Whatever your politics or profession, leaders who dominate our collective memory are rarely the quiet, methodical ones. They are the ones who stepped on stage or screen and made people believe in a vision, a company, a movement or a future. They all had charisma.

Think of leaders who have captivated the public imagination: Martin Luther King Jr, Steve Jobs, Margaret Thatcher. Not universally liked, but they all had something.

In contrast, the UK’s “deeply unpopular” prime minister, Keir Starmer, has suffered for his widely perceived lack of charisma.

So what, exactly, is this seemingly magical quality? And why of all the characteristics we might prize in a leader – competence, integrity, careful judgment, ethical courage – do we so consistently fall for it?

The word “charisma” comes from the Greek khárisma, meaning a divine gift or grace. The German sociologist Max Weber first applied it systematically to leadership in the early 20th century. He described charismatic authority as a form of influence rooted not in any formal rules, but in a leader’s extraordinary personal qualities.

Today, psychologists recognise charisma as a cluster of characteristics and behaviour that signal authenticity, emotional competence, persuasiveness, passion and enthusiasm – and which together mobilise followers towards a shared goal or activity.

Success influences perceptions of charisma, of course. Perhaps more worryingly, how someone looks is also important, and we form those judgments in an instant.

Ratings of charisma based on five-second silent video clips were found to correctly predict how some people judge leaders over much longer periods, using richer observations. In other words, we often decide very quickly whether someone “looks like a charismatic leader”.

Charisma is teachable

However, not everyone agrees that charisma is so superficial. Others, like the British sociologist Max Atkinson, believe it is primarily a social skill that can be taught. Perhaps, even to those who don’t have the requisite looks.

Indeed, few experts have done more to strip the mystique from charisma than Atkinson. His work focused largely on the content and delivery of political speeches – another key determinant of how people view a leader’s charisma.

In his 1984 book Our Masters’ Voices, Atkinson used systematic analyses of political speeches to demonstrate that what audiences experience as charisma in oratory is, to a considerable degree, the product of identifiable rhetorical techniques that reliably trigger applause and emotional engagement.

Atkinson identified a small number of structures that generate spontaneous applause in political speeches. These include two-part contrasts (“not this, but that”), three-part lists (“government of the people, by the people, for the people”), and the packaging of praise or attack in ways that signal to the audience when to respond in an immediate, unified way.

Such techniques have an immediate impact on judgments of charisma. They are not, however, accidents of natural talent. They are rhetorical devices at least as old as Cicero, and as teachable as any other communication skill.

Atkinson put this to a striking test in a 1984 Granada TV programme. He coached a speaker with no prior public speaking experience to deliver a conference address to the Social Democratic Party’s annual conference.

The coached speaker won multiple rounds of applause and a standing ovation. BBC commentator Sir Robin Day called it “the most refreshing speech we’ve heard so far”. The audience had no idea they were responding to a method.

This anticipated what researchers such as John Antonakis would later confirm: charismatic leadership involves specific, teachable behaviour. He identified both verbal features (including use of metaphor, storytelling, and rhetorical questions) and nonverbal ones (animated voice, open gestures, facial expressiveness).

Speeches that used more of these features received significantly higher ratings for trust, competence and leadership potential from independent raters. This work points to the same uncomfortable conclusion: much of what we experience as a leader’s natural magnetism is, in fact, a performance based on specific features that can be deliberately scripted.

Evolved strategy

Why, then, are we so susceptible to these signals? One answer comes from evolutionary psychology. Charismatic leadership is thought to be an evolved strategy for group coordination.

Our brains evolved in small-group environments where following an inspiring, confident individual in times of threat may have helped us survive because we acted together.

This may help explain why we are more susceptible to charismatic leaders in times of crisis. When things feel uncertain or dangerous, people might reach for the visionary. Yet the very leaders we feel most drawn to in those moments – the boldly confident, the certain, the inspiring – may not always be well-suited to navigating such complexity, if they resist the open-minded, ambiguity-tolerant thinking that difficult problems require.

There is another important consideration. The qualities that make someone appear charismatic overlap with some less flattering personality profiles. Studies have revealed positive correlations between charisma in leaders and narcissism.

While narcissism may help leaders rise to positions of power, it does not predict effectiveness once in those roles. Indeed, an inverted U-shaped relationship between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness has been found.

