What Makes a Prime Minister a Success: A Four Stage Test

Despite what some Prime Ministers in years gone by would have you believe, the office that they hold is fundamentally the most important political role in the British system. Even if they run a Cabinet Government (that being a government where the Cabinet as a whole holds the power) the Prime Minister is still seen by many as the figurehead and main representative of the cabinet. But what is it that actually makes the First Lord of the Treasury themself successful? This article will establish a very simple four stage test that examines their successes, and if they meet all four then there is a pretty safe claim as to their prosperity as Prime Minister.

Vitally, as a figurehead for the government, and by extension the country, they must have a solid media image. In Britain, the importance of the media in shaping views cannot be underestimated and any political figure will always have this at the back of their mind. Arguably, everyone benefits from this as it encourages the P.M. to do their best for the country in order to make themself look good, and with the British print media spectrum being so partisan, appeasement to all sides will take place in theory. However, with the majority of the media's primary goal being to make money from clicks on articles and views on videos, it is not uncommon for the media to co-ordinate an attack on the P.M. or the government as a whole. While undoubtably wrong, the Partygate scandal gripping Boris Johnson was very much a product of the media. The first reports of these illegal parties came in November 2021, around a year after most of the parties happened. This is evidence for the media stirring the pot to generate attention. But ultimately a media image can draw the electorate's attention to the performance of the Prime Minister, therefore in theory the general public can be better informed and really understand what is happening in regards to their Head of Government. It is also a very clear argument that the media does in fact determine electoral success in two major ways. The first way is through unbiased reporting on the actions of the incumbent or prospective Prime Minister, that being that they report the facts that can influence the electorate merely through reporting what is actually happening, therefore the electorate can make up their own minds from the information presented to them by the media. The other way is through 'spin.' This is something The Sun is notorious for. The idea of Spin is that the media ultimately push their house view until it is regarded as fact. Case in point, Tony Blair. For much of his premiership, he had a good media relationship, especially with the Sun. In the 1997 election the paper published a headline article saying 'It Shall Be You' in reference to the New Labour leader, who then went on to win 418 seats. With the tabloid having a daily circulation of well over one million, making it Britain's biggest paper, it is very easy to shape views with that kind of a reach. However, most importantly we must come to the importance of social media image. With over 16 million Twitter users and 48 million Facebook users in Britain, people talk. Therefore, it is crucial for a Prime Minister to have a good social media image. With this many people and this many opinions to both broadcast and shape, it is very easy for discourse to take place. With almost all politicians on social media nowadays, they will ultimately use these to either paint an entirely good image of themself or just enter all out damage control if all goes wrong. This can be seen very easily with Boris Johnson, who, in the face of scandals gripping him and his party, Tweets the positives of his government to distract from what is grasping other areas of the media. This can be frequently seen through the 'Levelling Up' agenda. It is only a good social media image that can play a role in mitigating the damage of a generally poor image from the rest of the media. Therefore, it is plain to see that the media does occupy the first stage of this test.

 

The next stage of the test that has to be examined is policy. While policy is certainly subjective, it is still absolutely vital. However, it is not the popularity of the policy, nor how good it looks but the end result and whether it simply works or not. Whilst again, this is very subjective, it is much easier to judge whether a policy has worked or not, that being through measures such as economic prosperity, enhanced international relations, greater national security or increased social mobility to name but a few. It's this element that can really make or break a Prime Minister, especially in the public's eye and can really help with their media image. It's a common saying that the Prime Minister's job is to be the one making the difficult decisions and that is certainly true when it comes to policy as an outward facing entity of politics as a whole. Thatcher's response to the Argentine invasion of the Falklands stands out as an example of successful policy, it massively increased the U.K's perception on the world stage and generally restored confidence in the U.K. as a force willing to act. However, to carry on looking at Thatcher as a case study for this element of success we must look at a failure, the most notorious being 1990's Community Charge (more commonly known as Poll Tax.) If Thatcher wasn't already on her way out, this was the absolute nail in the coffin. Whilst it had some support, it absolutely lacked in benefits, reeked of injustice and was unpopular overall. It was that much of a failure that following the Poll Tax riots the Conservative Party deemed Thatcher unelectable. Policy must also be prominent, that being that a distinct lack of policy with any real substance may as well count for failure. Many people see Gordon Brown as fitting that criteria in the sense that he didn't bring anything fresh or new to the table after the relationship between Britain and New Labour had soured since Iraq, however despite the general omission in standout policies, his handling of the 2008 Financial Crash was praised by many for its measurable success in the sense that it mitigated some economic fallout, this led to his now iconic 'We not only saved the world' quote in Prime Minister's Questions. Overall we can see that holds so much importance in the success of a Prime Minister as it is what they will forever be associated with, and with the pressure of media looming over them they will strive to make their policy the best it can possibly be.

