Political Leadership: Storytellers (Donald Trump & Theresa May) 1/5

'Stop the steal'

'Grab her by the pussy'

'Build the wall'

'Mexican rapists'

'Rocket man'

'China virus'

'When the looting starts, the shooting starts'

Donald Trump is the most formidable storyteller of a generation. His comments are foul, and remembered by millions. To gloat that he will be judged by history ignores that he is able to shape what we consider as history. That is the power of the storyteller. 

But what is it to be a storyteller? Why is it the most important of our five abilities for any political leader? And what happens if you don't have it?

And Now For Something Completely Different (3/3)

Thatcher's out. But who follows the century's greatest stateswoman? This is a hotpotch period, as Prime Ministers grapple with Maggie's economic legacy, but also have to respond to a series of devastating global crises.

John Major: 1990-1997 (Cons)

Just as Callaghan was overshadowed by his successor, plain John Major was also overshadowed by Thatcher, and, similarly, had to face an energised opposition.

And he didn't do too badly. Sound economic management meant a decline in unemployment and recovery from recession. 

Successful involvement in the First Gulf War, and opt-outs from closer European integration raised his standing, as did beginning the Northern Ireland peace process. 

However, in 1992 was 'Black Wednesday' where leaving a European currency exchange system crashed the pound and permanently wiped out Major's poll lead. This and continual party sleaze gave the revived Labour Party vast ammunition. 

Major couldn't compete with their opposition's energy and in 1997 was crushed on a scale not seen since 1832.

Tony Blair: 1997-2007 (Lab)

Blair's premiership sprawls everywhere. Big government, big spending, big bureaucracy; 'blairism' simply swamped the political system. Yet underneath the flab was a redefining of Britain not seen since the sixties. 

Blair made the state great again. Welfare, education and health were entirely overhauled, with vast building programs to boot.
Legislation introduced the minimum wage and expanded police powers, while the army took an active role abroad in places such as Kosovo and Sierra Leone. 

The Anglo-American relationship soared, but so did the UK-EU partnership, an unusual balancing act.

Blair embodied the idea of a 'presidential' prime minister. One of the greatest speakers in Downing Street's history - he played the Commons 'like the London Palladium' - his presentation was second-to-none, which resulted in comfortable victories in three consecutive elections. 

Those successes inflated Blair's presidentialism further; he was in charge and expected everyone else to fall in. 
Decisions were made in a small team and above the heads of ministers, with intense effort devoted to 'spinning' the media favourably. 

While this allowed him to overcome crises such as foot-and-mouth, Northern Ireland, and, most crucially, 9/11, it also slowly came back to bite him. Poor decision-making and accountability led to the blunder of the Iraq War. 

His hubris also destroyed a very successful working relationship with Chancellor Gordon Brown. Despite winning a third election in 2005, under pressure on those two fronts Blair was forced to bow out in mid-2007. Brown subsequently took over. 

Gordon Brown: 2007-2010 (Lab)

A doctoral graduate, an efficient Chancellor, a 'brooding' figure with a monstrous temper, Gordon Brown probably saved the world financial system. 

In October 2008, when the markets went into free-fall over subprime loans, 'there was a real possibility of a total banking collapse'. 

Brown first correctly judged that a vast bailout was needed to prop up the banking system (£500bn in the UK), and then also convinced much of the western world of that urgent need. 

America, France and Germany all followed suit, calming the markets and likely stopping a global societal collapse (although there was no avoiding a global recession.)

However well managed, an economic crash does not lend itself to electoral victory, alas. 

Brown had rejected a good election opportunity in 2007, and his chance of winning an election permanently declined after Lehman Brothers collapsed; in 2010 he oversaw an inevitable Labour defeat. But the Conservatives couldn't quite make a majority.

David Cameron: 2010-2016 (Cons with Liberal Democrat coalition until 2015)

A youthful contrast to the sulky Brown, David Cameron was determined to carry a modernised, socially liberal Conservative party into power, and overturn New Labour's 'big government' legacy. However, he had to do it for five years with Liberal Democrat help.

