour Party worthy of the name cannot ignore that. That is why we have asked Alan Milburn on the whole issue of young people, inactivity and work. We need to remove the incentives which hold back the potential of our young people.”
The announcement will come after the Conservative opposition described the budget as one for “benefits street”, following the chancellor’s decision to lift the two-child benefit cap from April, at a cost of £3bn.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:30
Prime Minister defends the budget
‘Government must go further and faster on growth’
The prime minister is also expected to launch a staunch defence of the budget overall, saying it will bear down on the cost of living through measures like money off energy bills and frozen rail fares; increase economic stability; and protect investment in public services and infrastructure that will drive economic growth.
He will argue that “economic growth is beating the forecasts”, but that the government must go “further and faster” to encourage it.
He will also reiterate his vow to scrap regulation across the economy, which he will argue is not only pro-business, but also a way to deal with the cost of living.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:57
How will your personal finances change following the budget announced by the chancellor?
“Rooting out excessive costs in every corner of the economy is an essential step to lower the cost of living for good, as well as promoting more dynamic markets for business,” the prime minister will say.
He will confirm reforms to the building of nuclear power plants, after the government’s nuclear regulatory taskforce found that “pointless gold-plating, unnecessary red-tape and well-intentioned, but fundamentally misguided environmental regulation had made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power”.
“We urgently need to correct this,” the prime minister will say.
Business secretary Peter Kyle will be tasked with applying the same deregulatory approach to major infrastructure schemes and to accelerate the implementation of Labour’s industrial strategy.
In response, Tory shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride said: “It is frankly laughable to hear the prime minister say Rachel Reeves’s Benefits Street budget has put the country on the right course and that he wants to fix the welfare system.
“His chancellor has just hiked taxes by £26bn to pay for a welfare splurge, penalising people who work hard and making them pay for those who don’t work at all. And she misrepresented why she was doing it, claiming there was a fiscal black hole to fill that she knew didn’t exist.
“Labour’s leadership have repeatedly shown they lack the backbone to tackle welfare and instead are just acting to placate their left-wing backbenchers.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:58
Rachel Reeves tells Sky News she did not lie about the state of the public finances
Chancellor accused of ‘lying’
Sir Mel is referring to the chancellor’s speech on 4 November in which she laid the ground for tax rises due to the decision by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to review and downgrade productivity over recent years, at a cost of £16bn, which led to a black hole in the public finances.
But the OBR revealed on Friday that it had told the Treasury days earlier that there was actually a budget surplus of £4.2bn, leading to outrage and claims that she misled the country about the state of the public finances.
Rachel Reeves was asked directly by Sky’s Trevor Phillips if she lied, and she replied: “Of course I didn’t.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:51
Why did Reeves make the situation sound ‘so bleak’?
She said: “I said in that speech that I wanted to achieve three things in the budget – tackling the cost of living, which is why I took £150 off of energy bills and froze prescription charges and rail fares.
“I wanted to continue to cut NHS waiting lists, which is why I protected NHS spending. And I wanted to bring the debt and the borrowing down, which is one of the reasons why I increased the headroom.
“£4bn of headroom would not have been enough, and it would not give the Bank of England space to continue to cut interest rates.”
Ms Reeves also said: “In the context of a downgrade in our productivity, which cost £16bn, I needed to increase taxes, and I was honest and frank about that in the speech that I gave at the beginning of November.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:30
Badenoch says Rachel Reeves should resign
But Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said: “I think the chancellor has been doing a terrible job. She’s made a mess of the economy, and […] she has told lies. This is a woman who, in my view, should be resigning.”
Report due on OBR breach
The tumultuous run-up to the 26 November budget culminated in the OBR accidentally publishing its assessment of the chancellor’s measures 45 minutes before the speech began, in what was an unprecedented breach of budget security.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, 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 Spotify 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 Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
The chair of the OBR, Richard Hughes, apologised for the “error”, and announced an investigation into how it happened.
The chancellor has said that she retains confidence in him, despite the “serious breach of protocol”, and confirmed to Trevor that the investigation report will be delivered to her on Monday, although it is not clear when it will be published.
China’s central bank has flagged stablecoins as a risk and has promised to refresh its crackdown on crypto trading, which it has banned since 2021.
The People’s Bank of China said on Saturday, after a meeting with 12 other agencies, that “virtual currency speculation has resurfaced” due to various factors, posing new challenges for risk control.
