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.

Seals of Office

Quite a few in the media have spoken of how Tony Blair is supposed to return the Seals of Office, but that there aren't any seals for the Prime Minister. If I remember correctly this is because in legislation the premiership is technically a position not an office.

However aren't there seals for the First Lord of the Treasury? That is an office.

So who'll be running things later today?

Amidst all the discussion about the end of the "Blair era" and the beginning of the Brown era, one point that isn't too clear is who will be running the country from the moment Blair tenders his resignation to the Queen and when Gordon Brown "kisses hands". (Somehow I just can't imagine Brown on his knee kissing the Queen's hand! Yes I know it's not supposed to be literal but that hasn't stopped some ministers giving a kiss anyway.)

This is hardly unprecedented - there have been many times in history when there have been gaps of days if not weeks between on Prime Minister leaving office (or dying) and another being appointed. A convention long existed that when a Prime Minister tended their resignation the entire government left office immediately even though it could take more days before new ministers had been appointed.And the United Kingdom is not alone in this - in the United States it was never very clear until 1937 whether a President's term of office formally ended at midnight or noon (and there's a story of a hungover Senator being President for one day - see Wikipedia: David Rice Atchison). But the modern world expects so much more precision look at the way that both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush took steps to ensure that Presidential power was temporarily transferred for a few hours to their Vice Presidents whilst they were undergoing operations.

For example if there's an attack on this country between Blair and Brown, who has the authority to respond? Does David Miliband still have authority to deal with the flood emergency? Or does the response have to wait until Brown has appointed an Environment Secretary. And for that matter when does the appointment take effect and empower the minister - an announcement by Brown? An announcement by the relevant Department? A formal appointments ceremony? Does anyone know?

Is this the best way to run a country in the 21st century? Is there a better way to do it?

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.

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?