Head of Britain's first official coalition since 1945, Cameron oversaw an unexpectedly stable government that, in order to stabilise the economy post-financial crash, conducted deep austerity measures. 

These proved controversial, with the NHS under increasing pressure (despite not being directly affected) and welfare spending sharply reduced. The legacy of austerity will continue to provoke serious dispute for years, although by doing so he successfully reduced the budget deficit - something that often draws praise.

Cameron's other memorable moment was the calling of an EU membership referendum in 2016 in order to secure a 'remain' vote and end divisions in the Conservative Party. 

But despite winning a general election the year before, the national mood swung against him with a slim majority in favour of 'Leave'; a shock result. Cameron promptly resigned, triggering a Party leadership election.

Theresa May: 2016-2019 (Cons)

As strong and stable as a magic money tree, Theresa May's time in office connotes a Shakespearean tragedy: started mediocre, and only got worse. Despite promising social change and 'ending austerity', hers was a single-issue premiership.

After doing very little of substance, May confidently called a general election in 2017. 

Unexpectedly, however, the Labour Party, under socialist Jeremy Corbyn, rapidly ate into her thin majority, forcing her to return to Parliament humiliated and dependent on some sulky Northern Irish unionists for a majority.
And her own party, torn over Brexit, failed to provide coherent support.

Bereft of ideas, short on allies, presiding over a Party in its worst mood since the mid-1800s, May was stuck in limbo, with power draining from her every time she failed to pass a Brexit Bill. Obviously without popular support, confirmed in damning European Elections in mid-2019, she was forced to resign, having achieved little.

Her successor, however, is another story...

Read Part 1 again here, or Part 2 here.

Thanks for reading! We hope you enjoyed this series - it took a lot of research and writing to make it happen. Consider leaving a comment, or listening to our podcast episodes here to show your support.

If you'd like to read further, the sources we used are below. All are well-written and enjoyable, but we'd particularly recommend 'Citizen Clem' - a biography of Clement Attlee - and 'Hope and Glory' - British politics from 1900-2000.

(All quotes and information from these sources or Wikipedia)

• 'Citizen Clem' - John Bew: Clement Attlee biography, especially interesting for World War Two and early-post war politics
• 'Winds of Change' - Peter Hennessey: a story of Britain in the early 60s, as Macmillan reaches his high and low, eventually replaced by Douglas-Home.
• Hope and Glory' - Peter Clarke: a concise, wide-ranging discussion of British politics through the century. 
• 'For the Record' - David Cameron: memoirs by David Cameron
• 'A Journey' - Tony Blair: memoirs by Tony Blair
• https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/feb/21/gordon-brown-saved-banks
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/gordon-brown-save-world-uk: both useful resources for understanding Brown and the Bailout

Creek. No paddle.

We are not legal experts, but we believe that, more than anything else since June 2016, it is the Supreme Court case against Boris Johnson that will be remembered in the future.

When Parliament gains more powers, history notices. The Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the Great Reform Act in 1832; all led to huge changes in the way this island is governed. The Supreme Court unanimously declared that the Prime Minister has overreached his power, which limits what future Prime Ministers can or cannot do. This implicitly gives Parliament more power, and sets a precedent that the Supreme Court can overrule the Prime Minister's actions.

This is because we have no codified constitution. In most countries, the constitution is the political rulebook, dictating what politicians are able to do, what powers the various branches of government have and where their limits are. In the UK, the rulebook doesn't exist.

Or, rather, it does, but across a sprawling mass of documents, and mostly in the minds of the rule-keepers (the Speaker and their Deputies) and players (MPs and the PM) instead of in one central place. This means the rules are often fluid, changeable, or can even be ignored. Unlike in the US, the Prime Minister could become a dictator if they get enough votes (and if the Queen obliges - but that's a whole other issue).

So Boris Johnson, in trying to limit Parliament's power by shutting up shop for five weeks, has only achieved a muscular extension of Parliamentary sovereignty at his own expense. Aside from the rather satisfying end result this is, future Prime Ministers will curse him for how much harder their jobs have been made. Running the country is an intensely stressful occupation, never mind having to deal with one of the most active parliaments in the world. And now said parliament has suddenly been endowed with new possibilities and freedoms to act against the PM.

