Main Edition
US
FR
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.
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.
SubscribeHe 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.
If 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.
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.
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.
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?