- Position1 of 2›
- Boris Johnson will make a better Prime Minister
Boris Johnson's physical appearance and behaviour are unique and engaging. He is the most charismatic politician in Britain today. At a time of global turmoil and real division in Britain, he is perceived as charming and is able to bring the public round to his cause.
The argument
Supporters who favoured Boris Johnson over Keir Starmer argued that his charisma was a genuine political asset rather than a superficial one, because the ability to connect with the public and command attention is central to leadership. Johnson built a career on an unusually recognisable personality — humorous, exuberant, quotable and at ease in front of a crowd — that cut through the public's general indifference to politics. Where many politicians struggle to be noticed, Johnson could hold a room, generate coverage and make people listen, a quality his backers regarded as rare and valuable in a leader. The argument held that this charisma translated into real electoral and governing power. Johnson's appeal reached beyond the traditional Conservative base, winning over voters in parts of the country that had not supported the party for generations, as the 2019 general election result demonstrated. A leader who can build a broad coalition through personal magnetism, proponents argued, is better placed to win the public mandate and the consent that effective government depends on. Charisma also matters in the theatre of leadership at home and abroad — rallying a nation, projecting confidence and representing the country on the world stage. By contrast, supporters portrayed Keir Starmer as competent but managerial and lacking the same spark, arguing that worthiness without the ability to inspire wins fewer hearts and fewer votes. In a democracy, where leaders must persuade and carry the public with them, the capacity to connect and enthuse is a substantive qualification, not a frivolous one. Because Boris Johnson is charismatic in a way that wins broad support and commands attention, this argument concludes, he would make the better prime minister.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Critics replied that charisma is a tool for winning power, not evidence of governing well, and that the two can diverge sharply. A magnetic communicator can win elections while proving chaotic or unreliable in office, and Johnson's critics argued his premiership illustrated exactly that gap — strong on campaigning and slogans, weaker on detail, discipline and trust. They also disputed that a lack of showmanship is a defect: Starmer's supporters cast his steadier, forensic style as better suited to the actual work of government. On this view, valuing charisma over competence risks choosing the better campaigner rather than the better prime minister.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Commanding attention and connecting with the public are campaigning skills, which are not the same as the competence required to govern well. [Rejecting P2] Winning a broad coalition shows electoral appeal, but electoral success and effective government can diverge, so charisma does not establish governing quality. [Rejecting P3] A steadier, less flamboyant style may suit the detailed work of government better, so the contrast with Starmer does not favour Johnson on the job that matters.