Charisma is clearly not without value. The ability to communicate a compelling vision, build trust and mobilise people towards a common goal is very important, as is the resultant hope.

But the modern obsession with charisma as a primary criterion for leadership can be distorting. We can end up giving too much weight to charisma in selection decisions, and too little to qualities like integrity, intellectual humility, and the willingness to say “I don’t know”.

The task of a sophisticated follower, whether in a boardroom, a ballot box or a town hall meeting, is surely to slow down, look past the performance, and ask harder questions. Remember, first impressions are not always right, but they are incredibly sticky.

England saw New Zealand take a stranglehold on the second Rothesay Test, with missed chances by James Rew and Emilio Gay adding to the home side’s error count.

By the end of day three at the Kia Oval the tourists were leading by 352 runs with seven wickets still in hand.

An inexperienced bowling attack struggled to come up with answers as centurion Henry Nicholls and Rachin Ravindra stacked up a killer stand of 161 – almost doubling the best partnership of the series thus far.

Ravindra finally fell for 76 but Nicholls, rising admirably to the challenge of replacing the retired Kiwi great Kane Williamson at No 3, guided his side to 252 for three with an outstanding 119 not out.

And when opportunity did knock for England, their fielders failed to answer. Josh Tongue could have left the Black Caps 48 for three when he snared the outside edge, but debutant Rew dived one-handed at a catch that looked to be more comfortable than he made it appear and dropped Ravindra on just seven.

The 22-year-old came under further scrutiny later on: Nicholls was on 42 when he gloved Jofra Archer’s hostile bouncer for four, clearing Rew when he seemed to have a chance to cling on.

Interim captain Joe Root, who returned to lead at short notice after Ben Stokes’s exclusion, began losing patience with a young team, and his mood cannot have improved when Ravindra popped Jacob Bethell’s unpredictable left-arm spin towards short-leg. However, Gay was unable to get in position, throwing out an arm and getting no more than a fingertip graze.

The list of mistakes was mounting on a hastily rearranged side showing five changes from the one that went 1-0 up at Lord’s, Ben Duckett involved in a costly drop of his own on day two as well as being carelessly run out by Gay. They also conceded a staggering 53 in extras in the first innings, compared to New Zealand’s nine.

Friday’s play started with another painful passage, losing three wickets for three runs as Matt Henry’s unerring seamers removed Jordan Cox, Archer and Tongue – excellent catches by Tom Latham, Tom Blundell and Nathan Smith putting England’s later efforts in perspective.

The completion of a classy five-wicket haul for Henry left England 238 for nine, adrift by 153, before a show of steel from Matt Fisher and last man Sonny Baker.

Neither had scored an international run before – Fisher having faced just five balls on his previous Test outing four years ago and Baker on debut – but the pair defied expectations to put on 53.

Fisher hit an unbeaten 50, just his third in first-class cricket, while Baker fended off 36 deliveries in a 17-over rearguard before falling to Kyle Jamieson.

England’s 291 left them exactly 100 behind, but Archer had Latham caught behind with an early tester and Tongue’s first delivery was too good for Devon Conway.

Had Tongue added Ravindra, the momentum may have shifted, but Rew’s fumble proved a turning point. England waited 33 overs before getting their man, lbw for 76 sweeping Bethell, with their unproven attack showing its limitations.

Fisher generated little threat, Baker and Tongue struggled for consistency, and Archer cut a frustrated figure. Nicholls outmatched them all on his way to an 11th Test hundred, a high-class innings containing 16 fours.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A labor union behind a controversial tax on California billionaires significantly scaled back its proposal a day after it qualified for the November ballot, but the offer Thursday wasn’t enough to get the governor on board.

The proposal from the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West to impose a one-time, 5% tax on individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 billion faces staunch pushback from a wide swath of critics, including Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. The union said Thursday that it would abandon the 5% tax proposal if Newsom would join them in supporting a 2% levy. The updated proposal would instead have to be passed by the Legislature, given a June 25 deadline for the measure to qualify for the ballot.

Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Newsom, said scaling it back doesn’t change its “fundamental flaws that harm working Californians.”

“The Governor supports making the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share, but this poorly designed state-only measure will defund teachers, schools, clinics, and public safety,” she said in a statement.

