In public attitudes to our primary political parties, it is becoming increasingly clear that leaders are the only relevant representation of the party bodies. I thus intend to provide a brief proposal that our politics are becoming increasingly personalised. To establish this, we must first define the personalisation of politics; ‘a shift from collective to individual actors or institutions’(1). In this case, we shall apply this to the perception of parties. This has resulted in a public focus on leaders, influencing political discourse and voting behaviour. I will argue that this is due to a number of factors, most pertinently the modern media.
In The English Constitution (1867), Bagehot describes the Prime Minister as primus inter pares – first amongst equals. The extent to which this perception of the Prime Minister has changed demonstrates the volatility of our political landscape. However, the pace of this change is debated. It might be argued that there is an unprecedented modern focus on leaders; one might attribute this to parties turning to social media, and moving away from traditional media, though still remaining a pillar of influence. It must be considered, though, that the move away from ‘cabinet government’ was seen much before our current day.
We might look back to the 1980s, at Thatcher’s premiership. It might be seen as a particular coincidence that each of our particularly strong Prime Ministers – that is, described by some as ‘elective dictatorships’ – have leveraged patronage. Thatcher certainly utilised this, building her ‘Iron Lady’ image on the foundations of control over her largely male cabinet. The Falklands War did much to reinforce this image, the most recognisable headline being the Sun’s ‘GOTCHA’; victory saw the Tories approval ratings shoot up from 27% in 1981, to over 40% in 1982.(2).
With subsequent landslide victories, the influence of Thatcher as the figurehead of the party was undeniable, perhaps illustrated most aptly by the downfall of the party in her wake.
The Labour leadership found itself developing a somewhat symbiotic relationship with the press. During the catastrophic ‘Red Wednesday’ rally, Kinnock fixed his image like that of a president, inspiring the Sun’s election day headline. The influence of the press was for all to see, as it was proclaimed that it was the Sun Wot Won It. With a daily circulation of three million (3), a precedent was set. When Rupert Murdoch was questioned about the Sun’s support for Blair during the Leveson Inquiry, he was interrogated as to whether it was anti-democratic.(4)
The accession of Blair serves as a case study for the modern personalisation of
parties, demonstrating the impacts. In March 1997, 35% thought Blair had a ‘lot of personality’, and
almost 39% thought him a ‘capable leader’.(5)
A combination of support from the public, media, and an unfavourable opposition, allowed Blair to rise to unprecedented heights as a personality, rather than simply a face to policies. In contrast, Major was associated with sleaze and scandal, largely owing to the press. What Blair swiftly established that the Conservatives did not was ‘spin’ culture – joined-up government and media tactics to aggressively guard Blair’s image and agenda, allowing him independence with little consultation with his cabinet. Garnett argues that, with the decline of cabinet power, ‘governments have become increasingly…reliant on unelected appointees – spin doctors and special advisers – to create the impression of success’. (6)
According to Lord Butler, Blair’s cabinet took ‘just one decision in eight months’. (7)
Though Blair presented a robust image, incredibly appealing to both the media and the public, the foundations of his government were undeniably weak.
We might see the consequences of an over-personalisation of party politics further in more recent cases, one such being Johnson’s premiership. Johnson, with his amusing, laid-back media style, attempted to undermine the ‘nasty party’ impression. However, owing to intense polarisation over Brexit, Johnson becoming synonymous with Get Brexit Done placed him in a position not unlike that of Blair; an arguably unstable government, built on the image of one celebrity-like leader, exemplified by a weak opposition. Johnson was able to wield his individual power to withdraw the whip from 21 MPs, who defied his position on Brexit. (8)
Despite our electoral system in theory ensuring that the electorate vote for policies, rather than
people, this has clearly become decreasingly true in practice. In this light, Starmer appears exemplary
of the modern clash between political theory and practice. Hope was the consensus amongst Labour
voters in 2024; rapidly, however, the media piled on to this ‘loveless landslide’. Here, we see the fatal
domino effect of an over-personalisation of politics; Starmer’s attempt to distance himself from
previous governments emphasis on personalities led to a communication strategy devoid of identity,
leading to many feeling as if he may be “Blair without the vision or the charisma”.(9)
So, where does this leave us now?
