Margaret Thatcher wasn't always nicknamed "the Iron Lady". That term was originally used for another female Prime Minister, Golda Meir of Israel.
Here are the two meeting in 1976:
Here are the two meeting in 1976:
Showing posts with label Margaret Thatcher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Margaret Thatcher. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Monday, April 08, 2013
Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013
Nearly forty years ago this country faced a succession of crises that left many asking the above question. A large part of the political class lost its nerve.
But one leader did not. She firmly believe that the country could be governed and set out to prove it. By the mid 1980s few asked the question again.
Margaret Thatcher transformed her party, her country and the world like few others. Her legacy is all around us.
Monday, April 09, 2012
Flashback: The 1992 election
Twenty years ago today it was the 1992 general election. A record breaking election that saw the Conservatives win a fourth term, with the most votes for any party in British electoral history. And they did it without spin - compare Neil Kinnock's grandiose Sheffield rally with John Major going out on the streets and speaking common sense on a good old fashioned soapbox.Yet for many Conservatives 1992 has become a forgotten election. For some the victory is an uncomfortable truth, that the party could win elections without Margaret Thatcher and thus justified deposing her. For others the memory of the next five years is dominated by so many problems that they'd really rather not remember them and secretly wish the election had been lost.
However there are signs of a slow change in John Major's reputation with even some of his old critics starting to reappraise his record - see for example It's time to give John Major the credit we so cruelly denied him by Peter Oborne in the Daily Telegraph. And the various historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom have seen Major slowly rise up the charts judged by academics, in recent years overtaking Edward Heath (University of Leeds: Academics rate Brown one of the worst post 1945 PMs). Maybe he will rise further in years to come.
Would it have been better to lose the 1992 election? It's hard to say, though if the party hadn't deposed Margaret Thatcher it's likely we would have lost. Indeed if the landslide had come five years soon, Thatcher might even have had the humiliation of losing her own seat. Such a result could have been the necessary blow to the neo-Thatcherite wing of the party and silenced the sirens who spent much of the last twenty years claiming that going more Thatcherite than even Thatcher did was the solution for the country. And some of the more Machiavellian might point out that a loss would have given the chaos of Black Wednesday to Neil Kinnock and John Smith. Perhaps the Conservatives would have taken rather less than thirteen years to return to government.
So as the BBC Parliament channel reruns the 1992 election coverage, a big cheer to John Major for achieving such a victory and saving us from that nightmare.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Twenty years ago - Margaret Thatcher's last performance
Twenty years ago today Margaret Thatcher announced her resignation. Later that day there was a debate in the House of Commons on a motion of no confidence in her government, giving her the opportunity to defend the record of her government.
Without further ado, here is her speech:
Without further ado, here is her speech:
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Female Prime Ministers
Early today a sudden change occurred in Australia. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was facing a collapse in support within his own Labor Party so called a leadership election. But the power brokers within Labor turned against him and by the time it came for the vote his support was so weak he opted to not even stand. And so Australia now has a new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.
(Rudd will no doubt be upset at being dumped by his party so early. In fact only one previous Australian Prime Minister has suffered a comparable fate. But that was Robert Menzies who bounced back to retake the leadership of his party and went on to be Australia's longest ever Prime Minister. The second longest, John Howard, also had an earlier period of leadership, albeit in opposition. So will Rudd return?)
But for now the moment is with Gillard. Around the world many Australians are proudly pointing out that they now have their first female Prime Minister.
Around the world many New Zealanders are loudly pointing out that they had their first one thirteen years ago. (Remember Jenny Shipley?)
And here in the UK we had ours thirty-one years ago, but some left-wing feminists are keen to downplay that, as though they want airbrush Margaret Thatcher out of the history books. Perhaps it's because she doesn't conform to the socialist-feminist perspective on what a female leader should be like. Perhaps it's because she, like so many women, was not concerned with implementing the more radical feminist agenda and called the bluff of those who claim all women have the same outlook. Maybe some feminists just don't like women who conform to their viewpoint - frankly a highly sexist attitude.