 

Government, and by extension the country, is impossible to run without inside popularity, therefore for stage three we must consider the effects of a majority and popularity within the party. Let us first analyse the importance of a majority. With 650 seats in the Commons, a party needs 326 to have a majority of the seats, which with First Past the Post is much easier to do than under a more proportional system such as Single Transferable Vote, to allow them to more or less have control of the House and its legislative actions. This in itself can be a contributing factor into the Premier's success as they have been electorally successful but even more so if they can command their majority into voting down the Party Line. This can best be seen through Boris Johnson and his second Ministry. In the 2019 election the Tories won 365 seats and a majority of 82, despite the number of MPs dropping to 359 and the majority to 75, he is still popular within the party and this allows his and his Government's business to be pushed through. Of course, it would be naive to merely assume that his party are loyal to him out of agreement and respect, because that’s not true. The extent to which Conservative MPs are whipped is not fully known but what we do know is the threats that are made against them to tow the Party Line, such as threats to withhold constituency funding. However, the immorality of this simply reflects the immorality of politics as a whole. This is still a measure of success as it means that a Prime Minister can genuinely control the political agenda. Being popular within the party as a whole must also be complemented by cabinet popularity. Whilst Prime Ministerial governments have been the main style of running the country since the end of Consensus, with the possible exception of the Conservative/ Liberal Democrat coalition under Cameron and Clegg, members of the cabinet still perform the vital role of carrying the Prime Minister's influence and ideology down into their Departments. This means that it is vital for the Prime Minister to be both popular within the cabinet and have a solid grasp over it to ensure that their views are not comprimised within the cabinet. Thatcher is a prime examle of this with her view being the only genuine view, as seen in her 1981 reshuffle dubbed 'The Purge of the Wets.' However, she did lose control of the cabinet eventually over several issues, namely Europe and the Poll Tax. It proves success if they can control their cabinet as it essentially represents the Prime Minister's influence in more or less every area of government, much of the Civil Service and in nearly area of everyday life that is supervised through the Government's Departments. This is a vital stage for the Prime Minister to fulfil, to such an extent that if they do not, they fall apart entirely in their levels of success.

 

Finally, we must move into the fourth and final stage of the test, which is arguably the most conceptual and abstract. That being whether they are a principled and good person. Put simply, this just means whether or not they stand by their beliefs and stick to them as a genuine person who is respectable. Ask yourself this- would you rather a Prime Minister who genuinely believes in the policy they put forward or one who just does whatever would make them good. While many would disregard this as petty, it is certainly important. Authenticity is a vital trait in politics across all levels and it has to be seen in a Prime Minister in order for policy to be enacted in a way that actually benefits the population, this will naturally happen through the thought that would go into legislating if they really believe in it to make it work. But when authenticity reaches a dangerous low, it can really impact the country. It is common knowledge that Boris Johnson isn't entirely 'for' Brexit, as revealed by the fact that he wrote two articles for the Sunday Times prior to the referendum- one for, and one against. Therefore, this allowed for the Brexit deal to be compromised, which undoubtably compromised the quality of the Deal. There is a clear argument for Britain's Brexit Deal being subpar, and I personally believe that this arose from the lack of principle Johnson held coming into the negotiations as he did not fully believe in the cause of leaving the E.U. Whereas if we look back towards the Blair Government, the Constitutional Reforms put forward (such as the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and the Human Rights Act 1998) all came from a deep desire within the New Labour project to overhaul and modernise the country. Blair himself may have later criticised areas of the Human Rights Act, as revealed by The Guardian in 2006, but ultimately it was the principle of his desire that allowed for these Acts to be created and thus improved the country as they were rich in authenticity from the top. On top of this, a Prime Minister also needs to be a 'good person' in general. Whilst the definition of 'good' may vary from person to person, the definition for the purposes of this test evaluates the degree to which a Prime Minister values morality and positive acts. This is entirely important as it is vital that for a country to be seen as good, its leader must reflect these values. Therefore, it should be front and centre in their mind that they should be carrying out good deeds and acting in such a way that would reflect the moral standard of the average Briton. If they fail this, it can seriously put them into disrepute. One of the key aspects to being a good person is honesty. With a Prime Minister such as Johnson, they fall apart. While it is true that no politician is one hundred per cent honest, Johnson goes beyond this. This has become especially apparent throughout his life, not to mention during his premiership. However, for the purposes of this example we must look at the lies told during his time in office. A clear example that stands out to many people in the country is him categorically denying the events of 'partygate' in Parliament, which were proven to have happened, with him present. As well as this, he is also a man fraught with a personal life littered with affairs, deceit and violence. A Prime Minister that many would argue is a shining light for 'good chaps' in politics is Clement Attlee. Aside from his progressive reforms to British society that benefitted millions such as the welfare state, he was also known for activism in areas such as decriminalisation of homosexuality.

 

For a Prime Minister to tick all of these boxes, it would make them an absolute success. However, it is nearly impossible to tick every box and be an all-round success. Politics is subjective and people will judge a Prime Minister differently against each criteria and give each of the elements different weight. However, in itself success is subjective and Prime Ministers that are seen as abject failures by some can be seen as uncharted successes by others. Therefore, this test exists provide a framework by which to judge how successful a Prime Minister can be in relation to pluralist views.