How Does David Cameron's Style as Leader of the Opposition Compare with William Hague's?

HOW DOES DAVID CAMERON'S STYLE AS LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION COMPARE WITH WILLIAM HAGUE'S?

ROYAL HOLLOWAY, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICS & INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

UNDERGRADUATE DISSERTATION

Course: Politics & International Relations

Candidate Number: 1200073

Dissertation Supervisor: Dr. Nicholas Allen

Word Count: 8,993

Paper ID: 16350351

ABSTRACT

The leader of the Conservative Party is granted considerable autonomy to steer the direction of the party, for this reason electing an effective leader is central to the party's future electoral prospects. Individuals matter and can make a difference to a party's success. Therefore, it is important that political scientists find ways to permit a comparison and evaluation, of the individual skills and qualities making up ones 'leadership style'. Using the theoretical framework put forward by Fred Greenstein (2009:5) analysing The Presidential Difference, which has been adapted more recently to evaluate the leadership style of the British prime minister (Theakston, 2011 and Honeyman, 2007) - It is possible to analyse the leadership style of William Hague and David Cameron during their time as leader of the opposition. Overall, I conclude that in terms of the key characteristics which Greenstein identifies, William Hague is not someone who possesses the range of skills required to be a successful leader of the opposition, while David Cameron is. This does not mean that had David Cameron led the party in 1997 the Conservatives would have won the 2001 general election, or that David Cameron should have had an overall majority in the 2010 general election. Context is important and the individual is merely one factor contributing towards electoral outcomes, but it does mean that it may have been made considerably harder for the Conservatives to be successful with William Hague as leader.

HOW DOES DAVID CAMERON'S STYLE AS LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION COMPARE WITH WILLIAM HAGUE'S?

I. INTRODUCTION

II. IN OPPOSITION: THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY 1997-2010

III. THE CONSERVATIVE LEADER

IV. ANALYSING LEADERSHIP

V. WILLIAM HAGUE: LEADERSHIP STYLE ASSESSED

VI. DAVID CAMERON: LEADERSHIP STYLE ASSESSED

VII. CONCLUSION

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. INTRODUCTION

A significant body of research has been undertaken to assess and analyse the British prime ministership, initially with concern chiefly focusing on the structural and institutional limitations placed upon the office holder - exploring where power lies in the British political system (Heffernan, 2005). More recently, emphasis has been placed upon the individual personality, skills and leadership style of the office holder. For example, Kevin Theakston (2011) analysed the political skill and leadership style of Gordon Brown during his time as prime minister, adapting a model constructed by Fred Greenstein (2009:5) initially intended to explore the leadership style of US Presidents. Theakston (2011) concluded that Brown was someone 'not well equipped for the highest office, in terms of the key leadership abilities, characteristics and skills that Greenstein identifies' (Theakston, 2011:78). Despite an increasing amount of research into the leadership style of British prime ministers, there is a dearth of research exploring individuals while they are in opposition. Opposition is woven into the fabric of the British democratic process and how a leader performs in opposition has the ability to influence electoral outcomes, therefore the leader of the opposition is of notable importance (Ingle, 2008:4).

The leader of the Conservative Party is granted considerable autonomy to steer the direction of the party, and the responsibilities placed on the leader are vast. The reward for success is party loyalty; the penalty for failure is removal (Ingle, 2008:58). William Hague and David Cameron were both elected leaders of the Conservative Party at very different times in the party's history. William Hague was elected immediately after the party suffered a staggering defeat in the 1997 general election, bringing an end to eighteen years of Conservative government. Hague led a fractious party reeling from the scale of defeat and there was no unanimity among members on the reasons why the party had lost so spectacularly. Conversely, in 2005 David Cameron was elected leader after the party had lost two general elections and spent eight years in opposition. Cameron was elected with a mandate to modernise the party for electoral success. He led a party gaining back a 'hunger' for power, rather than quarrelling internal division (Snowdon, 2010). The context in which they led was different for sure, but the 'leadership style' adopted by the two leaders is also of notable difference and must be explored in greater detail.

In the same way as Richard Heffernan (2005) has argued that 'prime ministerial studies must factor in the prime minister's personality and style', 'describe and analyse what [prime ministers] do', and take account of their 'personal skill and ability' (Heffernan, 2005:615-17) so must any examination of opposition leadership. Without wishing to privilege agency over structure, this dissertation argues that individuals do have the capacity to impact political outcomes. The leadership skills and style adopted by William Hague and David Cameron during their respective periods as leader of the opposition, had the potential to impact the electoral fortunes of the Conservative Party. This is not determined by mere personality or presentation but by a range of skills and qualities which together, construct ones 'leadership style'.

Analysing the leadership style of opposition leaders can therefore be fruitful in determining which elements of individual style make for an effective leader. This also permits comparison, evaluation and generalisation of leadership. The six elements outlined by Greenstein to analyse presidential leadership are: (1)