Why Britain's Prime Ministers Keep Failing

What makes a successful prime minister? Britain has had many bad ones. So what identifies someone with the skills needed to lead the UK and deliver the government people are crying out for?

In my opinion, a successful prime minister needs three essential qualities. First, they must understand what people want and why they are dissatisfied. Second, they must understand how government and government finance really work. Third, they must have the determination to use government to deliver change. Without all three, they will likely fail. They will fail because they will not deliver change. People do not vote to keep everything as it is. Dissatisfaction drives people to vote, and it creates demand that politics is expected to answer. A prime minister must understand where that dissatisfaction comes from and what government can do about it.

The first requirement is that a prime minister must understand the country they are governing. That means being deeply tuned into the society for which they are responsible and to whom they are responsible. They must understand people's wants, fears and aspirations. They must also identify where discontent exists and what is causing it. They must understand what people expect government to do about it. And they must understand what people want the government to deliver. Political leadership begins with understanding the questions people are asking. The people may not have the answers; it is the prime minister's job to find them. But unless you can hear and understand the question, you cannot succeed in the role.

Neoliberalism has created deep discontent in Britain. Neoliberal capitalism has failed large numbers of people. Many no longer believe existing politics can meet their needs. Some are turning to the far right for radical alternatives. Others are looking for people to blame. A prime minister who cannot understand this discontent becomes part of the problem. That is why roughly seven in a row have failed to deliver. All of them neoliberal to the core, none has understood the issue facing this country, an issue its people understand well.

The second requirement is that a prime minister must understand how government works. Sadly, almost none of our recent prime ministers have come close to achieving this. A prime minister must understand how government works and, in particular, how limited their powers are. They can change the law. They can change regulation. They can change spending. They can change taxation. Beyond that, there are very few levers available.

At present, governments seem not to understand the role of spending, taxation or borrowing. Government cannot be understood as though it were a business or a household. Understanding its unique economic role is essential to political leadership. But David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, and now Andy Burnham, as far as I can see, none has had this understanding of the unique economic role of government. That is why we are in the mess we are in.

Government finance is fundamentally different from that of a household, a business, or even local government. A point I do not think Andy Burnham understands. The UK government creates the pound everyone else uses. It is not dependent on raising revenues before it can spend. It does not need to borrow money to provide the funds it spends. Treating government as financially constrained misunderstands what government is, and that is why so many prime ministers fail. By definition, government is the one entity in the country not constrained by money, because it has the essential job of creating it. If it does not, nobody else has the money they need. If the government does not understand that, we are in what might politely be called a deep pickle.

A prime minister must understand that government money creation serves essential purposes. The economy literally cannot function without government money. Banking and finance depend on it. A growing economy requires a growing money supply. Limited inflation created by that growing money supply is always preferable to economically damaging deflation. Government must also provide people with safe opportunities to save, which is what we call government borrowing. A prime minister who will successfully lead must understand this. If they do not understand the core role of government, it cannot do its job, and that is the problem we face.

They must also understand that the real constraint on their activities is not money. The real constraint is the availability of resources. People, skills, energy and materials determine what a government can actually buy and therefore what it can deliver. Money is not the constraint. If resources are available to buy, especially if there are people available to hire, then the government can deliver services. The government's task is to manage resources without creating excessive inflation. That is its fundamental role. Confusing financial limits with resource limits prevents the necessary process of change that people expect from government and makes the real task of managing the economy nearly impossible.

The third requirement is a desire to deliver. A prime minister must come into office believing they will create change. They cannot be like David Cameron, who thought he wanted to be prime minister because he believed he might be quite good at it. He did not know why he would be good at it. He did not know what he wanted to do with the job. He thought he might be quite good at it. That is not good enough. Personal aspiration to be prime minister is not the criterion for appointment. A prime minister of this country must possess an iron will to achieve change.

Serious change will always encounter powerful opposition. A prime minister must resist the fight back from within their own political party, from political opponents, the media, the City of London, businesses and other established interests that will not be happy with what they are trying to do. These will come. The prime minister has to weather all that and carry on regardless. Understanding what must be done is useless without the determination to deliver it. This determination is an essential characteristic.

Margaret Thatcher knew what she wanted to achieve. I did not like it, but there is no doubt she possessed that ability. She understood exactly why she was prime minister. So, I think, did Harold Wilson, who I remember as prime minister, and Clement Attlee, who was before my time. They also understood why they held office. That was why they were successful and won more than one general election each. Their politics were very different, but they were determined to deliver. Since then, has anyone really, including Tony Blair? He might have won several times, but did he really have a determination to change the country? There is no evidence that he did. Leadership requires more than simply occupying the office of prime minister. It has to be matched by a desire to use it for the will of the people.

Neoliberalism has hollowed out political leadership in this country to the point where we do not have politicians who believe this is the role of government. They believe their role is to stand back and provide opportunity for markets to grow. But that is not good enough. That is having a prime minister who achieves power to undermine the very institution they wanted to control so badly. The result has been government without sufficient ambition to govern itself.

A successful prime minister must turn their back on neoliberal thinking and possess all the qualities I have noted. Understanding society identifies the change people need. Understanding government reveals how that change can be delivered. Understanding government money removes artificial barriers to political action. Political determination makes delivery possible despite opposition. Miss any of these qualities and you risk failure.

Could such a prime minister reach office today? A successful prime minister of this sort must still be possible. Human beings possess these characteristics. But we need them to achieve office so we can have the transformative political leadership that is increasingly needed. Neoliberal institutions will resist anyone seeking to make change. Established interests will fight such a person. So how do we get such a prime minister into office so they have a chance of winning against established power? The answer is that if we want it badly enough, we have to take the risk on delivering it. But will we take the risk to demand the sorts of change from political parties that will require them to select leaders with these qualities, so we get the change we require?

At present, that appetite for change is not present in our society. But will it come? Yes, I think it will. Why? Because I think we are going to face an economic meltdown. As a consequence, we will need somebody with these characteristics to lead this country again. Without that insight, that use of sheer determination to create change, we are going to be in deep trouble. I believe that person is out there. We might not know who they are yet. That is very likely. But they do exist. This is possible. I have named people who have done it. We will get another such person. A successful prime minister is possible in this country. But we will have to sweep away neoliberalism first. And that will only happen when the neoliberal system has failed. I think that will be happening fairly soon.