Has the quality of British political leadership declined over the past century?1 I’d like to preface my response to this question by briefly looking at: early forms of leadership; leadership within democratic parameters; the impact of the media upon leadership requirements; and the influence of party ideologies on leadership. Monarchical Rule: British political leadership effectively began with absolute monarchs. As with all humans,their efficacy depended on the kind of person they were and the qualities they possessed. Henry II, who reigned 1154-1189, was constantly patrolling the whole of England plus his (then) possessions in France, ruling from the saddle of his horse. Usually the royal court, comprising principal officers and advisers, traveled along with him. Monarchs varied in quality and indeed longevity: some, like Henry, were talented administrators and law-makers; others, like Henry V (1513-22), were essentially short-lived warriors, while others were weak Kings, like Edward II(1307-27), youthful tyrants, like Richard II(1377-99), or just uninterested in the responsibilities of power, like Henry VI. Perhaps the pick of our monarchs, during this ‘absolute’ phase was Elizabeth I(1558-1603) who channeled her formidable intelligence and courage into governing her domain effectively and earn the soubriquet of ‘Good Queen Bess’. Henry VIII(1509-47), perhaps the best known of our kings, had many of the key requirements of great political leadership but allowed himself to become derailed by his own lustings and, later in his reign, by a kind of careless vindictiveness- witness his treatment of his loyal servant Thomas Cromwell: charged with treason and then beheaded. It was the defeat and beheading by parliamentary forces of Charles I(1625-49) which finally ended the era of absolute monarchs and ushered in constitutional monarchy together with, eventually, the representative democracy we now have. Democratic Leadership: Political leadership within the democratic era was hugely different from when arbitrary power was available to monarchs- justified at the time as being divinely authorised- to do exactly as they pleased. For a start parliament required the mobilisation of substantial numbers of its members to support particular policies: debate and persuasion became the means to this end. Abrupt orders, backed up by coercive threats, had no place in parliamentary politics. The leadership qualities required for this more collective enterprise included eloquence, personal charm and, yes, charisma. Groups had to be formed, lead and mobilised to achieve political objectives. Britain’s first ‘prime minister’, the Whig, Robert Walpole, was the master of all these skills. The historian Frank O'Gorman says his leadership in Parliament reflected his "reasonable and persuasive oratory, his ability to move both the emotions as well as the minds of men, and, 1 For excellent sources on this huge subject I recommend three recent books: Steve Richards (2019) The Prime Ministers-reflections on leadership from Wilson to May, Atlantic; David Runciman(2019) Where Power Stops: the making and unmaking of presidents and prime ministers; and Archie Brown (2018) The Myth of the Strong Leader, Vintage. 1 above all, his extraordinary self-confidence"2. He pitched his appeals for support at the moderate members of parliament, offering pragmatic ways of combining royal power with the emergent authority of parliament. This was a time when the spoken word was the core element of political communication: as media technology progressed, together with the extension of the franchise so also did the requirements of political leadership. Media Improvements: As the print medium developed, politicians learnt how to attract the attention of journalists and through them, the voting public. Gladstone cut down trees on his Hawarden estate while the public watched and collected the wood chips as souvenirs. Microphone technology enabled large groups of people to be addressed at a time: Hitler wired up whole towns with loudspeakers to achieve this. Radio, of course gave politicians like Stanley Baldwin the chance to direct his ‘fireside chats’ into the home of every voter owning a radio. Churchill went even further and ‘weaponised’ his broadcasts to the nation during in a way which transformed and sustained morale during World War II. Yet Churchill proved no ‘natural’ when it came to television- this was left to subsequent political leaders like Benn, Blair and Cameron. Indeed, such is the requirement for a leader to be good on the ‘telly’, that it’s unlikely anyone without a fair amount of this skill would ever be chosen by colleagues to become PM in the first place. It’s worth noting that Boris Johnson’s political success owed much to his appearances on the BBC’s satirical show, Have I got News for You. Leadership Requirements of Different Ideologies Conservatism as an ideology, despite the awarding of so much authority by its followers to the office of leader, does not ostensibly at least require an especially strong style of leadership.3 In the famous words of Tory philosopher, Michael Oakeshott, Conservatism is: “....is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.” Such a view implies a ‘steady as she goes’, ‘don‘t rock the boat’ approach but philosophies change with circumstances. Margaret Thatcher decided the economic situation Britain found itself in when she came to power in 1979 required something close to a revolution. The ‘New Right’ believed in shrinking the state and slashing public expenditure but to achieve such major changes any PM would need to be more than just a little assertive. As those of us who lived through those years discovered, Thatcher, for good or ill, certainly gave us assertive leadership. Labour’s leadership styles in theory should be strong as the party, according to its aims anyway, seeks to reform the economic and political system and this would entail an almighty conflict with the established vested interests. In practice however Labour PMs- Attlee, Wilson, Callaghan, even Corbyn - have been consensus builders rather than revolutionaries. Given the coalition of different labour movement elements-unions, MPs, party groupings in the Commons and country plus of course the leadership selecting party membership- any leader of the party has had to seek internal agreement before seeking to introduce radical change in the country. Leftwing critics claim Labour leaders 2 W. A. Speck, Stability and Strife: England 1714–1760 (1977) p. 203 3 Howard Elcock (2001), Political Leadership, Edward Elgar, pp5-16. 2 have tended to compromise and edge towards ‘Establishment’ positions: thus explaining why the party has done virtually nothing about reforming private education or the banking system or inequality when in power. Indeed, Tony Blair, who urged acceptance of aspects of Thatcherism but was condemned by some on the left as virtually a ‘Tory’ within Labour from the outset and intent on preserving the status quo. ‘Moderate’ MPs who supported Blair argue the need to build a national pro-Labour consensus requires recognising the realities of public opinion. Elements of good leadership: Politics watchers will argue for ever over these criteria but, accepting a very strong physical constitution as a given requirement, I would offer those listed below as the core qualities of a successful politician- ‘greatness’ is a much more subjective judgement of course: Persuasiveness, Good Judgement, Courage and Resilience, Intellectual Ability and ‘hinterland’ Administrative Ability. Charisma Looking more closely at these criteria, how do our present crop of political ‘leaders’ –e.g. May, Johnson, Hunt, Grayling, Rory Stewart, - compare with the likes of Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Churchill, Macmillan, Jenkins, Healey, Thatcher and Blair? Persuasiveness: This skill is the core skill in a political system requiring the constant mobilisation of a consensus, through debate, consultation and compromise. Successful politicians have the ability to persuade their party in parliament, their followers in the country and ultimately a majority of voters nationwide. Political advancement is dependent, even today, on the quality of a politician’s performance on the floor of the House of Commons rather than the managerial skills of running a department. Mastery of the detail and fluency of speech are therefore both essential skills. It was during the 19th century, before the print press had fully emerged, that the spoken word still reigned supreme. Gladstone’s first speech of ‘compelling power’, according to his biographer was in May 1831 when, as a then Tory he opposed the 1932 Great Reform Bill. After he had spoken for 45 minutes Francis Doyle, who was present wrote. ‘we all felt that an epoch in our lives had occurred.’4 Later in his life, during the late 1870s the Grand Old Man of Liberalism charged back out of retirement- he’d had two stints as PM- to startle the political class with his coruscating Midlothian Campaign speeches against the Bulgarian atrocities. He went on to serve as PM on two more occasions. Disraeli’s maiden speech was hooted and hissed by his MP audience: he waspishly commented, ‘I will sit down now, but the time will come when you will hear me.’ He was right. This hugely 4 Roy Jenkins (1995), Gladstone, Papermac,