In recent days I've come across three instances of people arguing that one of the problems with our political system today is that it produces such inexperienced leaders.
You can hear Robert Saunders making this argument in the latest episode of Nick Cohen's podcast The Lowdown. (Click play on the video and you'll get the relevant extract.)
Mark Garnett also touches on it in his new book Downing Street Downfalls: The Misadventures of Britain's Prime Ministers Since Thatcher, which I review in the next Liberator.
In the book he writes:
Even before Brexit there had been signs that individuals with slender qualifications were beginning to regard themselves as viable candidates. In January 2015 Adam Afriyie, a right-wing backbencher little known to parliamentary colleagues let alone the public, was mooted as a serious challenger to David Cameron's position. Unlike Sir Anthony Meyer in 1989, before the rumours fizzled out Afriyie showed every sign of wanting to run purely on his own behalf.
And you can see the same concern in the Chris Dillow article I blogged about the other day:
Labour party members in 2020 were so keen to see Corbynism without Corbyn that they overlooked questions about Starmer's suitability: is a man who became an MP only in 2015 sufficiently experienced in Westminster politics? Does being head of a large hierarchical organization equip a man to lead a more egalitarian one facing fierce competition? Does he have any good record in developing and selling policy?
Closer to home, how much did Liberal Democrat members know about Nick Clegg when they elected him as their leader.
I know I'm getting old, but I think there is something in the argument that our leaders are too inexperienced.
There may be many factors behind the change to instant, disposable leadership, but it is clearly true. Even John Major, who moved from relative obscurity through Cabinet positions in three years under Thatcher before taking the leadership, had experience of the Whips' office and a minister and was therefore known to colleagues.
ReplyDeleteFor a Labour example, Attlee's career before Prime Minister took things to the extreme: leadership under fire in 3 different theatres of World War 1 (when pro-war positions were not necessarily popular in the Labour Party), then thrust into the Labour deputy leadership in after their split and collapse in 1931 as the second-most governmentally-experienced MP (of only three with any at all), and acted as interim leader twice before becoming leader in his own right in 1935, effectively choosing Churchill as PM in 1940 (as a condition of coalition), then becoming Deputy PM in 1942.
(Maybe Attlee has something in common with Ed Davey as one of the few survivors of an electoral collapse! Maybe not much else... But anyone in the modern era clocking up 20 years as leader of the same party - two thirds of their time as an MP - is hard to conceive of.)
At least Ed Davey has been in parliament since 1997, except for a 2 year gap 2015-17. He also has cabinet experience. I know we ill advisedly chose Nick Clegg who had little or no experience (in parliament or in the world) and that showed clearly when he was deputy prime minister. Given what we now know, Hulme would have given us other problems, but had the saving grace of business experience to add to his limited time as an MP.
ReplyDeleteOK so Ed is not the most charismatic of leaders, but he got us the largest no of MPs since 1923, not a bad score!