He is in trouble. This is not a magistrates court dealing in petty theft. The most intelligent and experienced justices in the country have declared him a criminal - a man who has broken the law. In moral terms, that is a deeply alarming judgement of a figure in No.10. In political terms, that means Johnson is likely to lose support from moderate Conservative MPs and much of the more liberal party membership, plus a swathe of the middle-class at an election. Resignation calls are coming from every quarter; remainers are-invigorated, leavers are demoralised; this is a man in trouble.

Don't write him off yet. Laura Kuenssberg earlier suggested that we must not 'underestimate how aggressive Number 10 might be willing to be in response'. In New York for the United Nations Assembly, Johnson could well fly straight home to start an immediate counter-campaign. He still has options. He still has power.

Yet this is a man who has lost all six of his first Commons votes, broken the law and misled the monarch. His Premiership has not been a success story.

And don't you think he looks tired?


Theo

A Government of National Unit- Wait what?

Brexit looks set to have a tumultuous impact on the UK and our government. The current leadership, with a majority of -10 and no fresh ideas on our future, needs help. Why not form a coalition of National Unity?

The Plaid Green Labouril ConservaUKIP Scottish Unionist Party

Tory Churchill (middle-right) and Labour Attlee (middle-left)
in the WWII coalition.

The last time such a union happened was during World War Two, when the Liberals, Labour, and the Conservatives (the only three parties in parliament) formed a unified coalition under Winston Churchill. 

They, and he, saw the need for a robust government, free from opposition squabbling and petty disputes. 

They were committed to organising the country into a state of war, and then maintaining that state, until either they or Hitler were defeated; totally and absolutely.

Brexit isn’t nearly as concerning as the fate of the Northern Hemisphere, but a unified government would be useful. The Commons is fractured by intense debate, and Theresa May is under pressure from all quarters regarding her policies. A united government would be largely free of this and could solve several big political problems:

• Lack of committment to Brexit. With under a year left until exit, and less than eight months until the legislation has to be signed, cabinet ministers are falling like skittles (the bowling pins, not the sweets) and Jeremy Corbyn is grappling with an unkillable anti-semitism probe. Brexit is an awkward afterthought.

Theresa May in human mode.

• An absence of fresh ideas. The Maybot is known for a lack of human personality and dynamic thinking. Bringing in young Labour MPs and SNP ministers would shake up thinking (and amuse the country as they try to work with Jacob Rees-Mogg).

• Dodging of serious questions, and scores of petty disputes. Who cares about chlorinated chicken, when we could end up with no chicken? There’s too much obsession over the detail even without a grand plan yet in place. A national government would force solutions to big issues (i.e. the customs union) with the little problems shelved for a rainy day.

• Lack of Centrist politics. Abandoned by a Conservative party pulled to the right, and ignored by Corbynism, British Centrism is empty (Lib dems and Greens hardly count). Forcing more moderate MPs together might encourage them to redevelop the middle of British politics.

By one reckoning, the Conservatives have swung to an almost extremist viewpoint.
Labour is also much further out than before under Miliband, Brown, and Blair.

An all-party coalition that solves at least one of these problems would be well worth the time - something Theresa May isn’t using well right now. 

Economically, too, it could help reassure investor confidence, which currently looks wobbly at best. Showing that the government has its act together, and is committed to a functional Brexit, would result in a much more stable business atmosphere. 

Business confidence isn't as poor as many make it out,
 but it still looks more vulnerable than it should be.

And of course, it would encourage us. Both those who voted for and against Brexit now need guarantees that the exit will be carried out in a professional manner. I can’t think of many ways to reassure better than a national alliance.

Westminister - I think we got a problem

Unfortunately, there’s a reason why this idea has only been raised on the political fringes - the practicality of such a measure isn’t great. Hard-Right Brexiters mixing with Socialists? Tom Watson allying with Sir Bill Cash?