(The UK was actually beaten by an interesting mix of countries including Sri Lanka with Sirimavo Bandaranaike in 1960, India with Indira Gandhi in 1966, Israel with Golda Meir in 1969 and the Central African Republic with Elisabeth Domitien in 1975.)
But whilst the UK may have achieved this back in 1979 it's hard to pretend that since then women have been at the forefront of politics. Looking just at the leadership elections of the big three, since 1979 there have been sixteen different people on the ballot papers for the Conservative Party leadership, of whom Thatcher (in both 1989 & 1990) is the only woman. Labour have had nineteen different candidates, of whom Margaret Beckett (in 1994) and Diane Abbott (in 2010) are the only women. The Liberal Democrats (including predecessor parties) have had thirteen candidates including just one woman, Jackie Ballard (in 1999). There have been various other candidates who have launched bids for the leadership but abandoned them before appearing on the ballot paper - Stephen Dorrell, Don Foster, Alan Duncan, Malcolm Rifkind and John McDonell all spring to mind but no women.
I find it hard to believe that a male to female ratio of 11 to 1 remotely reflects the ratio of political talent in this country, no matter how many people may proclaim the absence of any formal barriers. There are a mixture of problems including time commitments, the fact that politics puts off disproportionately more women than men, and some attitudes. When women rise high in politics and fail they are often denounced as over promoted because of their gender. The same comments aren't made about failed men.
(Sure there are some women who have been over promoted because of this. I think it is perfectly valid to criticise Harriet Harman as over promoted because of her gender when even she made it her central pitch for the Labour deputy leadership, so it's hard to deny that she has got where she is because she is a woman. Theresa May has also danced around the edges of this - remember how when she was appointed Conservative Party chair her gender was stressed heavily? But the likes of Caroline Spelman and Yvette Cooper have not ridden the waves. If and when they fail big time it will be no different if they had been men.)
There isn't an obvious solution. Requiring X number of candidates/MPs/Cabinet members to be women risks over promoting mediocrities whose failure will merely set back the prospects of a level playing field. And the aim must be a level playing field not statistical exactitude. Helping talented women acquire the necessary skills and experience that they might not otherwise obtain so they can come forward and overcome the entry barriers is a much better way. Hopefully when David Cameron retires in a decade or so there will be women who come forward as candidates not as a mere token but as strong competitive contenders on equal terms.
But for now the moment is with Gillard. Around the world many Australians are proudly pointing out that they now have their first female Prime Minister.
Around the world many New Zealanders are loudly pointing out that they had their first one thirteen years ago. (Remember Jenny Shipley?)
And here in the UK we had ours thirty-one years ago, but some left-wing feminists are keen to downplay that, as though they want airbrush Margaret Thatcher out of the history books. Perhaps it's because she doesn't conform to the socialist-feminist perspective on what a female leader should be like. Perhaps it's because she, like so many women, was not concerned with implementing the more radical feminist agenda and called the bluff of those who claim all women have the same outlook. Maybe some feminists just don't like women who conform to their viewpoint - frankly a highly sexist attitude.
(The UK was actually beaten by an interesting mix of countries including Sri Lanka with Sirimavo Bandaranaike in 1960, India with Indira Gandhi in 1966, Israel with Golda Meir in 1969 and the Central African Republic with Elisabeth Domitien in 1975.)
But whilst the UK may have achieved this back in 1979 it's hard to pretend that since then women have been at the forefront of politics. Looking just at the leadership elections of the big three, since 1979 there have been sixteen different people on the ballot papers for the Conservative Party leadership, of whom Thatcher (in both 1989 & 1990) is the only woman. Labour have had nineteen different candidates, of whom Margaret Beckett (in 1994) and Diane Abbott (in 2010) are the only women. The Liberal Democrats (including predecessor parties) have had thirteen candidates including just one woman, Jackie Ballard (in 1999). There have been various other candidates who have launched bids for the leadership but abandoned them before appearing on the ballot paper - Stephen Dorrell, Don Foster, Alan Duncan, Malcolm Rifkind and John McDonell all spring to mind but no women.
