- There is a Shakespearean dimension to the way British premiers meet their tragic destinies. The seeds of their downfall are sown as they rise to the top
The Guardian
Steve Richards
What are the qualifications for political leadership? The question is rarely asked in the United Kingdom, let alone answered. Theresa May became Prime Minister after taking part in the shortest leadership contest in modern times. She made one speech before moving into No 10 Downing Street. There was no time to reflect on her qualifications for the momentous tasks of leadership.
Even if the campaign had lasted a lifetime, there would have been little reflection. Longer contests in the UK tend to be about the ideological positioning and beliefs of candidates, rather than whether they can meet the demands of leadership. Yet, ideological momentum will never be achieved if a leader cannot lead.
While anyone seeking to be a chief executive in the public or private sector would expect to be asked intensively about their qualifications, there are no clear criteria about what requirements are essential for an aspirant British prime minister. Look at those wondering whether they could be the next leader of the opposition. Some give a decent interview on BBC2’s Newsnight and conclude they have the qualities required for greatness. In recording a series of unscripted, straight-to-camera talks on modern prime ministers for the BBC, I began to see clear patterns relating to the qualifications for political leadership.
The first is previous ministerial experience, which is hugely important. The lack of it explains why former prime ministers Tony Blair and David Cameron moved towards their doom. Would Blair have been quite so cautiously subservient to the United States and displayed such unquestioning faith in speculative intelligence if he had handled similar material as a minister, or had witnessed at close hand another prime minister navigate the complexities of foreign affairs? Would Cameron have taken such a superficial approach to National Health Service reform or to the UK’s relationship with Europe if he had served as a departmental minister? I doubt it.
Conversely, former prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s populist radicalism was tempered by her experience as an education secretary, when she fought for a decent departmental budget and learned the constraints of ministerial power. Later, another former prime minister Gordon Brown was able to respond impressively to the global financial crisis in 2008 partly because he had been chancellor for 10 years. He knew who to contact and what to do. In different ways, both were saved by previous ministerial experience.
A second qualification is often overlooked. The skill to be a political teacher is not an added extra, but a prerequisite for sustained power. As Tony Benn noted often in his diaries, Thatcher was an instinctive teacher, making sense of her policies in an accessible way even if what she “taught” was economically contentious. The same applies, to some extent, to Blair. Whatever he was doing, he was out there framing arguments and seeking to explain. Former prime minister John Major was an underestimated “teacher” prime minister in his early phase, giving the impression that there had been a change of government in November 1990. He lost all authority after his triumphant election victory in 1992 because he could not control his party.
That is the third qualification for leadership: A wily, expedient ability to manage a party. Prime ministers are not presidents. They are dependent on their party to remain in power. Managing a party is tough, arduous, unglamorous work, coping with factions, divisions and egos. Cameron struggled as a party manager, but dealt skilfully with the dynamics of a coalition. In contrast, Harold Wilson was a brilliant manager, winning two elections in 1974 when his party was more seriously split over Europe than it is today. Unlike Cameron, he also won a referendum on Europe. If prime minsters cannot control their parties, or become too detached from them — as Thatcher and Blair were at the end of their leadership — they are doomed.
Context is as important as the individual. Thatcher and Blair faced opponents in disarray, although their skills added to the crises of their political enemies. Brown, Wilson, James Callaghan, Major and Cameron faced more daunting contexts. Cameron secured power for five years without an overall majority and then blew it when he unexpectedly won the 2015 election, Brown lost his fleeting prime ministerial voice in a crisis over whether to hold an early election, and Major was slaughtered in 1997.
On most counts at this very early stage of her leadership, May scores highly. She has had more experience than most incoming prime ministers after six years in the Home Office, although this is not a department that is testing in terms of economic or foreign policy. She has, for now, command of her party. But in terms of context she is more constrained than any of her modern predecessors, inheriting Brexit, the energy-sapping issue that dominates her government and will determine her fate.
There is a Shakespearean dimension to the way British prime ministers meet their tragic destinies. The seeds of their downfall are sown as they rise to the top. Thatcher glittered in the October 1974 election when, as shadow environment secretary, she pledged to abolish rates, the unpopular property tax. A few months later, she was leader. Yet, when she finally abolished the rates as prime minister, replacing them with the poll tax, the policy destroyed her. Cameron appeased Eurosceptics in his leadership contest by pledging that Conservatives would leave the centre-right grouping in the European parliament. He won, and then appeased them again as leader by holding the referendum that killed off his political career. Blair was propelled to power by his belief in third-way politics, an attachment that led him to the quagmire of Iraq as he sought to back the US and yet persuade it to work with the United Nations — his fatal third way. May rose to the top via the Home Office, where she had a particular focus on immigration. Now she views Brexit partly through the prism of her formidable tenure at that department, making free movement constraints her red line. Will this be the trigger for another tragic sequence? The experience of her predecessors suggests it might. One of the dark lessons of leadership is that in their beginnings lie the seeds of their end.
