‘Dominance, defence and diminishing returns’? Theresa May’s Leadership Capital July 2016–July 2018

Abstract

Theresa May's first two years in office illustrate Anthony King's (1991) observation that premierships can vary within themselves. Her premiership divides into two distinct phases, before and after the snap general election of June 2017, with a final coda after July 2017 when her premiership unravelled. Whilst the disastrous election looked like the crucial event, analysis using the Leadership Capital Index (LCI) suggests that, contrary to popular assumptions, before the election May was weaker than she appeared and afterwards not quite as diminished as assumed. The LCI analysis we present here (focusing on the year before and the year after the 2017 general election) shows that May's capital fell, but not as far as presented by prevailing narratives. May went from being, in LCI terms, an 'exceptional leader' to a 'medium capital leader' facing obstacles, but still capable of action. May's resilience after 2017 was a result of Brexit, the poor polling of her opponents and her unexpected poll strength, bolstered by the weakness of her internal challengers. Even a poorly positioned prime minister has considerable resources to call upon.

How the mighty are fallen: Evaluating Abe Shinzō's leadership capital in crisis

“…This article draws upon Burrett's approach, adopting the changes that she made to some of the LCI criteria to better fit the Japanese case (for example, the inclusion in the ‘relations’ category of a new criteria ‘working relations with the bureaucracy’). Rather than adopting the scoring system of the original LCI analysis, the article follows Worthy and Bennister’s (2021) study of Theresa May's leadership capital in which they adopt a qualitative approach to chart the changes in her premiership from a position of dominance to one of defence. In particular, they focus on the mechanisms by which May experienced a ‘steep capital loss’ from her first dominant phase, through the second phase (retreat) to the third phase (unravelling).…”

The contemporary UK prime minister. When the personal becomes political: Agency, character, personality and celebrity

“…Theresa May's first two years in office are a striking example of just how much a single premiership can change, as her position went from dominance to defence in the space of 10 months. During May's dramatic time in office, she appeared to have the capacity and resources for action, but this ebbed away (Worthy and Bennister, 2021). Decisions such as May's calling of an early election in June 2017or Gordon Brown's hesitation over whether to call an early general election in October 2007caused irreparable damage to public image and depleted political authority as a strong, competent prime minister (Atkins, 2015;Atkins and Gaffney, 2020: 295).…”

Theresa May’s disjunctive premiership: Choice and constraint in political time

“…However, the substance of what she said was as problematic. Given the constraints she faced, her rhetoric needed to cajole and persuade (Worthy and Bennister, 2020). But her proposed solutions lacked conviction and her motivational framings lacked credibility.…”

“…May's handling of Brexit, naturally, receives considerable scrutiny (Marlow-Stevens and Hayton, 2020;McConnell and Tormey, 2020). Her ideology (Hickson et al, 2020), performative politics (Atkins and Gaffney, 2020), party management (Roe-Crines et al, 2020), and leadership capital (Worthy and Bennister, 2020) have also received attention. These studies concur that May's leadership was a failure, but they skirt around the more challenging question her premiership presents: how should we account for her inability to meet her most important objectives?…”