If the British people knew what they wanted in a leader, things would be easier all round. There would be a model, a template, and leaders could be found wanting and replaced, or not. But the people haven't the faintest clue, it seems. We go for Thatcherite self-belief, then decide she is a barmy autocrat. The country turns to the reassuring self-deprecation of John Major, then decides he is essentially a zero.
A friend was describing recently how he had bought one of those Russian dolls that open up to reveal another doll inside, which also opens up, and so on until you have eight or nine dolls - his were of British prime ministers through the past century. To his surprise, there was no John Major doll. That may have been a mistake. But, we agreed, as likely as not, John Major has simply been forgotten, written out of history. The man may have been decent and honest, and may have tried his best, but no one really knew what he stood for: he couldn't imprint his personality on the nation.
This is not an abstract question in Britain today. The Tory party is locked in despair over the leadership question. William Hague's strutting certainties, unconvincingly delivered - or the charismatic, faintly louche allure of Michael Portillo?
Take Channel 4's recent Powerhouse poll that ranked Ann Widdecombe above Portillo as the most respected potential Tory leader - and that's among the general public, not just Tory supporters. Admittedly, the poll of 1,000 people, carried out by NOP, did not find sky-high ratings for any of them - Widdecombe was on 28 per cent to Portillo's 22 per cent - but it shows, I think, that people prefer leaders who know their own mind. You may disagree with Widdecombe on everything she stands for, but at least you feel she has a world-view, and that she's not afraid to stand up and defend it. No other politician - from either right or left - is as unfailingly obliging when it comes to turning up in a television or radio studio to defend her latest daft wheeze. Remember how she even trotted round the studios defending the last Tory government's practice of shackling pregnant prisoners, when the former home secretary Michael Howard was nowhere to be seen.
Portillo, on the other hand, who seems relentlessly cheerful at the moment, has one big problem: no one has any idea what Portillo's Britain would be like. (The denial, by the way, of any plotting between Ken Clarke and Portillo was betrayed by a very excitable gathering at a well-known Westminster watering hole that included the Tory MP David Ruffley, once Clarke's special adviser, and Robbie Gibb, Portillo's former right-hand man.) Yes, we know that Portillo would be more tolerant of gay people and black people, and thank God for that. But we don't know whether the schools and hospitals would be better, whether we'd have more money in our pockets, or whether the trains would run on time.
So what, you may be wondering. Why should any NS reader give a damn about the Tories' post-election leadership dilemmas - except to hope that, whatever happens, it is all spectacularly bloody and embarrassing? Well, for one thing, because Labour is beginning to think about its own leadership conundrums, and there are parallels, even though none of the questions is either as traumatic or as imminent as those facing the Conservatives.
Tony Blair, indeed, remains stunningly popular for a prime minister with four years in office, never mind a Labour one. He is despised by some in the media, rather as John Major was, for wanting to be liked. The school bully strain of British journalism takes one look at the easy grin and rolls up its inky sleeves.
Blair will not be there for ever. During the election campaign, he will say that he will stay on for the full life of the next parliament. But no one really knows - perhaps even he doesn't really know yet. The euro campaign, which he is determined to fight, is a dangerous one. Both Gordon Brown and David Blunkett are clear contenders to replace him. Both are producing personal manifestos for after the election, and both of them are well aware that the electorate wants an answer to the question: "Where is the next Labour administration going?"
They are unlikely to come up with vastly differing answers, though Blunkett is more "Blairite" or "right-wing" on social issues than Brown. Both feel a strong commitment to ending poverty and improving public services. They hear, because we all do, the criticisms that the current prime minister is not ideological, not enough of a party man.
But the job of leader is very unlike the job of departmental minister, even the job of Chancellor. You are leader of the country, all of it, not just of the party or your departmental cause. There is nowhere to hide. You are relentlessly observed, pilloried, blamed for things that are not your fault. Your private life is ransacked and impertinently analysed. A very strong sense of what you stand for is essential if you are to hold up against the persistent press campaigns and the focus groups.
Everyone at the apex of new Labour should be watching the Tory leadership contest with more than simple glee. There are lessons there. The electorate is wary of those who tack and change too much, who it suspects are not true to themselves. Look at Portillo's low ratings. Come to think of it, look at Hague's - a man who started off with a "common-sense" revolution, but then took two steps to the right each week. People like to know who they are voting for and what their vision is. I suspect that, after Blair, what Labour and the country will want is a leader with a clear sense of where they are going.
News that any would-be leader is prepared to set out his vision in black and white is only to be welcomed.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
