And Now For Something Completely Different: (1/3)

We've just released a podcast episode ranking our favourite post-Thatcher Prime Ministers (here), but it's about time we looked at all the post-war Premiers.

We won't be ranking them this time, but giving you a brief bluffer's guide to each PM. We'll cover how they entered and exited office, what their main achievements/failures were, and how they governed. It's gonna be great.

However, it's also a big job, so we're breaking it down into three posts, covering three political eras: 

1) 1945-1964: the welfare state is formed as Britain struggles with diminishing world influence.

2) 1964-1990: Labour are back, but the economy is tanking. Cue Thatcher.

3) 1990-2019: the centrists dominate, but struggle with Thatcher's legacy and global crises

This post starts in the ruins of the Second World War, and ends with the expulsion of a twelve-year Tory government, forming a highly significant period in British history.

The universal welfare state is formed, with the NHS created and key industries nationalised. Big government came to stay. 

But as the country reinvented its domestic affairs it also struggled with a diminishing role on the world stage, as two hundred years of international dominance came to an end. This is the era where Britain transitioned from imperialist hegemon to progressive nation state - a legacy we're left with today.

Weeks before the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in August 1945, Churchill called a general election. The National Government that had run the country through six years of war was dissolved (more on that here.)

And after a gruelling campaign, the Labour Party shocked the nation by winning for the first time since 1926. In a landslide too. And this government was like none before it.

Clement Attlee: 1945-1952 (Lab)

If you don't study politics, you might think Attlee rather boring and unnoticeable. If you do study politics you know Attlee was boring and unnoticeable. 

Yet he spun those very traits into a sense of reliability and dedication, forging a wartime coalition, winning two elections and repairing Britain after humanity's worst crisis.

Known for introducing the National Health Service - healthcare free at the point of delivery - Attlee's government also ushered in universal pensions and national insurance, ended the empire in India, nationalised a fifth of the economy (including the Bank of England), secretly developed Britain's first A-bomb, and demobilised 1.5 million troops across the globe.  

His administration even played a role in developing the Marshall Plan - massive American loans to Europe for recovery.

All while recovering from a massive global conflict. In just his first two years, Attlee's administration spent more than any previous British government - ever. The workload nearly broke him.

His weak understanding of economics meant the economy remained chronically unstable; rationing was still in force seven years after war had ended. Yet he is today regarded as one of Britain's greatest post-war premiers, if not of all time.

Winston Churchill: 1952-1955 (Cons)

Churchill worked best as the figurehead of a balanced, rounded team - something he had done in wartime. But as an elder statesman doddering through a second term, his legacy is mixed. Having won the 1952 election, he wasn't quite sure what to do with it.

The second Churchill ministry was most prominent on international affairs. Desperate for a better Anglo-American relationship, Winston tried to create a US-Soviet detente. However, President Eisenhower remained evasive and the USSR distant.

Domestically, Churchill allowed his Cabinet to conduct the straightforward policies of building houses, ending rationing and balancing the economy. However there was a notable lack of vision, underpinned by the Prime Minister's age and deteriorating condition. After prolonged illness Churchill resigned in 1955.

Anthony Eden: 1955-1956 (Cons)

Anthony Eden was Churchill's protege and a highly capable Foreign Secretary. Chosen to lead after Churchill resigned, Eden subsequently won an election against the rudderless Labour party.

Despite his obvious skill, however, Eden's ministry is overshadowed by an operation to covertly recapture the Suez Canal from the Egyptians. 

The plan blew up in his face after the Americans (now becoming the world policeman) openly condemned the operation, along with most of the rest of the world. 

Britain was humiliated and Eden, amidst claims of lying to the Commons, resigned. He was vastly overshadowed by his successor.

Harold Macmillan: 1956-1963 (Cons)

So close, yet so far. Probably the standout Prime Minister of this era in his ingenuity, political scheming and 'grand designs', Harold Macmillan came fairly close to transforming the country. But he couldn't quite clinch it, despite election victory in 1959.

