highlandsflyer":3upeqttz said:
I understand that, but really what I am saying is that politics nowadays is so personality/individual based that a party is stuffed if they have a boring leader, no matter how sound their politics. It is not about one political view over another.
I suspect Major was the last, really, who managed to not have to rely on form over function to still succeed. And by and large, his cabinet (and as an extension, the party) did for him / the conservative government.
Well that and the Blair bandwagon - but some would say that was Blair's genius - the sellable thing at the right time.
highlandsflyer":3upeqttz said:
Each to their own, but this was the reason Ian Duncan Smith was unelectable too.
To some extent William Hague too, though he has somewhat gained a lot of popularity in retrospect.
If Michael Portillo was to have become the Tory leader instead of IDS I reckon they had a chance.
He has the charisma that many others are lacking.
I see your point about charisma - and I think in Blair-onwards politics in Britain, it matters - but also there has to be some cunning and some spark behind the gleam.
Hague probably came out of his failing time as leader, with more kudos and respect than some of the others - but then that's as much down to him / his abilities too. Even so, he still manages to shoot himself in the foot on occasion.
I think the thing, these days, though, is that there seems an underlying assumption that charisma and looking the part are the big thing - I think they are very important, and these days essential, but not the only thing. It wasn't just spin and gleam that made Blair electable for so long, it was because he largely took Labour to a place they wouldn't naturally be, in order to gather support from people that wouldn't be natural Labour supporters. And that's the thing, really - Blair was twice the conservative that Cameron could aspire to be - yes, Cameron is much better at it than most around, these days - but he's still a ways off being anything like as good as Blair was at it.
People criticise Brown in that - him being awkward and odd in the spotlight, compared with the slickness of Blair - but that was far from being Brown's sole problem(s). He also lacked any direction or true leadership once he'd managed to get there - he seemed to get overwhelmed with risk aversion, and lost any overt hint of direction or strength. Plus he'd forgot how Blair got them in government.
I think Cameron would be better if he didn't try so hard to be slick - and focused more on policy and leadership - I think he's got a reasonable talent for looking OK in the media spotlight, but sometimes over-eggs the media side, which doesn't do him any favours. In some ways, I feel rather sorry for Clegg - I think he's in a no-win situation, really, and outside of that, seems to have (apart from the odd slip) a better balance of slickness and politician / leader than most of the current crowd.
There's the thing, though, most of the perception of how good leaders are, these days, is far from pure policy.
:?
If i could vote i wouldn't bother with that choice.
