Individual- No problems :)

Thomas Jefferson / Benjamin Franklin were interesting people both polymaths. The principles of the Declaration Of Independence can be applied widely I've found- even to items of Identity politics- I'm not sure that Emile Durkheim founder of SocSci would approve. As Einstein alluded to (not that he had a monopoly on wisdom) it's usually important to address the problem at a deeper level than the problem itself.

It may well highlight our current state of leadership but know this country for a time at least gave high polling to Bodgie Bob, Howard, and Kevin 07, true statement and it warns not to say we have always lacked leaders

Foxy said- "Individual, You would reach more posters if you would stop
with the labelling of people. That action is so yesterday. Most people today are neither "left" or "right" except for the die-hards of course. Anyway - try it and see if people's reaction change towards what you are saying. At the moment your message is being lost in the labels."

Answer- Another Identity politics concept- Sometimes it's necessary to classify label things in order to discuss them. Anyway see some links to "Labelling (Intersection) Theory criticism" below...

http://www.arasite.org/cwlabth.html
http://www.britannica.com/topic/labeling-theory
http://www.thoughtco.com/labeling-theory-3026627

Sounds "similar" to the Quantum Mechanics Measurement Problem.

Canem Malum,

A few points on labelling people.

If a person uses terms to describe people and
believes - that they cannot change - then their
life can be stressful. Therefore if they are able to
think about people's personalities in a less fixed
way, perhaps that would decrease their overall stress.

The belief that people can change has many benefits -
for example, students who believe their own behaviour
and performance can change work harder in school to
overcome academic difficulty. People who believe that
others can change are more likely to work with them to
regain trust after they have a bad experience.

Ultimately, it is therefore important to realize that
one should not completely define people by their
current behaviour.

Serving up names like some do is self defeating because most never in any way are as they are described, hard to take any one parroting the same terms over and again seriously however this thread has shown us not many have trust in our current contenders, voters will get it right as they mostly always do

I am incensed at the title or premise of the question.
Why?
Being a technical and pragmatic person, I refute the title because first and foremost, a country's Prime Minister is not a 'leader'.
He is simply the mouth piece, front man for the elected party/parties, (coalition).
HE, in my view, is just another poly like the rest.
He is chosen by the others to report the collectives views and decisions to the country or it's people.
He is not a dictator.
He is not a King.
He is not empowered to 'make decisions' he is part of a collective or group who collectively make decisions and decide outcomes, and therefore his singular opinions are irrelevant.
I expect that when he responds to questions with the 'I' think or 'I' believe or 'I' will do this or that, he is ingratiating himself or 'big noting' himself to a level of authority beyond his charter or purview.
As to the question and a more specific answer.
Look we all know the traits and foibles that are the qualifications of politicians.
What should a country's leader have?
Assuming the questioner means, 'What qualifications should a Prime Minister have'?
The two most important, in my view are 'reason and common sense'.
The evidence is overwhelming that ALL previous govt's have failed miserably in this area.
If a PM is to be a true 'leader', he must be able to bring these two factors to bear.
In doing so he will satisfy that sector of the population who want to see fair and honest outcomes for all concerned and not just satisfy the demands of select groups, minorities and lobbyists.