I find it hard to believe that a male to female ratio of 11 to 1 remotely reflects the ratio of political talent in this country, no matter how many people may proclaim the absence of any formal barriers. There are a mixture of problems including time commitments, the fact that politics puts off disproportionately more women than men, and some attitudes. When women rise high in politics and fail they are often denounced as over promoted because of their gender. The same comments aren't made about failed men.
(Sure there are some women who have been over promoted because of this. I think it is perfectly valid to criticise Harriet Harman as over promoted because of her gender when even she made it her central pitch for the Labour deputy leadership, so it's hard to deny that she has got where she is because she is a woman. Theresa May has also danced around the edges of this - remember how when she was appointed Conservative Party chair her gender was stressed heavily? But the likes of Caroline Spelman and Yvette Cooper have not ridden the waves. If and when they fail big time it will be no different if they had been men.)
There isn't an obvious solution. Requiring X number of candidates/MPs/Cabinet members to be women risks over promoting mediocrities whose failure will merely set back the prospects of a level playing field. And the aim must be a level playing field not statistical exactitude. Helping talented women acquire the necessary skills and experience that they might not otherwise obtain so they can come forward and overcome the entry barriers is a much better way. Hopefully when David Cameron retires in a decade or so there will be women who come forward as candidates not as a mere token but as strong competitive contenders on equal terms.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Top 50 Political Myths
Total Politics has published a list of fifty of the most common myths in British politics. Some have been busted in recent years, others are a real surprise. I pick just three highlights:
33. Jimmy Carter was attacked by a killer rabbitLife nearly imitated art as this was a few years after Monty Python and the Holy Grail gave us the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog,
Fishing near his hometown of Plains, Georgia in 1979, the then President realised a large swamp rabbit was swimming towards his boat. A flustered Carter had to flail at it with his oars. The story leaked out, and it became known as the Killer Rabbit Incident after a Washington Post cartoon.
25. David Mellor wore a Chelsea kit while making loveIt also meant that at the time people believed there was at least one person in a Chelsea kit who could score so many times. Fortunately things have changed since then...
Made up by Max Clifford, but this delightful image contributed to the John Major government being beset by sleaze and sex scandals in the early 1990s.
13. Margaret Thatcher was hugely popular as Prime MinisterSomething I wish ardent Thatcherites would remember this when acting as political Sirens.
Despite her undeniable obliteration of most political rivals - until her own party stabbed her in the back - Thatcher never won more than 43 per cent of the vote in her three general election victories.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Thirty years ago today...
...it was the 1979 general election and Margaret Thatcher came to power. Half the blogosphere's celebrating fiercely whilst the other half is whingeing and moaning that democracy exists in this country or some such.
One interesting piece that has caught my eye is ConservativeHome's Platform: David Torrance: Debunking the myths about Margaret Thatcher and Scotland. In it he addresses head on the main myths thrown about - that Thatcher hated Scotland, that she sought to destroy Scottish industry, that the Poll Tax was a test in Scotland, that she attacked the Church of Scotland, and that she destroyed the Scottish Conservative Party.
Much of the Conservative Party has a strange relationship with its modern history. In certain quarters the Thatcher era, or rather the misremembering of the Thatcher era, is almost worshipped. At the same time the pre Thatcher era (or rather the Macmillan/Heath years) is demonised (okay in the case of the Heath years that's not without due cause). And at times people try to pretend the Major years just didn't happen, rather than considering the achievements. All too often it seems people want to run away embarrassed from the more controversial stuff.
The result is that with individual exceptions rarely is an attempt made to take on the many myths made about past Conservative governments and oppositions. Look at the stories of the creation of the NHS - no acknowledgement that it was a Conservative Minister of Health (Henry Willink) who introduced the original White Paper "A National Health Service" or that if the Conservatives had won the 1945 election they would also have introduced a fully comprehensive, universal healthcare system, free of charge and available to all citizens irrespective of means. The Conservatives voted against the specific Bevan proposals not out of opposition to the general principle of free healthcare but because the British Medical Association had concerns about the level of control of doctors. But all too often Labour members tell or repeat lies about this one.
