October 2, 2024 - 7:00pm
Politics is not simply a battle of ideas and ideologies, but a performance. And that is why James Cleverly’s speech in Birmingham today is so important, less because of its sparse content than the way it was delivered and the feeling that he managed to impart. It was delivered with normal words, in normal sentences by someone who looked and sounded normal. And the crowd loved it.
I have written before about political instinct and why it is so much more important than policies. Leaders must make decisions without all the information available to them, and so must rely on their instincts to decide what to do, alone and in the knowledge that they will be judged and condemned if they make the wrong call. But there is another trait that is required in leadership: character.
When a political leader has to make a decision without all the information, they must be brave enough to stand out in front of the evidence to move quickly and decisively. Theresa May and Gordon Brown are two examples of dutiful, experienced politicians who never acquired such bravery and paid enormously for it. May was unable to decide quickly which Brexit to pursue, until the European Union decided for her; Brown was unable to act decisively and call a snap election before being outmanoeuvred by David Cameron and George Osborne.
In his book The Tragic Mind, Robert Kaplan argued that too many of the leaders who emerged at the end of the Cold War shared a character trait that was equally disastrous: optimism. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton believed in the march of progress like a faith. Had they been raised in an environment that dwelt on the inherent tragedy of life, Kaplan argues, they would have made better decisions, avoiding the actual tragedies they delivered in the Middle East and beyond.
This is one element of character. The other is the ability to inhabit the role of leader — to be authoritative, comfortable with attention, and capable of performing in public. David Cameron beat David Davis to the Tory leadership in 2005 largely because he was able to do this. The two American presidents Cleverly referenced in his speech today — Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan — achieved success in part because they were attractive, authoritative characters whose attributes seemed to meet the moment.
What was striking about the Shadow Home Secretary on stage today was how comfortable he appeared. This is not easy, either. Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss and Theresa May never had this ability — and nor does Keir Starmer. Cleverly also has the advantage of a voice that does not grate and a physique that is neither weedy nor fat. He looks like a man who could eat a bacon sandwich and drink a pint. Trite, yes, but ask Ed Miliband whether this matters.
One other important point about his speech, as noted to me by a pollster recently, is that Cleverly’s confidence allows him to be self-deprecating in a way English voters demand and which some of the other candidates — Robert Jenrick was mentioned — seem to lack, gripped by a self-seriousness that feels more American than British. According to recent polling, he is the most popular candidate among the general public, and he is making progress among members.
Cleverly’s actual analysis of the challenges Britain faces today still leaves a lot to be desired. He has no convincing explanation as to why the Conservative Party performed so badly in office — indeed, he was at pains to defend the previous government’s record, even as he apologised to party members for MPs’ behaviour. Nor does he have a clear explanation for why the country is in such a state, with the NHS collapsing under pressure, the economy stagnant, and wages depressed. Will getting the state’s “heel off your neck, its nose out of your business and its hands out of your pocket”, as Cleverly put it today, really fix this?
His offer of “optimism” and “belief in the future” is not enough to be a good prime minister. He has no explanation why it will be “Morning in Britain” again under him when it very much was not under the previous five Tory leaders. Still, after his speech it is clear that he has the tools to be a dangerous opponent for the Labour Party.
The warning for the Tories, however, is simple: optimism does not always do the job. The last Conservative leader who believed in the future and Ronald Reagan lasted 49 days in the job. The last one to make Conservative MPs feel good about themselves with an easy-going confidence and humour after a seismic defeat to the Labour Party was William Hague. And he went on to get hammered regardless. Cleverly certainly has the character. If he is to succeed, he will need to add the ideology.
Tom McTague is UnHerd’s Political Editor. He is the author of Betting The House: The Inside Story of the 2017 Election.
TomMcTague
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat came first and second, in either order, then the second-placed would stand aside, and the Leadership Election would be over. The Tory Deep State wants Cleverly, as it wanted Rishi Sunak. And it got him.
He will also need to stop being a total and utter bell end. It could be too late for that however.
It’s just baffling how some people like Cleverley and Kamala Harris reach this level, truly desperate stuff.
Nope, he’s still being an utter bell end, tweeting criticism of the Chago Islands deal when he started the negotiations himself. Think he just sunk his own battleship.
They are too black for ya eh White Boy? After all All only Caucazoid Neanderthals mutants have all the answers since you created all the problems eh?
