“Unable to provide firm leadership” How far do you agree with this statement about the

John Major government.

After the downfall of Thatcher in 1990, the conservative party desperately needed a fresh
and new change to the party appearance. John Major became the ideal candidate for party
leader due to his calm demeanour which could combat the legacy of Thatcher’s abrasive
style of government and finally unite the party with a strong and firm leader. However, over
time many historians argue the extent to which Major reformed the government and
provided firm leadership to tackle any existential problems the government had face.

One may disagree with the statement and argue that John Major actually provided the most
stable and firm leadership he could whilst tackling government affairs. For example, within
the first year of his prime ministerial time, Major’s leadership was tested with the huge
burden of dealing with the Iraq war. This event showed how strong John Major’s leadership
was as despite being inexperienced with war policies and tactics, he still managed to lead
Britain to victory, all whilst adjusting to his new position as Prime Minister. Furthermore, the
evidence of Majors firm leadership was reflected back at home, as national pride boosted
and allowed for the conservatives to win the 1992 election with a record-breaking
popularity vote. This thus showed the immense ability and effect Major had on the British
people, as before Thatcher’s brutal leadership style left many doubting the conservative
government. However, Major was able to restore back faith into the conservative party with
his calm and firm leadership.

Nevertheless, one may actually agree with the statement and argue that Major was never
able to provide this ‘firm leadership’ and that the government and always been on the
tipping edge of failure. This is clearly evident in the 1992 election, as despite gaining the
largest popularity vote, this was all meaningless in a country who operates the first past the
post system. Thus, despite the boastful fame of the highest popularity vote, he only
managed to gain a majority of a mere 21 seats. This showed the weakness in Major’s
leadership as now he would be unable to comfortably pass laws and legislation, as he would
be forced to reconcile with all fractions of his party to ensure there were no rebels to defeat
his government’s propositions. This was seen in 1993 following the undecisive outcome of
the Maastricht treaty, which led Major’s government to be defeated by 324 to 216 votes.
This ultimately forced Major to humiliatingly use the vote of confidence to pass the treaty
and save his government. This thus showed the lack of firm leadership Major was able to
provide, as using the confidence vote in his first term as Prime Minister proved that he was
unable to control and unite his own party to pass a simple treaty. Furthermore, one may
argue that even is ‘achievements,’ such as the Iraq war, had nothing to do with his ability to
provide firm leadership. Instead, one may state that the Iraq war was actually Thatcher’s
victory, as she was the one who laid out the plan and executed most of it. And Major
coincidentally happened to take over Thatcher during the war, thus he didn’t have to
exercise his ‘leadership’ powers as the plan and all of the work was already done for him by
Thatcher, he just had to execute it. This thus reinstates and proves that Major was an
incompetent leader, as even his successes weren’t even entirely his, but rather incomplete
duties from past government’s.

H
However, one may argue and state that Major did provide a strong and firm leadership, but
due to the harsh political weather during his prime ministerial time, it meant his successes
were often downplayed. For example, with the Maastricht treaty, despite having a divided
party on the issue, Major successfully negotiated with the EEC countries a plan for the
future of the single currency that would satisfy all with his ‘wait and see’ strategy.
Furthermore, this common ground may have never even occurred if it wasn’t for Major and
his diplomatic negotiation style; as his persuasive language comforted many EEC countries
and allowed for trust to be built between them, which may have been a reason as to why
they didn’t push Britain onto a single currency early on. This shows Major’s firm leadership,
as despite his party being divided and with a small majority, he was able to come to a
middle-ground and find a solution that all sides could agree on. One may argue that this
solution could have only been done with Major’s calm yet firm leadership style, as e.g.,
Thatcher’s abrasive and anti-German style of negotiation would have not pleased the EEC
countries and this ‘everyone’s a winner’ solution may have never been reached and instead
may have led to more chaos.