“Virtual currencies do not have the same legal status as fiat currencies, lack legal tender status, and should not and cannot be used as currency in the market,” the bank said, according to a translation of its statement.
“Virtual currency-related business activities constitute illegal financial activities.”
China’s central bank banned crypto trading and mining in 2021, citing a need to curb crime and claiming that crypto posed a risk to the financial system.
Bank says stablecoins of concern
China’s central bank highlighted stablecoins as a particular concern, stating that the tokens weren’t meeting legal requirements and were being used in criminal activities.
“Stablecoins are a form of virtual currency, and currently cannot effectively meet requirements for customer identification and Anti-Money Laundering, posing a risk of being used for illegal activities such as money laundering, fundraising fraud, and illegal cross-border fund transfers,” the bank said.
The People’s Bank of China, headquartered in Beijing (pictured), noted stablecoins as a concern at an inter-agency meeting on Saturday. Source: Wikimedia
The bank said it would “persistently crack down on illegal financial activities” related to crypto to “maintain the stability of the economic and financial order.”
The 13 agencies that attended the meeting stated that they would “deepen coordination and cooperation” in tracking down crypto users by strengthening information sharing and enhancing monitoring capabilities.
Reuters reported on Wednesday that China had the third-highest share of Bitcoin (BTC) mining, with its market share reaching 14% by the end of October.
In August, China’s financial regulators reportedly instructed brokers to cancel seminars and stop promoting research on stablecoins over concerns that it could be exploited as a tool for fraudulent activities.
Meanwhile, Hong Kong opened the doors to licensing stablecoin issuers in July, but some tech companies suspended plans to launch stablecoins in the region after Chinese regulators reportedly intervened to pause the offerings.
White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks has fired back at The New York Times over a report detailing how his government advisory role could benefit his investments and those of his close associates.
Sacks said in a post to X that despite having “debunked in detail” the Times’ reporting over the past five months, the outlet continued to publish the article on Sunday about his supposed conflicts of interest.
“Today they evidently just threw up their hands and published this nothing burger,” Sacks wrote. “Anyone who reads the story carefully can see that they strung together a bunch of anecdotes that don’t support the headline.”
Sacks is a co-founder and partner at the venture firm Craft Ventures, and his special government employee role at the White House has drawn scrutiny in the past, with Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren saying in May that he is “financially invested in the crypto industry, positioning him to potentially profit from the crypto policy changes he makes at the White House.”
Before he became crypto czar, Sacks and Craft divested over $200 million in crypto and crypto-tied stocks, at least $85 million of which Sacks owned, but Sacks retained an interest in several illiquid investments of “private equity of digital asset-related companies.”
Sacks retains 20 crypto investments, The Times reports
The Times reported that its analysis of Sacks’ financial disclosure found he has retained 708 tech investments, 449 of which are AI-related and 20 are tied to crypto, all of which could benefit from the policies Sacks supports.
In one example of a perceived conflict in Sacks’ role, the outlet stated that Craft Ventures is invested in the crypto infrastructure company BitGo, which offers a stablecoin-as-a-service.
BitGo filed to go public in September, with regulatory filings showing Craft owned 7.8% of the company.
The Times noted that Sacks was a major backer of the stablecoin-regulating GENIUS Act, which was signed into law earlier this year. Many crypto commentators predicted that this would boost the use and adoption of the tokens by institutions.
Other examples noted by the Times involved Sacks’ and Craft’s ties to companies involved with AI, which have skyrocketed in value as the White House and Wall Street bet on the technology’s potential.
The Times noted that Sacks’ ethics waivers, shared in March, stated he would sell his interests in AI and crypto; however, they don’t disclose when he sold the assets and do not detail the value of his remaining investments.
NYT created “bogus narrative,” says Sacks
In his X post, Sacks shared a letter to the Times sent by his lawyers at Clare Locke accusing the outlet of setting out “to write a hit piece” and giving their reporters “clear marching orders” to find conflicts of interest.
Sacks added it was “very clear how NYT willfully mischaracterized or ignored the facts to support their bogus narrative.”
Sacks’ spokesperson Jessica Hoffman told the Times that he has complied with rules for special government employees, and the Office of Government Ethics said that Sacks should sell his investments in certain types of companies but not others.
Sacks’ role as a special government employee is limited to 130 days, and in September, Democratic lawmakers questioned whether he had exceeded the number of days allowed with his appointment.
However, Sacks reportedly carefully manages the days he spends as a special government employee to ensure that he stays under the limit.