The tax, to be paid by those living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026, is meant to generate $100 billion in revenue, mainly to counter federal cuts to healthcare for low-income people with some money going to food assistance and education programs.

“A 2% one-time tax on that accumulated wealth is modest by any objective measure especially if it means keeping emergency rooms open and saving patient lives,” backers wrote in a letter to Newsom.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, said Wednesday night that petitioners collected more than the roughly 875,000 signatures needed to place the original proposal before voters.

States have been debating how to respond to the major tax breaks and spending cuts legislation President Donald Trump signed last year. The proposal has already divided Democrats and major labor unions and triggered an expensive campaign to defeat it. The proposed tax is backed by prominent progressives including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Silicon Valley tech moguls have spent millions to defeat it, and prominent players in Sacramento have opposed it. They include the California Medical Association and California School Boards Association, which helped launch a committee this week urging voters to reject it if it ends up on the ballot in November. Newsom also opposed a ballot measure in 2022 to increase taxes on the wealthy, which would have funded programs that help people buy electric cars or install more chargers. Voters rejected it.

Critics say the original measure would decrease state revenue over time by pushing the ultrawealthy to leave, taking the money they would contribute in income taxes with them. That would deal a huge blow to a state that relies on its top 1% of earners for nearly half its personal income tax revenue.

“This flawed measure is the wrong approach for California’s small businesses and working families,” said Roger Salazar, a spokesperson for Golden State Promise, a political committee fighting the tax.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the 5% tax would generate tens of billions of dollars in the first few years, but that income tax revenues could subsequently decline by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Since the proposal was announced in October, Google co-founder Sergey Brin has donated $82 million to a political committee called Building a Better California that backs a variety of initiatives designed to blunt the billionaire tax proposal. It has raised more than $118 million, counting Brin’s contributions, from fewer than a dozen donors.

State lawmakers passed budget bills this week that aim to raise revenue in other ways, including by extending a tax on healthcare providers. Newsom and legislative leaders agree to this approach, Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón said.

“The budget, as approved by the Legislature and now being negotiated with the Governor, does not include the billionaire’s tax,” the Democrat said in a statement. “Instead, it reflects additional revenues to address our long-term structural deficit.”

‘We believe all relevant agencies must learn to recognise warning signs for domestic homicide long before they reach such a tragic stage’

The family of a woman killed by her son before he took his own life, issued a statement hoping that “lessons will be learned” following the inquest into his death.

Kenneth McClean-Flanagan died after he killed his mum, Karen McClean- Flanagan, and girlfriend, Stacey Knell, on March 20, 2021.

A inquest into the 26-year-old’s death heard that he had been at his grandfather’s house in Newtownabbey, where he stayed in an out-building, with his girlfriend when he left and drove to his mum’s property.

There he barged past her partner, locked himself in her flat with her and stabbed her. The inquest heard that her partner attempted to enter the flat and witnessed part of the attack.

Advertisement

After this, Kenneth left the property and drove back to his grandfather’s house. He was later found dead by armed police officers who attended the house. During a search of the property, officers discovered the body of Stacey Knell.

The inquest heard from a number of witnesses including Dr Doran, a general practitioner at the practice Kenneth was registered to. She submitted call logs from the five years prior to his death that showed complaints of addiction and mental health issues.

Dr Doran said there were times Kenneth, who had a history of cocaine and heroin use, had expressed suicidal thoughts to mental health teams when under the influence but retracted this when he sobered up.

She also said that Kenneth could not get dual support for his mental health complaints due to his addiction problems and was never formally diagnosed with a mental health condition other than depression and anxiety. The GP said she was frustrated that community mental health teams would not see Kenneth until he was able to address his addictions.

A toxicology report showed that Kenneth may have been under the influence of cocaine at the time of his death.

A statement from a representative of the McClean-Flanagan family following the hearing said: “As a family, on Karen’s behalf we hope that the coroner’s findings will ensure that all relevant agencies learn the lessons that were so painfully missed, out of respect for our family and the Knell family.

“We found the inquest process to be especially difficult without legal representation, but are thankful to those who have helped us get through it this week. We believe it is important that a spotlight continues to be shone on these failures, and that it will drive meaningful change.

