OU blog

Personal Blogs

Leon Spence

The Prime Minister's probity and thin skin were already in question. Now his judgement is too.

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Leon Spence, Tuesday, 8 Oct 2024, 10:49

In their report 'Strong and Stable' the think tank Make Votes Matter, an organisation promoting a proportionally representative electoral system, note that in the parliamentary term following the 2019 general election the average period of time a newly appointed cabinet minister spent in office was just eight months.

Whilst that figure was undoubtedly impacted and made lower by mass resignations and two changes of Prime Minister it is nevertheless eye-catching. An average eight months tenure points to turmoil, it points to a government running out of both ideas and talent, it suggests an administration more intent on fighting internal battles than serving the public.

8 months also happens to be an historically low figure too. According to Make Votes Matter 'ministers appointed between the 1970s and 2005 generally remained in one office for between two and three years.' Indeed the United Kingdom was already at the lower end amongst comparable countries when it comes to ministerial tenure. Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany all average a length of term around three years in office, Switzerland over six.

At this year's general election one of the principle selling points of the Labour Party was that they would bring stability and, yes, decency back to a broken political system. Even if he never claimed it publicly Sir Keir Starmer made a virtue of his moral superiority.

In less than 100 days however, that fabled milestone for all viewers of The West Wing, we have seen a spate of entirely appropriate questions on the acceptance of gifts, we have witnessed first hand the Prime Minister's disdain at having his decisions scrutinised, and now, in the wake of his Chief of Staff, Sue Gray's enforced resignation, the final component of competence is rightly being reviewed.

Of course, Ms Gray, is not a minister. In many respects as Chief of Staff for the Prime Minister she was even more important. The nature and timing of her appointment, in most people's eyes, already looked a little shady.

But sacking her after 93 days? A fraction of the time most ministers are in office? That brings the Prime Minister's judgement into question more than anything than has gone before.


Permalink
Share post
Leon Spence

Passing the Sunday lunch test

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Leon Spence, Monday, 7 Oct 2024, 09:12

With the final parliamentary rounds of the Conservative leadership election getting under way this week it was interesting to listen to Beth Rigby's Electoral Dysfunction podcast reflecting on last week's Tory party conference.

Former Labour MP Harriet Harman suggested that this interminably long recruitment process had become something of a beauty contest and that it was important that the remaining candidates go away to think about what it is they stand for.

Of course, Ms Harman is right, ideology is important for any candidate. Where do they stand on the economy? On immigration? Where are they on the political spectrum?

But ideology isn't the beginning and end.

How you look and how you communicate is just as important when it comes to being entrusted by the public with political power. You may have the best set of principles in the world (or to counter that, truely hateful ones) but you will never gain office if you do not communicate them in a way that resonates with a sizeable portion of the electorate.

Take this year's general election as an example. Few people would understand the intricacies of Sir Keir Starmer's personal ideology but in the years that preceded him entering office - and the short campaign itself - he communicated an approach of dignity and service (albeit, arguably, that approach may have crumbled fairly quickly).

There is much that can be said in another post about governments losing power, rather than oppositions winning it, but broadly in July enough of the electorate saw Sir Keir as a decent, competent pair of hands.

It can be argued that this year's Labour manifesto was the thinnest in history in terms of policy platform, it wasn't an epic ideological tome - what you may expect from a party that has been out of power for a decade and a half - but rather a document that in four or five years time cannot be held by Labour's opponents as some sort of 'sausage to fortune' scenario. (See what I did there?)

The Times last week reported on comments made by Baroness Morgan of Cotes that the next Labour leader must appeal to people from "Cheltenham High Street to Loughborough Market". She said when it comes to finding the best leadership candidate she has a "Sunday lunch test... If the new leader turned up in your house for Sunday lunch could you ask them to open a bottle of wine and serve the guest and chat to people?"

I've always followed a similar rule when voting for leadership candidates- and yes, I do have a vote in the Conservative contest. Would I be happy to have a pint at the pub with them?

Invariably most successful Prime Ministers have always passed those tests whether it was Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair or David Cameron. Your backgrounds may differ but you wouldn't be stuck for conversation - it's the chat not the alcohol that is important, you see? 

Even those most divisive of politicians Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson or Dennis Skinner pass the test. You may disagree with them, but they have a depth more than just ideology.

So my advice for the next Conservative leader (or any politician) is yes, understand your ideology but remember it counts for nothing if your potential voters cannot empathise with you.

In the real world of politics what you look like and what you sound like are ust as important as your views on Adam Smith.


Permalink
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 23828