Famously declaring 'you've never had it so good' in a 1959 speech, 'Supermac' oversaw a bumpily growing economy that lowered unemployment and raised standards of living. 

However he faced the constant agony of maintaining the pound's value while trying to liberalise trade while trying to structurally transform the economy while trying to sustain high employment while trying to suppress inflation. It all culminated in 'stop-go' economics; inconsistent short-term fixes rather than medium-term plans.

In foreign policy, Prime Minister Macmillan had much more success albeit with one obvious failure. He upgraded the UK's nuclear deterrent to Polaris missiles, accelerated decolonisation, repaired the 'Special Relationship' after Suez and brokered a US-USSR test ban treaty.

However, he was unable to achieve the pivotal liberalising measure of joining the EEC - an early EU - thanks to a French veto. This was to haunt the economy. A brutal cabinet reshuffle in 1962 had already weakened his standing, but after de Gaulle's famous 'non', Macmillan ran out of road. 

Looking for an exit, and accelerated by prominent scandals (including the Profumo Affair), in late 1963, under cover of a prostate illness, Macmillan essentially announced his resignation. Frenzy ensued, during which there is evidence that he 'managed' the process of selection to favour his Foreign Secretary, the 14th Earl of Home.

Alec Douglas-Home: 1963-1964 (Cons)

Put forward as a dark horse 'compromise candidate' during the chaos of Macmillan's resignation, Lord Home controversially formed a government in late 1963, the last Lord to do so (he quickly dropped the title and became an MP).

However, with just a year until an election, Prime Minister Home was short on time and opportunities. He couldn't compare with the electrifying, power-hungry Harold Wilson in the Labour Party, and was severely undercut by dissent from his own party. 

Wilson, a skilled speaker and TV performer, convinced the electorate of a need for change in the face of a tiring Conservative Party. Come the October election, Home was booted out of office for a Labour government.

Part 2 is here, or jump ahead to Part 3 here.

And Now For Something Completely Different (2/3)

Part Two of our series on post-war Prime Ministers. Conservative dominance is ended, with the economy replacing foreign affairs as Britain's political centre. And it's economic decline which is the story here, as balancing sterling and union-driven inflation creates an intractable mess.

Harold Wilson: 1964-70 (Lab)

Harold Wilson came to power inheriting an economy with a £400 million trade deficit and without the majority to do much about it. Stop-gap measures bought time until, in 1965 a 'National Plan' was implemented, steadying the economy and giving the government breathing space.

Wilson was a smart tactician, and in 1966 used this relative calm to call an election that swung decisively his way, allowing him to lead a more confident government.

Social spending shot up, amidst growing awareness of poverty, while Roy Jenkins, one of history's few memorable Home Secretaries, introduced greater freedom for abortions, gay rights and literary publishing.

However, any attempts at long-term strategy were blown apart by strikes wobbling the pound. 

To stabilise sterling, it had to be devalued, requiring sharp cuts and damaging the party's reputation. To make matters worse, Wilson botched new industrial action regulations, which irritated the unions. (This was to prove fateful.) And then - of course - we failed to join the EEC again.

Thankfully for Labour, economic recovery beckoned, with the balance of payments going into the black. Buoyed by this, with an upbeat national mood, glorious weather, and a mediocre opposition, Wilson called an election for the summer of 1970. And we're still not quite sure how he lost it.

Ted Heath: 1970-74 (Cons)

It was Ted Heath, the quiet Conservative, who ended remaining British imperial delusions. Continuing the military retreat from bases east of Suez, letting the pound sink in value, and finally - finally! - joining the EEC all in retrospect began to create a new vision of Britain as a modern trading nation.

However, a vision was as far as Heath got.

Major strikes by the powerful National Union of Mineworkers crippled government influence and drove up inflation, while unemployment rose significantly for the first time since the 1930s; these twin crises destroyed government plans to reform the economy.

