Ian Holloway’s triumph with Blackpool yesterday contains some lessons for Labour’s leadership contest.
Lesson one: great leadership is a matter of context. Holloway’s success at Blackpool contrasts with his failure at Leicester, which suggests that management styles that work well in some times and places don’t work at others.
This might apply to party leaders too. The leader who’s good at inspiring and motivating the party “rank and file” might not be the one best equipped at reaching the general public; the one best able to improve party organization isn’t necessarily one with great policy visions, and so on.
If Labour were serious about wanting the best possible leader, it would first ask precisely what it wants from a leader. As it is, it is in danger of committing two errors: of thinking that a "great man" can solve its problems; and projecting wishful thinking upon candidates, as Polly Toynbee did with Gordon Brown.
Lesson one: great leadership is a matter of context. Holloway’s success at Blackpool contrasts with his failure at Leicester, which suggests that management styles that work well in some times and places don’t work at others.
This might apply to party leaders too. The leader who’s good at inspiring and motivating the party “rank and file” might not be the one best equipped at reaching the general public; the one best able to improve party organization isn’t necessarily one with great policy visions, and so on.
If Labour were serious about wanting the best possible leader, it would first ask precisely what it wants from a leader. As it is, it is in danger of committing two errors: of thinking that a "great man" can solve its problems; and projecting wishful thinking upon candidates, as Polly Toynbee did with Gordon Brown.
Lesson two: good leaders are hard to spot. After he was sacked by Leicester, Holloway was out of football for a year. How many teams which did not appoint him during that time are regretting their decision today?
Labour should learn this: remember, in 2007 it was so confident that Brown would be a great leader that he was elected unopposed.
Lesson three: beware the lure of “gravitas.” One reason why Holloway stayed out of work so long was, I suspect, that his offbeat wit and media whoring gave people the impression that he wasn’t serious. In this sense, Diane Abbot is the Ian Holloway of the Labour party.
Herein, however, lies a difference between football management and party leadership. In football management, being a joker is quite consistent with being good at one’s job. In party leadership, it’s not. This is because jokers naturally lack gravitas, and gravitas - even if unsupported by intellect - is a key quality of a leader.
In part, this is because the media expects it. Journalists, like cowering dogs, are only really comfortable with hierarchy; was I alone in detecting an unpleasant undertow of deference - like fags before prefects - at that first Cleggeron press conference?
But there’s something else. A leader needs to be serious, dull and sober because these are necessary for his legitimation. Leadership is not about mere technical qualities. It is about mystique. And this requires that the roles of jester and king be clearly separated.
Labour should learn this: remember, in 2007 it was so confident that Brown would be a great leader that he was elected unopposed.
Lesson three: beware the lure of “gravitas.” One reason why Holloway stayed out of work so long was, I suspect, that his offbeat wit and media whoring gave people the impression that he wasn’t serious. In this sense, Diane Abbot is the Ian Holloway of the Labour party.
Herein, however, lies a difference between football management and party leadership. In football management, being a joker is quite consistent with being good at one’s job. In party leadership, it’s not. This is because jokers naturally lack gravitas, and gravitas - even if unsupported by intellect - is a key quality of a leader.
In part, this is because the media expects it. Journalists, like cowering dogs, are only really comfortable with hierarchy; was I alone in detecting an unpleasant undertow of deference - like fags before prefects - at that first Cleggeron press conference?
But there’s something else. A leader needs to be serious, dull and sober because these are necessary for his legitimation. Leadership is not about mere technical qualities. It is about mystique. And this requires that the roles of jester and king be clearly separated.
None of Labour's candidates possess 'gravitas', otherwise they'd have installed him (or her) as leader ages ago.
Posted by: photo ex machina | May 23, 2010 at 03:46 PM
I think there is a different thing going on.
Politicians (like all men) in the Westernised world are increasingly becoming both boyish AND feminine.
Old-fashioned, manly gravitas is out of favour in our culture and politics. Part of the ridicule Gordon Brown came in for is due to the fact the world no longer values a stereotypically masculine, gruff (grumpy?) manner. Thus qualities such as will, determination and bravery are increasingly useless. After the boyish Major and Blair - Brown was a throwback to the Thatcher era of politician
I would think a present-day Winston Churchill would be portrayed as silly and dinosaur-like (if not totally nuts) -- just as Hitchens was in yesterdays Guardian interview.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/may/22/christopher-hitchens-decca-aitkenhead
(worth a read I think) "I was right and they were wrong".
Tthe curtain being pulled back to reveal how dysfunctional our previous generation of mostly alpha-male leaders were (thatcher included)?
Yes, there are female politicians but I would say (old-skool) Hilary Clinton is much more masculine in her behaviour and essence than (new-skool) feminine Obama.
Posted by: john Terry's Mum | May 23, 2010 at 05:13 PM
Diane Abbott has a lot going for her, save for her lack of judgment: if you go back to foolish comments she made about Finnish nurses a while back. She's already fallen into the trap of talking like a Labour replicant on Broadcasting House, instead of actually being herself, which might be more appealling. Comparisons to Obama are delusional.
This behaviour reminds me of the way John Prescott very conspicuously pronounces "government" in a very non-northern way (i.e. "gavanmant"), wedged self-consciously betwixt his normal East Yorkshire lilt.
This "faking it" for the party speaks volumes about the extent of Labour's problems. The party seems pathologically incapable of selecting a leader who breaks the mould of what a politician is supposed to sound like when they talk.
For this reason, I'm about as certain as I could be that the party is due for a longer walk in the wilderness than they realise.
The Lib-Cons do not suffer this, and have outflanked the Labour leviathan.
The only honest voice standing (i.e. one not putting any airs on, but genuinely "speaking human", unlike the Milibands), is clearly John McDonnell.
Labour will probably not even nominate him, never mind select him; and for that reason, I think they may well do worse come next election: assailed on all sides by Lib Dems; Brit Nats, and fragments of the left.
Posted by: rinky stingpiece | May 23, 2010 at 07:55 PM
Fags before prefects?
Posted by: Rob Spear | May 24, 2010 at 05:31 AM
'Roy Hodgeson for PM' said the banner in Hamburg.
Posted by: alanm | May 24, 2010 at 01:41 PM
"Journalists, like cowering dogs, are only really comfortable with hierarchy" is an interesting point. I think part of the source of this is that many journalists - meaning here those in the national media - believe themselves to be professionally involved in politics. Many of them believe they are 'bigger fish' than a typical MP. However, there is no democratic element in their career - they get their jobs by climbing up the heirarchy, being promoted by editors, sucking up, nepotism and all the other routes to the top in a heirarchical organisation. So they just don't get, and are a bit turned off by - that part of politicians that still bears the mark of democracy, the need to be elected, the need to respond to their party etc. - this is why press reports of Party Conference's are very often disdainful of the party membership, and also why it is hard to find a sympathetic, unpatronising report of a demonstration ('who are these amateur oiks messing around in politics - I'm a professional' kind of attitude)
Posted by: Solomon Hughes | May 27, 2010 at 08:39 AM