“We believe that all relevant agencies must learn to recognise warning signs for domestic homicide long before they reach such a tragic stage, to prevent any other families from suffering losses as devastating as ours and the Knell family’s.”

For all the latest news, visit the Belfast Live homepage here and sign up to our daily newsletter here.

Dave Calfe, general secretary of Aslef, the train drivers’ union, said: “We are deeply concerned by reports of a collision between two trains near Bedford. Our thoughts at this moment are with all the staff and passengers on board. Thank you to the emergency services for their ongoing work responding to this incident.”

Griddled boneless chicken thighs are simple (and the thigh is the juiciest bit) and always more satisfying than you think they’ll be. You want a hot sandwich? Griddle a chicken thigh, pressing it down to get some char marks on the flesh, and stuff it into a roll with mayo (to which you’ve added gochujang, the Korean chilli paste) and some cold lettuce and cucumber. Pour a beer. You’ll be happy. 

Here, griddled thighs are dressed with shallots softened in white balsamic vinegar, oil and lemon juice.

Requires marinating time

Marcus Rashford’s future remains up in the air following his loan spell with Barcelona and the England forward has now been told his chances of sealing a blockbuster move elsewhere

Marcus Rashford remains an option for Bayern Munich in the summer transfer window — but the German giants are not actively considering a move at this stage.

The England star’s future remains uncertain following a productive loan spell with Spanish giants Barcelona. The Catalans had an option to sign Rashford permanently for £26m but chose not to activate that option, which has now expired.

However, it has been reported that they could yet still attempt to thrash out a fresh loan deal, although United are not expected to be receptive to another temporary switch.

In the meantime, Rashford sees his future away from Old Trafford, with talks set to be held with United chiefs following the end of the World Cup.

According to Bild, German giants Bayern Munich have had Rashford on their list of potential additions this summer. They had even made contact with his representatives after they were beaten to the signing of Anthony Gordon by Barcelona.

There are however concerns at the Allianz Arena. It is suggested that Bayern are currently prioritising a move for PSV forward Ismael Saibari. There are also worries over the wage that Rashford would likely demand in the Bundesliga, which makes a deal unlikely at this stage.

Speaking this month, United icon Rio Ferdinand has urged the Red Devils to re-consider their position on Rashford’s future. He said: “Manchester United might have to reevaluate Marcus Rashford’s situation.

“It seems like he has matured; the time away from the club may have done him the good that he needed, and it has cleansed both parties. Is it time to shake hands and come back?”

Advertisement

He also argued that Rashford’s time at Barcelona might have given him fresh perspective over his responsibilities. Ferdinand added: “He was given a role at Barcelona, told he would be an impact player at times, to come on and change games. At England, that is his role, and that’s a huge asset to the squad in this competition.”

Away from his future, Rashford enjoyed a dream start to the 2026 World Cup, having scored in England’s 4-2 win against Croatia. Speaking about the forward, Three Lions boss Thomas Tuchel said: “Marcus is pushing and pushing and pushing and training on the highest level.

“I’m very happy for [Rashford] that he got this relief and I hope he stays hungry for the next one and the next one because he was absolutely impressive through the last 17 days and really deserved his goal.”

Join our new WhatsApp community and receive your daily dose of Mirror Football content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.

Dave Calfe, general secretary of Aslef, the train drivers’ union, said: “We are deeply concerned by reports of a collision between two trains near Bedford. Our thoughts at this moment are with all the staff and passengers on board. Thank you to the emergency services for their ongoing work responding to this incident.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — As Janeese Lewis George paves a path to the mayor’s office in Washington, D.C., she’s told voters they could have it all.

Her unapologetically expansive, left-wing agenda includes subsidized or even free childcare, increased down payment assistance for homebuyers and community resources to reduce crime, plus a promise to aggressively confront President Donald Trump’s attempts to reshape the nation’s capital.

“People are tired of hearing what government can’t do. They want to hear what government can do,” Lewis George said in an interview before the city’s primary, where she defeated her Democratic opponents and positioned herself to win the general election in November in a city dominated by Democrats.