Being in Makerfield during Burnham’s campaign, it was exemplary of the focus on the individual – it has been argued that the ‘campaign looked and felt presidential’ (10), and we spoke to voters who said that they were won over – even some from Reform – by Andy, with his glowing mayoral record, being their candidate. We see this phenomenon even more clearly in the current minor parties dominating our political discourse. A POLITICO piece made me wonder whether the unstable foundations of a party that relies too heavily on one individual might be particularly prevalent currently; it highlighted that a ‘Green London councillor’ said that opposition to Polanski from members ‘was an unacceptable undermining of the party leader’. Perhaps, if parties are built on the image of their leaders, scrutiny may become more difficult.
Further, it has been argued that, ‘providing the tools for direct and personalistic campaigning, social media may accelerate the personalisation dynamic marking the void surrounding traditional political party organisations.’(11)
What remains to be seen, therefore, is the long-term impacts of personalisation in the
age of social media; it is by no means new, but it is clear that it is taking new forms in Britain’s increasingly volatile and shifting democracy.
Bibl:
1. Badie, Bertrand, Dirk Berg-Schlosser, and Leonardo Morlino. ‘International Encyclopedia of
Political Science’. International Encyclopedia of Political Science (2455 Teller Road,
Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States ), 2011, 1858.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412994163.
2. ‘Opinion Polling for the 1983 United Kingdom General Election’. In Wikipedia. 2023.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1983_United_Kingdom_general_elect
ion.
3. May, Charlotte. ‘A History of The Sun’. Historic Newspapers, 13 November 2019.
https://www.historic-newspapers.com/en-gb/blogs/article/sun-newspaper-history?srsltid=Afm
BOopoiT_D1e9ATCXWTICDWT5l6zYHxtn4CgGvQ6e6McxhycKlpyNM.
4. Dowell, Ben. ‘Rupert Murdoch: “Sun Wot Won It” Headline Was Tasteless and Wrong’.
Media. The Guardian, 25 April 2012.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/apr/25/rupert-murdoch-sun-wot-won-it-tasteless.
5. Ipsos. ‘MORI Political Monitor March 1997’. Ipsos, 27 March 1997.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/mori-political-monitor-march-1997.
6. Garnett, Mark. ‘The Role of the Prime Minister Has Presidential-Style Prominence but Far
Less Capacity to Deliver Constructive Policies’. In British Politics and Policy at LSE. 2021.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-british-prime-minister-in-an-age-of-upheaval/.
7. Association, Press. ‘Blair Cabinet “Took One Decision in Eight Months”’. Politics. The
Guardian, 29 May 2007.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/may/29/tonyblair.labour1.
8. BBC News. ‘Brexit Showdown: Who Were Tory Rebels Who Defied Boris Johnson?’. BBC
News, 5 September 2019. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49563357.
9. Facebookapp. ‘“Keir Starmer Is Blair without the Vision or the Charisma” – Novara Media’s
Ash Sarkar Tells Paddy O’Connell That the Prime Minister and Chancellor Rachel Reeves
Are “All Tactics, No Strategy” #Newsnight | BBC Newsnight’. 2026.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=782308428162228.
10. Rahman, Zarar. ‘The Presidentialisation of the British Prime Minister’. Ypolitics.Co.Uk, 2026.
https://www.ypolitics.co.uk/news/the-presidentialisation-of-the-british-prime-minister.
11. Garzia, Diego, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, and Andrea De Angelis. ‘The Personalisation of
Politics: Why Political Leaders Now Lie at the Heart of European Democracy’. In Europp.
2021.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2021/01/19/the-personalisation-of-politics-why-political-lea
ders-now-lie-at-the-heart-of-european-democracy/.