An intelligent but solitary leader, Heath struggled to cope, especially when the NUM, on its second strike in early 1974, blocked government access to coal. 

During winter. 

In response, he reduced electricity access to just three days each week (the 'three-day week)', and called an election. Where he lost his majority in a hung parliament.

Harold Wilson pt.2: 1974-76 (Lab)

The Labour Party had to govern for eight months as a minority administration, before another election in October yielded a majority of just three seats.

The one success of Wilson's second premiership was approval for EEC membership in a 1975 referendum. And even that split the Labour Party, now a constant sore for Wilson, who won tactical victories but failed to implement any coherent strategy.

Worldwide 'stagflation' set in, with high living costs (inflation hit 20% in the UK) alongside unemployment and recession, something economists hadn't thought possible. Wilson was unable to respond effectively to these crises and resigned that year with health concerns. Foreign Secretary James Callaghan easily won the party ballot.

James Callaghan: 1974-79 (Lab)

By 1974 Britain was the sick man of Europe. With unemployment persistently above a million, inflation at 16%, sterling collapsing, interest rates useless and government spending 'out of control', an IMF bailout was required, savaging confidence and government budgets. 

Callaghan was a 'political animal' but also a trusted, capable figure, adept at compromise. Yet attempts to freeze wages (and curb inflation) angered the unions who, commanding half the workforce, went on a general strike in late 1978. 

Months before, the Prime Minister, overseeing a recovery and optimistic polls, looked set to call a general election. But he backed off just before the unions shut down the country for a 'winter of discontent'. And from then on he was doomed; no-one wanted to vote for a government that left rubbish uncollected and trains idle. 

His thin majority gone in by-elections, Callaghan lost a vote of non confidence in Parliament; this forced an election. The Conservatives ran out easy winners under a formidable leader. Labour were out, and would remain in the wilderness for 18 years.

Margaret Thatcher: 1979-1990 (Cons)

Unlike that other great post-war Tory leader, Macmillan, Margaret Thatcher was not a grand schemer. Her leadership was a blatant opportunism that rammed through action by force of will, chopping and changing ideas and ministers as she liked. She would start with economic reform.

'Thatcherites' believed that if inflation could be reduced, everything else would fall into place. The 1981 budget is famous for its financial harshness in that respect. Despite a recession and collapsing employment, spending was cut to the bone, and the government started haemorrhaging support. 

Not that Thatcher cared. Although she probably appreciated what victory in the Falklands did to Conservative fortunes. With national morale up, and with her determined leadership on display, 1983 was a landslide against the divided Labour Party. 

This gave her a mandate to face down the trade unions; mining and newspaper printing strikes in 1984/5 were bloodily crushed, and the unions have never recovered. And anyway, the economy started to boom, which swung Britain back into optimism.

That 1983 victory also allowed Thatcher to consolidate power and act on her own judgement. Firms were privatised, council housing stock sold-off, income tax slashed twice. Never mind that the new British Telecom and British Airways were monopolies, that there was now precious little housing available for those who needed it most, and that welfare cuts accompanied tax cuts.  

Thatcher knew the consequences and, frankly, didn't care. The poor were their own fault, lazy and idle, and didn't deserve government help.

And then she overreached. Nigel Lawson's hubristic tax cuts in 1988 unleashed inflation again and interest rates had to be jacked up. 
Thatcher herself rolled out an unpopular, regressive 'Poll Tax', which surmised the story of the decade as the 'rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer'. 

And her quiet Deputy Prime Minister, Nigel Howe, frustrated at Thatcher's behaviour towards Europe and ground down by a decade of her self-interested bullying, resigned. The party was shocked into moving against her, and very quickly manoeuvred her out of office.

That was that.

But her legacy remains. A neoliberal, market-centered economy. Union power broken. Politics split on a north-south, rich-poor divide. Inequality entrenched. And a fresh recession for her successor. Read on here, or go back here.