Lewis George’s victory signals a break with a quarter-century of centrist governance in Washington, and it puts her in the vanguard of democratic socialists who have ascended in urban politics over the last year. Zohran Mamdani toppled Andrew Cuomo, the scion of a political dynasty, on his way to becoming New York City mayor. Katie Wilson won an upset victory to lead Seattle last fall. And this month, Nithya Raman clinched a spot in the November runoff against Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

All of them are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA. The political organization has seen its membership ranks swell from a few thousand to more than 100,000 nationwide over the last decade after an influx of younger Americans joined following the presidential bids of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, also a self-described democratic socialist.

There’s little sign of national coordination among the candidates, and it’s unclear whether voters are gravitating toward their promises of improved government services, their vows to fight the Trump administration or their critiques of capitalism.

But from coast to coast, confrontational progressives are advancing in mayoral races. City leaders can draw outsized attention for their successes and failures, and democratic socialists will be under pressure from residents to deliver on their vows for a new kind of governance. Whether that translates to national politics is a next test for their movement.

“They are all channeling a displeasure with a status quo and a serious desire for economic populism that the establishment Democratic Party hasn’t been preaching,” said Eric Stern, a Democratic strategist with Fight Agency, a political consulting firm that strategized Mamdani’s mayoral campaign.

Stern added that Democratic voters appeared more willing to support the most progressive candidate in mayoral races rather than in contests for the U.S. House. Candidates like Mamdani and Raman, Stern said, are “daring voters to dream and fall in love not just with the individual candidates but also the political process as a whole.”

A rising left navigates America’s urban challenges

The trend of progressives surging in urban areas may have limits for its broader impact on Democratic politics. Democratic mayors in cities including Atlanta, Houston, Miami and San Francisco won on relatively moderate platforms in recent years.

Progressive have also faced noteworthy challenges. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson was endorsed by the city’s DSA chapter during his 2023 mayoral run but has since faced criticism from both moderate and liberal local leaders on issues such as immigration, the local budget and public safety. Recalls and public pressure ousted progressives elected to district attorney offices in multiple jurisdictions over the last five years, when criminal justice reform efforts ran into dissatisfaction over public disorder following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump’s hardline immigration and law enforcement tactics have also become a challenge for liberal cities. The president’s agenda poses an especially serious threat to Washington, D.C., because of its status as a federal territory.

“Maybe we take back Washington and run it on a federal basis,” Trump told reporters this month when asked about the potential election of a democratic socialist as the district’s mayor. “We won’t put up with it.”

But progressives hope the current wave of anti-Trump furor in deep blue cities across the country will help buoy the chances of those on the hard left.

“It’s not folks looking for the leftmost option so much as looking for a candidate who’s gonna be on their side,” said Ravi Mangla, speaking for the left-wing Working Families Party. The party often endorses the same candidates as the DSA and is readying to target more mayoral offices in the country’s biggest metropolises this fall and in 2028.

“It’s less about whether you are on the right or on the left so much as whether you are willing to punch up at the powerful,” he added.

Mamdani and Lewis George are both self-described “sewer socialists” who emphasize the need for responsive government services rather than critiques of market economics. The phrase recalls the socialist Gilded Age mayors whom critics derided as too preoccupied with managing public works projects.

The term’s revival is partly a strategic move to align leftist ideas with concerns over affordability and the economy, voters’ top concern in the midterm elections, and shift the public perception of democratic socialists from firebrands who support radical policies to independent-minded public servants.

“This is absolutely a change election and I’m excited to bring the change that people want, which is really putting people first in the city and having the moral clarity and courage to stand up to Trump,” Lewis George said.

For voters the ‘socialist’ label did not seem to matter

While conservatives have used the “socialist” label to attack Democrats as extreme or incompetent, some D.C. voters appeared ambivalent before Tuesday’s primary.

Several lifelong residents said they believed Lewis George was a “fighter” but didn’t think she’d have much of an impact on the local economy, given the city’s status as a federal district.

“I go back and forth on my own labels and whether I am supportive of that movement or not, but I am supportive of making D.C. more affordable,” Owen Fitzgerald, a University of Maryland graduate student, said of his support for democratic socialism.

Fitzgerald voted for Lewis George because she would stand up to Trump and said he’d first learned of her campaign from friends in his neighborhood. But he didn’t know she was a democratic socialist until he saw news reports describing her with the label.

“It sends a cultural message to this administration that the people who are surrounding them in the capital are opposed to their platform, opposed to their political agenda, and I think that it will send a message, both nationally and internationally,” Fitzgerald said.