There are others that have been debunked as and when - indeed I've at times done so myself in the limited environment of blog comments. But more will need to be done, especially when the next general election comes as Labour can be expected to wheel out all manner of myth and scare stories about previous times when the Conservatives were in power.
One interesting piece that has caught my eye is ConservativeHome's Platform: David Torrance: Debunking the myths about Margaret Thatcher and Scotland. In it he addresses head on the main myths thrown about - that Thatcher hated Scotland, that she sought to destroy Scottish industry, that the Poll Tax was a test in Scotland, that she attacked the Church of Scotland, and that she destroyed the Scottish Conservative Party.
Much of the Conservative Party has a strange relationship with its modern history. In certain quarters the Thatcher era, or rather the misremembering of the Thatcher era, is almost worshipped. At the same time the pre Thatcher era (or rather the Macmillan/Heath years) is demonised (okay in the case of the Heath years that's not without due cause). And at times people try to pretend the Major years just didn't happen, rather than considering the achievements. All too often it seems people want to run away embarrassed from the more controversial stuff.
The result is that with individual exceptions rarely is an attempt made to take on the many myths made about past Conservative governments and oppositions. Look at the stories of the creation of the NHS - no acknowledgement that it was a Conservative Minister of Health (Henry Willink) who introduced the original White Paper "A National Health Service" or that if the Conservatives had won the 1945 election they would also have introduced a fully comprehensive, universal healthcare system, free of charge and available to all citizens irrespective of means. The Conservatives voted against the specific Bevan proposals not out of opposition to the general principle of free healthcare but because the British Medical Association had concerns about the level of control of doctors. But all too often Labour members tell or repeat lies about this one.
There are others that have been debunked as and when - indeed I've at times done so myself in the limited environment of blog comments. But more will need to be done, especially when the next general election comes as Labour can be expected to wheel out all manner of myth and scare stories about previous times when the Conservatives were in power.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Where Were You When You Heard Margaret Thatcher Had Resigned?
In response to Iain Dale's Diary: Where Were You When You Heard Margaret Thatcher Had Resigned?, I was at school that day. My class heard the news from our Latin teacher when we went in after morning break - she had heard the infamous "Thatchy Pog" weather forecast on the radio.
My entire family was staunchly supporting Michael Heseltine - indeed my father had a letter published in the Daily Telegraph in support of him - but I can't remember feeling any particularly strong feelings about the news. Maybe we were all stunned - none of us had lived under any other Prime Minister - or not sufficiently following politics to care hugely (east Surrey was not a place where children were brought up from birth to blindly hate Thatcher).
And so there it is - not the most spectacular memory of that day. But as for some more recent resignations...
My entire family was staunchly supporting Michael Heseltine - indeed my father had a letter published in the Daily Telegraph in support of him - but I can't remember feeling any particularly strong feelings about the news. Maybe we were all stunned - none of us had lived under any other Prime Minister - or not sufficiently following politics to care hugely (east Surrey was not a place where children were brought up from birth to blindly hate Thatcher).
And so there it is - not the most spectacular memory of that day. But as for some more recent resignations...
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The airbrushing out of Margaret Thatcher
Amongst the delights in the newly released government papers from thirty years ago is the revelation that Labour tried to marginalise Margaret Thatcher from celebrations of the anniversary of female suffrage. (BBC News: Thatcher sidelined over suffrage) Even then it seems that Labour were determined to rewrite history when it comes to women and the Conservative Party by ignoring the existence of the most prominent female politician this country has yet had (they may also try to forget that the first woman to take her seat in the Commons was a Conservative). Why? Because some of them have absorbed this idea that they can make particular voters come running to them merely by tarring other parties as discriminatory and ignore the facts. (See also Harriet Harman's rubbish memory)
It was the Conservative Party who had the first women Prime Minister, the first ethnic minority Prime Minister, the first Prime Minister born outside the United Kingdom and more gay Prime Ministers than any other party. Where Labour have just talked the talk, the Conservatives have walked the walk.