You have just illustrated the reason why the Tories will not succeed whoever they elect from the 4 candidates … all 4 have no answers … they facilitated the mess they have left us.
They need to find a leader untainted by the past, otherwise they will cease to exist before too long.
Don’t Right wing supporters need to share much of the blame for repeatedly buying slogans and not substance? For wanting easy solutions rather than hard choices? For scapegoating others in order to avoid responsibility?
You often gets what you deserved.
When does your almost daily repetition “slogans not substance” become just another slogan ?
I think you’re making up the scapegoating stuff. There’s a difference between believing primarily in individual responsibility as many of us do (I suspect you also do) and collective responsibility.
Individual responsibility: I’m responsible for my own actions. And none of yours.
Collective responsibility: You’re not responsible for your own actions. But I might be.
We’re moving further towards a state where some people are responsible for nothing at all and others are responsible for both their own actions and everyone else’s on top.
And it is the right (if this means anything any more) who mainly believe in the primacy of individual responsibility while the so-called progressives prefer collective responsibility.
And what did any of that have to do with the debate point in hand PB? Bit of a sideshow rant IMO, albeit as chance would have you’re probably right we both think personal responsibility v important.
Back to Slogans not substance – promises to reduce legal migration and no real policies to make that deliverable or explain the consequences in a whole range industrial sectors. On illegal – leave ECHR without any real thought on what difference that would then make given the folks on Boats haven’t a clue most likely what on earth it is. And another ‘Levelling Up’…err and then what was the actual Policy substance? Oh and another ‘Take Back Control’ to then increase immigration.
You can probably find the same in every area of Right wing policy last decade because it is so clear you guys drink the Kool-aid on a yah-boo slogan and only wake up later it’s got nought behind it.
The fact your response veers off down some side alley maybe indicative?
I haven’t hit “rant mode” yet.
You’ll know when I do. But I’d much rather keep things civil.
Project, dissemble, deny, deflect, dismiss, discredit, fallacy. Rinse and repeat.
That’s all you have, o argument and no solution just carry on with the same failed ideology… because… reasons, yada, yada, yada.
Too Cleverly by half perhaps?
I don’t understand why none of them talked in depth about the imminent machine intelligence tsunami, not even Badenoch, who worked for several years in IT and has coalface coding experience. None of what they were all waffling on about, nor any of what Starmer and co are so preoccupied with, is going to matter very much when the wave breaks.
Perhaps they, like me, do not believe there is an imminent machine intelligence tsunami. And I too have coalface coding experience.
Well we have to disagree on that. Everything I’m seeing about the next gen of LLMs indicates huge increases in capabilities, and I’m not seeing a ceiling. The effects on employment are difficult to guess in the very first instance but I think entire vocations are about to disappear very quickly.
Have you read AI Snake Oil? I have to agree with the two academics who wrote that book. Their point is not that all AI is snake oil, but that much of what people are most pushing about AI is.
Oh come on, did you not scan the audience? Wouldn’t have a clue what it was all about. They aren’t pitching to normal people..,yet at least.
Are you going “full Keir” in redefining what “normal people” (“working people” in his case) means ?
It was despising the voters and “normal people” that got the Conservatives into this mess in the first place. Never forget Mathew Parris’ notorious 2016 Times article writing off Clacton.
By the way does anyone know anything about the super injunction obtained by 2 tier?
We wouldn’t know if there was one, would we ?
Someone always talks
I suspect you hit nail on head – Tories/Right think it’s membership normal people. Thus can’t quite fathom why it’s all gone wrong.
You just keep missing the target.
There are many different types of “normal people” !
Indeed, how could it be otherwise in a diverse society ?
What is it with people that they are constantly trying to divide other people up into groups and stick labels on them ?
And I thought you were a one nation type who didn’t go in for this sort of thing.
You are struggling PB to grasp the Tory membership are not representative of the rest of the population. That’s the point here.
The same could be said of Labour too, do you really think that Labour care about the “red wall” anymore than the Tories or Reform. Labour could remove all the performative identity politics and fantasy utilitarianism that no one in the red wall gives a t0ss about.
I agree in – Party memberships not representative or typical of wider public.
As regards your second point, which you muddled up into the first in a bit of rage rush I suspect, I’m no great fan of identity politics too and been pleased little of that in initial directions taken by new Govt. They seem much more focused on things that really matter, even if we all know none easily fixed.