Nevertheless, one may argue that this ‘wait and see’ solution did not show strong
leadership, but rather showed Major’s attempt to sweep his problems under the rug and
forget about it. This was seen in 1999, as John Major realised that this problem of the single
currency proposition wouldn’t just magically disappear and was forced to bring the treaty
into parliament without a proper plan as to where this would go. This thus created even
more division in his party, even including members of his own cabinet i.e., Michael Portillio
and Redwood both opposed Major’s strategy and policy on the EU, showing how he can’t
even control his own cabinet, those who would be considered your closest allies, to back
him. This lack of leadership and lost faith in Major is further emphasised when he had to call
a party election to prove his authority. This alone shows the lack of firm leadership Major
had, as no strong prime minister would need to call an election to prove their authority, it
should already be given that the MP’s would follow the prime minister and his word.
Furthermore, John Redwood stood up against Major and actually managed to gain nearly 90
votes. This thus shows that even the conservative party had doubts about Major’s
leadership, as a prime minister should gain more than a mere 2/3 to ensure he can enact a
strong and firm leadership.

In addition, Major’s inability to control his party was further seen as the conservative party
became tainted with scandal after scandal. This became a huge embarrassment for Major,
as he had spoken of ‘returning to these core values’ but couldn’t even make his own party
members return to these values of tradition, as David Mellor and Milligan sexual scandals
became exposed to the media and Hamilton’s cash bribes became known to the public.
Despite this not being entirely Major’s fault, this did negatively impact Major’s position and
question his authority as many asked how he could run a country when he can’t even run a
party.

However, one may argue against the statement and state that John Major did provide firm
leadership, despite the harsh economic and foreign affairs he had to deal with. For example,
with the ERM crisis, one could argue that this was in no way the government’s fault, but
rather due to the lack of confidence investors had with the British pound, despite there
being no proof that the pound was over-valued but rather mere speculation. And Major did
what any competent prime minister would do and tried to save the pound via increasing
interest rate and buying up the pound. The natural response to this would have been for the
pound to stabilise in value, however, due to lack of consumer confidence this did not
happen, and the pound was forced to devalue. Although many would see this as a failure,
this crisis was not the fault of a weak prime minister, as it is the economic cycle and is
dependent on consumer confidence, and no government policy can alter this cycle if
confidence is low. Rather, one may argue that Major showed his firm leadership skills here
as he did not give up on the pound and devalue it straight away, but instead had a set plan
that came into action to try and stabilise the value of the pound.

Nevertheless, one can easily see the faults in the ERM crisis, as despite it being something
out of the government’s control, the government could have controlled the crisis much
better to prevent it spiralling out to the extent it did. This ‘set plan’ seemed more like
desperation, as it looked like John Major was trying out every economic policy there is to
stabilise the pound. This is evident as no competent prime minister would spend over £3.5
billion to save the pound, instead a strong and intellectual leader would have understood
the situation and realised at this stage it would be better for devaluation than to lose
£3.5billion. Furthermore, the increase of interest rates further emphasises Major’s
hopelessness, as he didn’t care that a sharp increase of 5% would affect Britain and British
families with e.g., higher mortgages, instead he focuses on foreign buyers, as he tries to
encourage them to buy the pound in the forex market- showing how he would abandon the
prosperity of the domestic market and essentially abandon the British people.

Overall, it is clear to see that John Major was unable to provide firm leadership, as most of
the political problems he faced resulted in failure with even more party divisions. However,
one may argue that this was not entirely his fault, as with a small majority of 21, it is to be
assumed that of course he cannot pass legislation and laws as easily as Thatcher with her
landslide majority. Furthermore, one can argue that Major actually did manage to provide
as much of a firm leadership a majority of 21 can get, as he often provided a middle ground
to work with- as seen with the Maastricht treaty. Also, one may state that he successfully
reformed the conservative’s party image, as he erased, to the best of his ability, Thatcher’s
mark on the people and is seen through discussions with the EEC and even peace
settlements plan in Northern Ireland. However, one must also understand that John Major
that this successful leadership only was to a small extent. As when trouble started, Major
would point the blame elsewhere. This was seen in the ERM crisis, as rather than resigning
after such a humiliating crisis, Major instead chose to put the blame on his chancellor
Norman Lamont and sack him, despite knowing he had a key role in playing out the ERM
crisis.