It was the Conservative Party who had the first women Prime Minister, the first ethnic minority Prime Minister, the first Prime Minister born outside the United Kingdom and more gay Prime Ministers than any other party. Where Labour have just talked the talk, the Conservatives have walked the walk.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
First Political Memory
First off apologies for my silence recently as several other matters are currently occupying my time. Normal service should be resumed in October.
In response to a tagging by Iain Lindley on his First Political Memory, I've been wracking my brains for my own.
The first I had direct experience of was the 1982 Kenyan coup attempt which happened when my family was visiting. I wasn't even two years old but have very vague memories of hearing shooting in the street. But I can't remember anything else about it.
Of the later events it's harder. The problem is that whilst I can remember a lot of the very biggest names of the mid 1980s - Thatcher, Reagan, Gorbachev - on television a lot, I can't remember particular incidents (and those three, together with Kohl and Mitterand were all in power from early 1985 to early 1989 so memories of a summit conference can't be narrowed down by who was in and out of power at the time). I'm too young to remember the miners' strike (and grew up in a part of the world far away from mines).
So I guess my earliest substantial memory is of the 1987 general election. I remember the various leaders on television (apart from the Little David who was utterly forgettable) and being most impressed by David Owen, whilst finding Margaret Thatcher unpleasant and scary. But that was the point wasn't it? Thatcher was like essential medicine - it didn't feel nice at the time, it wasn't attractive to take but it did all the good that was needed.
I remember going with my father when he voted and then onto a bash for party workers afterwards. There was no sign of the MP, but then Archibald Hamilton was one of those arrogant MPs found in all main parties who took the constituency for granted and rarely showed his face, despite it being on a direct thirty minute train journey from Westminster!
After that I can remember more and more events - the fall of the Berlin Wall, Nelson Mandela coming out of jail, the downfall of Thatcher (in which my family were staunchly pro Heseltine - on the morning of the second ballot I was the only person in my class supporting him) and more.
I'm not one for tagging others so I'll throw it open to my readers - what are your first political memories?
In response to a tagging by Iain Lindley on his First Political Memory, I've been wracking my brains for my own.
The first I had direct experience of was the 1982 Kenyan coup attempt which happened when my family was visiting. I wasn't even two years old but have very vague memories of hearing shooting in the street. But I can't remember anything else about it.
Of the later events it's harder. The problem is that whilst I can remember a lot of the very biggest names of the mid 1980s - Thatcher, Reagan, Gorbachev - on television a lot, I can't remember particular incidents (and those three, together with Kohl and Mitterand were all in power from early 1985 to early 1989 so memories of a summit conference can't be narrowed down by who was in and out of power at the time). I'm too young to remember the miners' strike (and grew up in a part of the world far away from mines).
So I guess my earliest substantial memory is of the 1987 general election. I remember the various leaders on television (apart from the Little David who was utterly forgettable) and being most impressed by David Owen, whilst finding Margaret Thatcher unpleasant and scary. But that was the point wasn't it? Thatcher was like essential medicine - it didn't feel nice at the time, it wasn't attractive to take but it did all the good that was needed.
I remember going with my father when he voted and then onto a bash for party workers afterwards. There was no sign of the MP, but then Archibald Hamilton was one of those arrogant MPs found in all main parties who took the constituency for granted and rarely showed his face, despite it being on a direct thirty minute train journey from Westminster!
After that I can remember more and more events - the fall of the Berlin Wall, Nelson Mandela coming out of jail, the downfall of Thatcher (in which my family were staunchly pro Heseltine - on the morning of the second ballot I was the only person in my class supporting him) and more.
I'm not one for tagging others so I'll throw it open to my readers - what are your first political memories?
Monday, February 26, 2007
Was Thatcher really a Thatcherite?
Following on from my earlier post about Prime Ministerial legacies, I've been reminded that whilst it is no secret that the Thatcher government did many things the left don’t approve of, it is more surprising that there is a lot that can be said against it from a right wing perspective.