How would the Liberal Democrats, so committed to the idea of, at least, a Common’s vote on the final plan, work with a Prime Minister who frequently disregards parliamentary opinion? 

Corbyn-May relations are all an all-time low too; Prime Minister’s Questions’ has been knocking lumps out of them both recently, with fierce exchanges over Windrush, austerity and anti-semitism. It’s hard to imagine this gap being bridged, and it  probably never will be.

This would be nice...

...but this is the reality,

The idea of Winston Churchill being Prime Minister raised scorn and worry in most circles. Yet he disproved critics and went on to secure remarkable victories, both politically and militarily.

A National Government is, yes, unlikely, and causes concern in some circles. But we aren’t in the position right now to throw away the possibility. Britain needs it. 

The Lib Deads

In a political atmosphere where Jeremy Corbyn is splitting opinion like marmite and Theresa May as safe as a nuclear deterrent, alternative and third parties could do well. Yet there don’t seem to be any - where are the Liberal Democrats? 

Origin Story

First they were the ‘Liberals’, the only rivals to the 'Torys' until 1900. Then they became the ‘Liberal-Social Democrats’ in 1981. Finally, after a bad election in 1987, they simplified and became just the ‘Liberal Democrats’ and Britain’s third biggest party.

All smiles at the announcing of the coalition...

During Nick Clegg’s leadership in 2010, they secured enough seats (57) to form a coalition with the Conservatives, but governing was tough. 

Their support base of young people fled to Labour after a broken promise to freeze tuition fees, and the party became more and more ignored, especially after a humiliating referendum defeat on an alternative voting system. 

The result in 2015? Losing 49 seats. Nick Clegg resigned, the Conservatives had a majority, and the Liberal Democrats were disgraced. 

...then devastation in 2015

Their next leader was Tim Farron, who had to prevent the party’s collapse, endure a European Union Referendum, and react to Cameron’s fall and the rise of May and Corbyn. 

For a smaller, poorer party expecting five years rest, the referendum and the 2017 snap election drained their finances and support base. They could only muster 12 seats - nothing near what they expected. 
After Farron resigned for personal reasons, Sir Vince Cable took over, but they still sit at only 7.5% in the polls.

Long term Lib Dem Vince Cable has to lead an
ageing party

What's going wrong?

Basically, Brexit and old people. 

While those two things sound synonymous, what I mean is that their line over Brexit hurts them, and the look of the Party does not look like an election-winner.

It was Farron who initially demanded a second referendum on Brexit; mainly because the first result was so close that it didn’t represent a clear majority. Principally, it’s not a bad way to think; encouraging pro-active and clear democracy.

Pragmatically, however, it’s impractical and awkward. The EURef campaign was poisonous and damaging, and few people want to see a repeat. Also, the result has been widely accepted, and wanting a second vote sounds a bit like they’re just rejecting a result they didn’t like. 

The idea has since morphed into a vote on the eventual Brexit agreement instead, which seems more reasonable, but support is still uncertain, because there’s no idea what would happen if the deal was rejected.

The Party’s lack of MPs means many have to perform several jobs, and the face of the Lib Dems rests on a few politicians who repeatedly appear in the media. Alas, they’re all old.

The average age of a Liberal Democrat MP is 53.5 years - the highest of any party. 67% are aged 40-59 (the same as the notoriously middle-aged Conservatives), and their Youth Spokesperson is 68! 

Liberal Democrat MPs - all twelve of them

While they’re certainly experienced, it doesn't suggest they have an intimate knowledge of vital younger age groups - those most willing to support moderate, moral ideas. 

They also have a dear shortage of young, dynamic leaders. Clegg had gravitas and determination, Farron seemed principled and bubbly. 

Cable is highly experienced and intelligent, but is ageing (he's almost 75). He was recently quoted as saying it's 'perfectly plausible' that he could be Prime Minister - earning him ridicule rather than rapture.
Their middle-class comfort and rising age range puts them largely out of touch of the population.

Or...

Europe's three biggest right-wing politicians:
(left to right) Geert Wilders of the PVV (Dutch),
Frauke Petry of AfD (German), and Marine Le Pen of FNF (French)

Is there another reason? The success of Trump, Brexit, and Europe's Far-Right shows that extreme populism is in. 

