What makes a leader, or a good politician?

Dan Hannan writes today about leadership, political nous and whether the two might exist in the same person and whether or not good leaders are 'balanced'.


What exactly is a "balanced" person? Is it a person whose opinions don't stray far from the perceived 'norm'? And if so, whose perception?

Life is a constant battle - crisis and renewal. Arguably, those who don't see a crisis ("Crisis? What crisis?", Callahan) perhaps have such a 'balanced' view. Perhaps they are out of touch with the reality of the wider public. Perhaps their reality differs too widely from that of the wider public. Perhaps they are too cosseted. Perhaps they don't care.

Whatever the case, "cometh the hour, cometh the man" pertains to the wisdom of the visionary, passionate man who is driven to act and thus, lead.

Cameron cannot be said to be such a man, which is why he failed to garner support from the electorate, when they were clamouring for a leader to reverse the destruction brought about by the catastrophic Labour years in office.

Cameron failed to lead because people would not follow.  I guess the pickers of winners in elite circles (not you or I, dear chap) consider him to be 'balanced'. I can think of a number of adjectives which more aptly describe him.