Both Thatcherite and Anti-Thatcherite legends tell us that between 1979 and 1990 the Thatcher government set about a continuous process of "rolling back the frontiers of the state", limiting the amount of legislation passed, aggressively promoting the private sector over the public, reducing central controls, respecting individual liberty, taking a firm course in foreign policy standing up for the UK's interests and actively defending its sovereignty, pursuing a free floating pound and so much more.
So how is this compatible with a government that shadowed the Deutshmark before signing up to the Exchange Rate Mechanism? A government which signed both the Single European Act and the Anglo-Irish Agreement? A government which time and again introduced new controls such as the Dangerous Dogs Act, or considered others such as limiting attendance at football matches to club supporters (before the industry and sanity prevailed)? A government which emasculated local government, introducing stringent central controls right down to dictating a National Curriculum and passing legislation to bar local authorities "promoting" things? A government which intervened to keep ball by ball cricket commentary on the public sector broadcaster rather than leaving it to the free market? A government that kept up a relentless stream of new legislation passed? A government which participated in the "nationalisation of blame" by making many things a matter for government and legislation, with the result that by 1990 numerous questions were asked at PMQs about subjects that in 1979 would have been considered "not a government matter"?
A government that was "the most centralizing, regulatory and interfering [government] that the country had ever had"?
Much could be said on this and there is clearly scope for a right wing critical history of the Thatcher years. But one thing is clear – Thatcher was never so strident and vocal in her early years in power. It was only towards the end of the 1980s that the government began to sound ever more distant from the centre, and that was when things started going wrong.
The idea that strident Thatcherism was electorally successful in and of itself is also hard to maintain – the Conservatives in the 1980s repeatedly polled shares of the vote than in earlier years confined them to opposition and much soul searching. Conservative electoral success was built on a divided opposition and the ability to answer the question "Can Britain be governed" at a time when many in politics were losing their nerve. Those who presently advocate a "return to Thatcherism" or even to go further (look for example at the way certain Thatcherite groups welcomed the introduction of university tuition fees and their subsequent extension, despite there being no such fees when Thatcher was either Education Secretary or Prime Minister) would do well to ponder that.
Both Thatcherite and Anti-Thatcherite legends tell us that between 1979 and 1990 the Thatcher government set about a continuous process of "rolling back the frontiers of the state", limiting the amount of legislation passed, aggressively promoting the private sector over the public, reducing central controls, respecting individual liberty, taking a firm course in foreign policy standing up for the UK's interests and actively defending its sovereignty, pursuing a free floating pound and so much more.
So how is this compatible with a government that shadowed the Deutshmark before signing up to the Exchange Rate Mechanism? A government which signed both the Single European Act and the Anglo-Irish Agreement? A government which time and again introduced new controls such as the Dangerous Dogs Act, or considered others such as limiting attendance at football matches to club supporters (before the industry and sanity prevailed)? A government which emasculated local government, introducing stringent central controls right down to dictating a National Curriculum and passing legislation to bar local authorities "promoting" things? A government which intervened to keep ball by ball cricket commentary on the public sector broadcaster rather than leaving it to the free market? A government that kept up a relentless stream of new legislation passed? A government which participated in the "nationalisation of blame" by making many things a matter for government and legislation, with the result that by 1990 numerous questions were asked at PMQs about subjects that in 1979 would have been considered "not a government matter"?
A government that was "the most centralizing, regulatory and interfering [government] that the country had ever had"?
Much could be said on this and there is clearly scope for a right wing critical history of the Thatcher years. But one thing is clear – Thatcher was never so strident and vocal in her early years in power. It was only towards the end of the 1980s that the government began to sound ever more distant from the centre, and that was when things started going wrong.
The idea that strident Thatcherism was electorally successful in and of itself is also hard to maintain – the Conservatives in the 1980s repeatedly polled shares of the vote than in earlier years confined them to opposition and much soul searching. Conservative electoral success was built on a divided opposition and the ability to answer the question "Can Britain be governed" at a time when many in politics were losing their nerve. Those who presently advocate a "return to Thatcherism" or even to go further (look for example at the way certain Thatcherite groups welcomed the introduction of university tuition fees and their subsequent extension, despite there being no such fees when Thatcher was either Education Secretary or Prime Minister) would do well to ponder that.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Prime Ministerial legacies
Paul Burgin has a post wondering why Margaret Thatcher has been given a statue in the Commons whilst still alive (Mars Hill: The Statue) and briefly commenting on her and other Prime Ministers' legacies.