People are fed up with the 'establishment'; centrism and the art of compromise and moderation is no longer politically trendy - people want to see their stubborn values prioritized above give and take and balance. 

Thus, the Lib Dems are no longer popular because they represent something else - hope, progression, and tolerance of all values. These are not idolised by the West right now.

But values change, and maybe the Liberal Democrats will too.

David Cameron: Clumsy Etonian or Modern Leader?

When we think about politics now, we think of Corbyn, Brexit, and Trump. 

David Cameron announces his resignation
(June 24th 2016)

We have little time to judge the UK’s 75th Prime Minister. He served for one and a fifth terms, and has been associated with huge change in healthcare, education, and welfare. 
Yet he resigned abruptly in 2016, attacked from all sides after defeat in the EU referendum vote. 

He split opinion decisively, and I believe his strengths (passion, morality, leadership) were too easily dismissed. However, he certainly rushed into things, and could seem out of touch at times.

So what were his main achievements; what were his big failures, and how do they add up?*

Achievements:

1) NCS

His flagship 'Big Society (1)' idea is the 'National Citizens Service', a youth scheme for 15-17 year olds, funded by the government and cheap to join. He wanted young people of all backgrounds to integrate, exploring different opinions and cultures, taking that experience into adulthood. 

As a recipient of the program, my experience did live up to that ideal, and certainly challenged the way I live and behave. With a financial overhaul, it could become a world leader of its kind. A big success for Cameron.

2) Aid budget

While suffering a lot of calls to stop doing so, Cameron continued sending 0.7% of our budget to developing/fragile nations - honouring commitments made by many major economies in recent years (while being the only one to keep that promise - we give more than the USA proportionally). 

The funds go to countries struggling with natural disasters or civil war, and reflect the British tradition for generosity and charity during crises like the spread of Ebola and famine in Africa.

3) The Scottish Referendum

His success in securing a ‘No’ vote over Scotland leaving the UK in 2014 has put the divisive issue to rest for a while. After concerns over a possible ‘Yes’ vote, he made a late emotional, and possibly vital, push for Scotland to stay. He made no attempt to disguise his patriotism in the campaign, and was visibly relived when it ended successfully. His passion for the country was evident and powerful.

Failures:

1) EU Referendum

His career breaker: the decision to leave the European Union. He confidently expected an easy, sensible campaign resulting in a 'Remain’ vote. What happened was a messy; controversial; tough four months, resulting in a slim, but disastrous, loss. 

He struggled to co-ordinate potential allies (Jeremy Corbyn dragged his feet throughout, and the Lib Dems had no strategy), and misread the mood of the people. The only part that he executed well was his resignation.

2) UKIP

His party never had any idea how to combat the anti-EU, anti-immigration party, preferring to ignore it until it was too late. Even though Farage struggled in the 2015 election, his mere existence kept the Conservatives talking about the EU so much that  Cameron decided to launch a referendum. UKIP also attracted many Tory voters and two of its MPs, causing damage to Cameron's reputation.

3) Education

Michael Gove - a close friend of Cameron's

His second education secretary, Michael Gove, led a huge reform of the education curriculum, emphasising exams and grades over individual-based learning. 

The result? A great increase in the burden and mental pressures on both students and teachers. No teaching body has thought well of the changes. 

Cameron certainly encouraged this, and gave Gove too free a reign in this area, so I partially attribute this failure to Cameron.

Summary:

He certainly can't deserve all the flak directed at him: he was undeniably compassionate and kind as a person, and took Britain in a much more progressive direction. Yet he was also misguided in his grasp of what the people thought, and struggled when events were moving at speed (see Libya). The choice is yours - what do you think? 

(Comment your opinion below.)

*Obviously, this is all my opinion and are the things I feel the keenest about; there are other big topics (e.g. gay marriage, Chinese relations, austerity, Libya) which all could be on here, but would make it too long. I'm also not going to refer to any scandals or tabloid stories - just policies.