This book examines the evolution of leadership in the Labour Party, from Harold Wilson to Tony Blair and looks at the New Labour project from a leadership perspective.
This book seeks to re-examine John Major’s leadership using techniques developed through Presidential Studies: namely using Fred Greenstein’s seminal study of Presidential Leadership, The Presidential Difference, and its six criteria for leadership (public communicator, organisational capacity, political skill, public policy vision, cognitive style, and, finally, emotional intelligence). It is through Greenstein’s model that a fresh look can be taken at not only Major’s time in office, but equally the man himself, which proves to be just as revealing. Major’s tenure has often been characterised as being weak and incompetent, as he presided over a sleaze-ridden and divided party on the issue of Europe. With almost a quarter of a century having passed since Major left office, it looks to be an appropriate moment to re-assess his premiership and important role in the recent seismic events surrounding the 2016 Brexit referendum and its outcome.
Through a range of international case studies from the USA, UK, France, Germany and Italy, this text assesses the conditions necessary for effective leadership and emphasizes the part played by uncertainty and division amongst followers.
'Leaders are not always heroes. Bad public leadership is a big problem. If we are serious about holding our public leaders to account, then we need to know why they were bad, and why we supported them. Ludger Helms and his distinguished team tackle these difficult questions with sympathy, not cynicism. Their careful and insightful analysis alerts us to the dangers of venal and poorly performing leaders.' – R.A.W. Rhodes, University of Southampton, UK 'Leadership and the lack of it is a central but underexplored issue in the study of contemporary politics. Ludger Helms is to be congratulated for bringing together a group of leading scholars to examine the relationship between leadership and governance.' – William E. Paterson OBE, Aston Centre for Europe, UK In leadership research there is a long tradition of focusing attention on the great and successful leaders and, more recently, on issues of good governance. This study breaks new ground by looking systematically into the manifestations and causes of poor leadership and bad governance in some of the world's most powerful democracies. Focusing on the presidents and prime ministers of the G8 – the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Japan – it explores the complex relationship between weak and ineffective leadership, undemocratic leadership techniques, and bad policies from a broad comparative perspective. What makes leaders weak or bad in different contexts? What are the consequences of their actions and behaviour? And has there been any learning from negative experience? These questions are at the centre of this fascinating joint inquiry that involves a team of truly distinguished leadership scholars. This book will prove invaluable for scholars and students of leadership, political science, contemporary history, and related academic disciplines. Readers with a general interest in public affairs and political history will also find plenty to interest them.
In 1945, Winston Churchill, fresh from winning World War Two for Britain, called an election. Within days, he was thrown out, and a completely new form of government took hold. What followed was a revolutionary period in British history, in which centuries of tradition were questioned. Socialism appeared to be waiting in the wings. This book traces the origins of this transformation in the long history of British democracy. It examines the ideas and actions which began in the 1930s that enabled this revolution and the new society that emerged beyond its origins and into the 21st Century. The problems that this revolution sought to solve remain to this day, as the British government in 2024 wrestles with strikes, social disorder, and massive economic headwinds. Understanding the history of the present dilemmas is essential if we are to grapple successfully with the enduring problems Britain still faces to this day.
Despite its recognized significance in social life, leadership is a notoriously elusive subject that generates a host of different points of explanatory focus. This is particularly so in the field of political leadership, which has been afflicted by an enduring split between the biographical idiosyncrasies of individual leaders and the specialist contributions from an array of social science disciplines. This new study is designed to establish an improved balance between this often myopic and confusing bifurcation of approaches. It engages with an expansive range of empirical, theoretical, and interpretive research into the issue of leadership but does so in a way that ensures that the political character of the subject is kept securely in the foreground. The project is therefore designed to maintain a clear emphasis upon leaders embedded in their political contexts and viscerally connected to high level issues of political location and status, political power and legitimacy, and political functions and contingencies. The book has a cumulative design that moves from an in-depth analysis of the basic components of political leadership to an examination of a series of key dimensions relating to leadership activity and development—namely the themes of representation, communication, marketing, business practice, and the issue of women leaders. It goes on to survey the developmental properties of the international sphere before concluding with a substantive review of the changing landscapes of contemporary leadership activity and the different ways that we come to terms with the theme of political leadership in an increasingly complex world.
Tony Blair has dominated British political life for more than a decade. Like Margaret Thatcher before him, he has changed the terms of political debate and provoked as much condemnation as admiration. At the end of his era in power, this book presents a wide-ranging overview of the achievements and failures of the Blair governments. Bringing together Britain's most eminent academics and commentators on British politics and society, it examines the effect of the Prime Minister and his administration on the machinery of government, economic and social policy and foreign relations. Combining serious scholarship with clarity and accessibility, this book represents the authoritative verdict on the impact of the Blair years on British politics and society.
Timothy Heppell brings together a renowned group of contributors to consider the role of the Leader of the Opposition in British Politics. The book argues that the neglect of opposition studies needs to be addressed, especially given the increasing importance attached to the performance the Leader of the Opposition in the British political system.
Taking as its starting-point Anthony Downs' seminal work, An Economic Theory of Democracy, this book draws upon insights generated within economics, political psychology, and the study of rhetoric to examine the way in which New Labour achieved and maintained its electoral hegemony from 1994. Journalists and politicians routinely attribute New Labour's electoral success to its occupation of the 'centre-ground'. This book is interested in the question of how New Labour moved to the right and towards the centre. The obvious answer to this question is that New Labour moved by changing its policies. Against this, the book contends that changes in policy cannot in themselves constitute a complete explanation of changes in spatial position. They cannot do so because there is no pre-given and fixed relationship between policies and position such that the rejection of one policy and the adoption of another moves a party from one position to another. Policies are not immutably left-wing, right-wing, or centrist and so, given that the position a party is thought to occupy is a function of the policies to which it is committed, parties are not immutably left-wing, right-wing, or centrist either. The relationship between policy and position and thereby between parties and position is constructed and is in part constructed by parties themselves. New Labour did not simply move to the centre. It had to persuade the media, voters, and other parties that it had moved to the centre. New Labour achieved and maintained its electoral hegemony not simply by changing one set of policies for another. It achieved and maintained its hegemony by successfully constructing its policies as centrist.