Thinking back over the past hundred years, it's quite rare for a former Prime Minister to have had a politically good post premiership. Arthur Balfour had a very successful subsequent ministerial career - indeed so successful it's possible to remember him whilst forgetting he was ever Prime Minister - whilst Alec Douglas-Home proved a benign elder statesmen in Ted Heath's Cabinet. But Ramsay MacDonald's time as Lord President of the Council proved cruel to all involved, including him. And Neville Chamberlain was blighted by his health and a constant campaign to remove him from office that devastated his legacy. Indeed it's only been since I started my PhD that I've come to realise just how narrow a view is held of Chamberlain - even many sympathetic biographies turn him into almost a one policy area Prime Minister.
No other twentieth century Prime Minister subsequently sevred in another office, unless one counts Stanley Baldwin's time as Lord President of the Council between his second and third premiership. But Baldwin was still at the height of his powers and returned to Number 10, to retire on a high. Indeed Baldwin's retirement was expected for months (and his successor was unanimously clear) and he managed to leave Downing Street with a higher standing than any of his successors. Tony Blair must be kicking himself. But Baldwin's reputation came to grief before he died - during the war his reputation was tarnished in the row over the country's preparations for war. It has only been in the last forty years that his reputation has been steadily restored.
Others have been hampered by health (Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Andrew Bonar Law, Harold Wilson) and either died very soon or dropped out of public life almost immediately. Some floated around for so long that when they died it was a surprise it had not happened earlier (Lord Roseberry lived for 34 years until 1929). Others had to watch as their political legacy was dismantled and even their own party turned on their government's legacy (Harold Macmillan, Edward Heath, Jim Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, John Major). Some have been respectfully quiet about this, but the actions of Heath and Thatcher in bitterly attacking their successors have brought no credit to them. The legacy of the war preserved Churchill's reputation, even though his peacetime government was an example of a man clinging to office long after he was no longer competent, whilst Clement Attlee died before the backlash against his legacy. Conversely whilst the legacy of Herbert Asquith's government remained in place his own reputation for indecisiveness, the circumstances of his downfall and the subsequent split and destruction of his party meant that he did not die in glory.
What will Tony Blair's legacy be like once he's into the period of lectures and memoirs? Well the observant amongst you will have noticed there are two Prime Ministers I haven't yet mentioned - Anthony Eden and David Lloyd George. Frankly it's hard to think of anything positive to say about Eden's premiership - by the summer of 1956 he was increasingly discredited. And of course it ended in disaster when he launched an attack on an Arab country to domestic and international disapproval. Hardly anyone has managed to justify the Suez Crisis and it increasingly seems that the Iraq War will be remembered equally disastrously.
And then there's the Prime Minister who broke his party, sold honours and ended his days with virtually no-one in politics supporting him. Tony Blair has long said that his political hero is Lloyd George but Blair is hardly the dashing young radical or a country's saviour in time of national crisis. However he has certainly emulated many of the worst features of the Goat (but before anyone suggests anything, I have heard nothing about Blair giving tours of ceilings). With every new revelation about Loans for Lordships, Blair looks more and more tainted, just like his hero.
And what other legacy has Blair got? Most of the changes that have happened under his government can't really be attributed to either him personally or his leadership. He did not received the Nobel Prize for the Northern Ireland Peace Process, whilst Mo Mowlam has always received the credit for the government's contribution. Donald Dewar is remembered as the deliverer of Scottish devolution. And the public services have been shaken up so many times that it seems all that's been achieved is to pour lots of money in and charge the public more. (And in any case with a dominant Chancellor of the Exchequer it's going to be difficult to extract credit for Blair rather than Gordon Brown.) Nor does anyone talk about "Cool Britannia" anymore.
