Yes - Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I do not dispute that personality matters in politics. Decisions must ultimately be taken by a relatively small number of politicians. It is right that the press devote some attention to their personalities, as that they undoubtedly affect the country's governance.
For proof, one only has to consider the events that followed the most recent general election. With voters having failed to elect a government, it fell to the party leaders to create one for them. Never had the importance of personality been laid so bare. Over the course of five days it became clear that Nick Clegg and David Cameron were comfortable working with each other. It was also obvious that the prime minister, a man who would struggle to share power, was the odd man out. There were of course electoral, political and policy matters to be taken into account. However, it is inconceivable that there would have been an identical result had different individuals been cast in the lead roles.
The same could be said for previous periods of politics. Winston Churchill's bombast made him a figure of ridicule during the 1930s, but also made him ideally suited to being a war time leader. Margaret Thatcher's fierce determination that she was right was used to silence the opposition and hostile Conservative MPs. Tony Blair's evangelical views on human rights and democracy had a tremendous impact on British foreign policy. The personalities of each cannot be divorced from their style of governance.
The point at issue has never been whether personality is important, but rather the appropriate degree of attention that this one aspect of politics receives. I am minded to conclude that the media afford it far too much importance, personifying politics in the process.
The television age ushered in a more media conscious era, in which politicians of all stripe had to be mindful of the press. However, things have progressed to such an extent that politicians have come to be considered celebrities, and a light-hearted source of entertainment.
There now exists a fairly large coterie of current and former MPs who can be widely identified by the public as a result of their appearances on popular television programmes. This in an age when many would struggle to distinguish amongst the parties, and the things for which they stand. We have entered a dangerous age when the politicians are better known than their policies.
Regrettably, things are set to get worse. With their every move reported, politicians face the constant temptation to focus more on keeping up with the latest trends than on the decisions they will face in office. The more ambitious among them will give in.
In such an environment our representatives end up being judged, not by their capacity to lead, but by their ability to follow popular culture. How else can one explain the pathetic example of Gordon Brown, who found time to appear on television to discuss the progress of
One naturally wants to be able to relate to the men and women who serve us. Yet we deceive ourselves if we believe that electing someone 'just like us' will usher in a golden era of good governance. A politician's personality is no substitute for their experience, capability, integrity and judgment. The expenses scandal showed the loss of trust that can occur when such qualities are found to be lacking. Personality is important, but it is not all-important. The media is in danger of forgetting that truth.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind is the MP for Kensington and Chelsea
No - James Lyons
In politics, personality has always mattered and never more so than it does today. A cursory glance through history shows that the cult of the leader is nothing new. Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar needed no lessons in spin from the likes of Peter Mandelson. And the likes of Winston Churchill show how the character of one man – or woman – can influence a nation's fate. The former PM may have been fuelled by booze and often swamped by despair, but his determination to "keep buggering on" inspired the country in its darkest hour.
Modern British politics has been shaped by big personalities. Margaret Thatcher's fierce response to the invasion of the Falklands saved her premiership while her bloody mindedness saw her ram through policies, whatever the cost. The same qualities, revered by her admirers, also sowed the seeds of divisions that kept the Tories out of power for 13 years. By contrast, Tony Blair charmed his way into Downing Street and the history books with three Labour election victories, but his desire to please meant much of the first term was wasted.
So, the public is entitled to know the man – or woman – pitching for their vote. And personality matters because, for all the hours they spend plotting and planning, much of what politicians do, particularly the big stuff, is a reaction to events. How could any carefully crafted policy programme have prepared Jack Kennedy for the Cuban missile crisis? The information revolution means character and instinct is more important than ever. Rolling satellite news, Twitter and internet blogs mean leaders increasingly have to play "on the break". They must react to events that would have gone unnoticed just a few years ago but which are now relayed live around the world. On top of all that, 'personalities politics' is fun. Bright young things at the Fabians or Policy Exchange may get their rocks off by immersing themselves in the minutia of party programmes, but for normal folk the Westminster soap opera is an accessible way to get a grip on what's going on.
Most voters realise they aren't experts and don't want to follow the intricacies of climate change science or the universal credit tapers. Instead, they make a judgment about those pitching the arguments, and the media has a duty to give what insights it can. Of course, that is not always the most reliable guide to the best course of action and a politician's public image can be wildly out of line with reality. It has always seemed unfair that Ken Clarke is seen as an affable geezer while Michael Howard is dogged by the "something of the night" tag. But the case of Gordon Brown goes to show that sometimes character will out. Dithering did for him when John Smith died, and again when he failed to call the election that never was. And no amount of "Good Gordon" – the guy who passionately fought poverty and promoted international development – could cover up "Bad Brown", who threw phones and branded grannies as "bigots".
In fact, the rollercoaster ride over the last 12 months has proved once and for all that personality trumps policy. David Cameron's confidence and eye for the main chance won him the keys to Number 10 when he took a gamble on the coalition. David Miliband may well have taken the Labour crown had he been as nice on the way up as little brother Ed. Crucially, the Tory and Liberal Democrat power-sharing pact has shown conclusively that election pledges may come and go, but personality endures. Cameron discarded promises on knife crime, marriage tax breaks and fuel duty like so much confetti to get Nick Clegg up the aisle. His blushing beau hastily abandoned vows to fight early spending cuts, a VAT hike and tuition fee rises in his rush to make the match work. Personality may not be much to go on, but in the coalition era what else have voters got?
James Lyons is the political correspondent for the Daily Mirror
Comments
Be the first to comment on this article!