I heard bits of their pitches, and I have to admit it was all very lackluster. Jenrick wants to create a “new Conservative Party” – very good idea. My suggestion for an appealing name for this new party is, umm, errr, “Reform”. And to make this name even more appealing, by binding it to the nation state, I suggest adding “UK” to the name – so, errrm, “Reform UK”. Um, so what do you think?
If you spend much time actually ‘thinking’ you know what stupidity this is.
You seem to have a penchant for conducting ad hominem attacks. Not a good idea if you aspire to be taken seriously!
No one takes JW seriously, insults are all that are left.
Maybe and occasionally I do tell myself off later. But the twaddle, esp when it’s got a racial reflex component, deserves puncturing. Too many of you otherwise rattle round an echo chamber all backslapping
Projection and fallacy
Odd comment. Why on earth would a political party that aspires to be an alternative government in waiting, want to turn itself into strange mix of a ‘none of the above’ protest movement, and the fanclub of a pub bore with the gift of the gab?
It was a mistake to make them give their speeches from memory. They are seeking to lead a political party, not auditioning for ‘Hamlet’. No wonder they sounded stilted.
There is always the danger of buying the performance, rather than the content. Let’s see what the political journalists have to say.
‘Buying the performance not the content’ what Right wing supporters been doing the last 14years, including those attracted to Reform.
Kettle and pot anyone?
Interesting thoughts, but I thought Tom McTague’s definition of character odd. Optimism is an element of character? And so is the ability to inhabit the role of leader? Not in my book. Character consists of moral and ethical traits, like honesty, courage, and loyalty. I consider optimism and leadership ability to be more personality traits than character traits.
And I don’t think character matters too much to a political leader. Certainly a deficiency in character will disqualify, but as long as they are average or better in character I don’t see a problem.
What I value leaders on is their ability to get things done. For that, optimism is not needed. The ability to inhabit the role of leader is a key trait, but that kind of comes with the ability to get things done.
It can be hard to evaluate people on their ability to get things done. Their track record offers the best clue, but candidates for the prime minister’s office will rarely have much of a record in comparable jobs to go on.
We seem to have reached the stage where the “leader” is somebody with whom voters can connect emotionally, while at the same time being reliably free of any ideas of his own in the place where those of the machine and the donors are meant to be inserted.
That could be a rational reaction to the apparently and mysteriously unbridgeable gap between what politicians say and what happens.
Yep had a sense for some time Cleverly would be the most dangerous for Labour. He’s grasped the Tories can’t allow themselves to be pulled down the Farage cul-de-sac and he has a ‘decent bloke, no silver spoon privileged private schoolboy’ persona that works.
Which of course means highly unlikely he’ll win as those deciding rattle around a echo-chamber where broader good judgment is lacking and the desire for more performative rubbish on immigrants needed. Good for Labour.
So suspect it’s Rob Generic who wins and all those arm waving Blairite hand movements during speeches he’s added and the time on the treadmill will pay off. Non-entity who Public will quickly see through and who won’t lead the Right into the real reflection it needs.
The Right? Err…this is the present Conservative party being discussed. You know…the heirs to Blair…Cameron and his successors…not a Thatcherite among them…as for substance you might as well try to catch a shadow.
However Starmer’s Labour is exactly the same…empty, expensive suits with no idea how to achieve prosperity for the country. Corbyn got more votes and almost won against May, because he is honest and actually believes in something.
And the above is precisely why Reform has appeal.
92% of UK electorate didn’t vote for Reform. And what’s more they’ve peaked. The echo chamber doesn’t help you.
Then the other parties have no problem at all…
Another Tory centrist with no political vision. Ergo, highly vulnerable to an anti-Tory vote drummed up by Reform and the liberal Establishment equally.
Nothing will work, nor any new leader. Britain is acclerating downhill faster with each boatload of the unwanted washing up on the shore. There is no going back by now.
The Tory members don’t want him, as he is just another “continuity Liberal”. The membership will probably have to choose between him and Jenrick – and will vote for Jenrick while holding their noses. Until the MPs provide a chance for their members to vote for their favoured candidate (Badenoch) they are doomed to repeated failure.
Cleverly appeals to MPs who fancy a nice, quiet life, dozing on the opposition backbenches. He also appeals to the party rank and file, who want to feel good about themselves.
I am not convinced that a quiet life and a feelgood factor is ever going to win a general election. With Cleverly at the helm, I fear that Starmer will get a second term for free. Lucky old Starmer.