Tony Blair has spent years claiming he is a man of substance not style. But his legacy is a mixture of bad substance or style gone wrong. Which would he prefer to be remembered for?
Thinking back over the past hundred years, it's quite rare for a former Prime Minister to have had a politically good post premiership. Arthur Balfour had a very successful subsequent ministerial career - indeed so successful it's possible to remember him whilst forgetting he was ever Prime Minister - whilst Alec Douglas-Home proved a benign elder statesmen in Ted Heath's Cabinet. But Ramsay MacDonald's time as Lord President of the Council proved cruel to all involved, including him. And Neville Chamberlain was blighted by his health and a constant campaign to remove him from office that devastated his legacy. Indeed it's only been since I started my PhD that I've come to realise just how narrow a view is held of Chamberlain - even many sympathetic biographies turn him into almost a one policy area Prime Minister.
No other twentieth century Prime Minister subsequently sevred in another office, unless one counts Stanley Baldwin's time as Lord President of the Council between his second and third premiership. But Baldwin was still at the height of his powers and returned to Number 10, to retire on a high. Indeed Baldwin's retirement was expected for months (and his successor was unanimously clear) and he managed to leave Downing Street with a higher standing than any of his successors. Tony Blair must be kicking himself. But Baldwin's reputation came to grief before he died - during the war his reputation was tarnished in the row over the country's preparations for war. It has only been in the last forty years that his reputation has been steadily restored.
Others have been hampered by health (Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Andrew Bonar Law, Harold Wilson) and either died very soon or dropped out of public life almost immediately. Some floated around for so long that when they died it was a surprise it had not happened earlier (Lord Roseberry lived for 34 years until 1929). Others had to watch as their political legacy was dismantled and even their own party turned on their government's legacy (Harold Macmillan, Edward Heath, Jim Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, John Major). Some have been respectfully quiet about this, but the actions of Heath and Thatcher in bitterly attacking their successors have brought no credit to them. The legacy of the war preserved Churchill's reputation, even though his peacetime government was an example of a man clinging to office long after he was no longer competent, whilst Clement Attlee died before the backlash against his legacy. Conversely whilst the legacy of Herbert Asquith's government remained in place his own reputation for indecisiveness, the circumstances of his downfall and the subsequent split and destruction of his party meant that he did not die in glory.
What will Tony Blair's legacy be like once he's into the period of lectures and memoirs? Well the observant amongst you will have noticed there are two Prime Ministers I haven't yet mentioned - Anthony Eden and David Lloyd George. Frankly it's hard to think of anything positive to say about Eden's premiership - by the summer of 1956 he was increasingly discredited. And of course it ended in disaster when he launched an attack on an Arab country to domestic and international disapproval. Hardly anyone has managed to justify the Suez Crisis and it increasingly seems that the Iraq War will be remembered equally disastrously.
And then there's the Prime Minister who broke his party, sold honours and ended his days with virtually no-one in politics supporting him. Tony Blair has long said that his political hero is Lloyd George but Blair is hardly the dashing young radical or a country's saviour in time of national crisis. However he has certainly emulated many of the worst features of the Goat (but before anyone suggests anything, I have heard nothing about Blair giving tours of ceilings). With every new revelation about Loans for Lordships, Blair looks more and more tainted, just like his hero.
And what other legacy has Blair got? Most of the changes that have happened under his government can't really be attributed to either him personally or his leadership. He did not received the Nobel Prize for the Northern Ireland Peace Process, whilst Mo Mowlam has always received the credit for the government's contribution. Donald Dewar is remembered as the deliverer of Scottish devolution. And the public services have been shaken up so many times that it seems all that's been achieved is to pour lots of money in and charge the public more. (And in any case with a dominant Chancellor of the Exchequer it's going to be difficult to extract credit for Blair rather than Gordon Brown.) Nor does anyone talk about "Cool Britannia" anymore.
Tony Blair has spent years claiming he is a man of substance not style. But his legacy is a mixture of bad substance or style gone wrong. Which would he prefer to be remembered for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
