The Opportunity For Failure Has Never Been Wider

Political leaders strike different chords
in the adults who, because they can vote
and have to pay their taxes have a material stake
in the future, makes it their duty to have an opinion
on who leads them, from 'FFS Alexa turn that man off',
to  'I like him', where in previous eras there would simply be
a rush to turn the radio off when the speaker announced
a man who was so disliked was appearing next.

Voters have three questions about politics
which has balance against each other
to help them decide how to listen, and vote. 

The first is 'Is the party leader a good public speaker?'
meaning is the sound of their voice easy on the ear,
can they speak off the cuff, can they tell jokes
that score the right points when he is required to.
M. Thatcher was famously tone deaf to puns
but when her speech writers gave her humour
to deliver, she delivered as a straight man might
in a comedy duo, and got away with it.

The second is 'Is the leader a good administrator'
Clement Attlee became the best Prime Minster
Britain ever had in the six years he was in power,
for all that he was by no means public orator
and had the charismata of a local bank manager.

The third is 'What state is the leader's party in?'
A disciplined party with an atypical leader
can withstand a hostile press when the party
are behind a distinct programme far more
than a divided party can get behind anything
when they are the target of the press for reasons
that the public don't need the press to see why.

An undisciplined party with catch phrases
for programmes can get elected with a leader
who has the means, and the malcontent, to draw on.

But woe betide the country who elects such a party
-drawing on malcontent and rumour for having no other ideas
feeds what it draws on even more, and makes the leader,
the party and the (lack of) programme for government
prepare for ever bigger government failures for the future.