A Fresh Approach

Theo normally writes on this blog, but today Colin Stokes, who grew up in the Second World War and its aftermath, gives his thoughts on Covid-19, and whether a National Government is the way forward.

The Problem

Here we are in the centre of a pandemic; something I never thought would write. Through the years we have somehow manged countless worrying situations – most of which have been human-made: banks going bust; 3-day week; interest rates at over 15%; business shut downs; industrial change; increases in poverty, and so on.

But this time the situation is different. It is nature fighting back against the human world, a world failing to realise that it was built by destroying nature. This is a situation being spread by travel – air and sea – spread by crowds together, spread by a simple cough.

The nearest I can remember witnessing anything like this was when we had a world war. But then that was man-made as well, and it was a world problem, not a UK problem or a family problem. We were all involved in the fight then, as now, but there was much less responsibility then. We couldn't change the war ourselves. This time even that is different. If we don't self-isolate, we could end a life.

The British Solution?

So this is a new situation. We are challenged by it, but so are our leaders. How should they respond? What does Boris Johnson do?

We must remember that in all great historical crises there's never a magic map of what to do. It seems like there should be, but each problem is different and requires unique responses. This time is no different. There is no easy answer. But history may help.

Our political system is set up to be constantly confrontational; the opposition must argue, debate and question against the government, who in turn fight back. It is not set up to deal with a problem that requires unity - a pandemic, least of all. So how do we overcome the lack of compromise, and forge a united parliament?

At the top of all the British political parties are well-meaning individuals with great intellectual capacity. Of course, you may not agree with many, or maybe none, of them. But the reality is they are our leaders. Voted in, and responsible. They must take charge. Yet the current system means that either side can only ever command about half of the country. Half of the brains and backing are out of reach.

This cannot stand. In the last world crisis the UK faced, it was Labour who, in tandem with Churchill, created a 'government of national unity'. A government where all parties worked together, took up cabinet posts together, and abstained from fighting each other in favour of a greater goal. Winston Churchill is (rightly) remembered as the front-man, but it was a team which saved us from the Nazis.

For instance, in the first war cabinet were Conservatives Churchill, Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, with Labour MPs Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood. It was these key figures who first set the country on its path to victory.

And never since has the call been so strong for a united front, drawing from all the depth of British public service. Imagine Labour stalwarts such as Hilary Benn and Yvette Cooper working alongside Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove, pooling their experience and dedication, creating a consensus to respond to this crisis. Instead, we have Corbyn on the sidelines, watching, as the government implements the exact policies he promised in the 2019 election.

The wartime coalition locked in the critics looking for political gain, and meant all those in Westminster and Whitehall were focused on a common goal: victory. Every voter was represented. Every opinion was heard. 100% of the effort was aimed at solving the problem.

And that is what we need right now.

Despite their differences, will Boris realise this is the moment to reach across the divide, and have the humility to ask for Labour's help?

He is being lauded as a capable Prime Minister for his response so far to Coronavirus, but this is a crisis which will keep on rolling and he'll need all the help he can get before long.

It's time to stop being a good PM, and to become a great man.

It's time to call a National Government.


CTS 20/03/27

Creek. No paddle.

We are not legal experts, but we believe that, more than anything else since June 2016, it is the Supreme Court case against Boris Johnson that will be remembered in the future.

When Parliament gains more powers, history notices. The Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the Great Reform Act in 1832; all led to huge changes in the way this island is governed. The Supreme Court unanimously declared that the Prime Minister has overreached his power, which limits what future Prime Ministers can or cannot do. This implicitly gives Parliament more power, and sets a precedent that the Supreme Court can overrule the Prime Minister's actions.

This is because we have no codified constitution. In most countries, the constitution is the political rulebook, dictating what politicians are able to do, what powers the various branches of government have and where their limits are. In the UK, the rulebook doesn't exist.

Or, rather, it does, but across a sprawling mass of documents, and mostly in the minds of the rule-keepers (the Speaker and their Deputies) and players (MPs and the PM) instead of in one central place. This means the rules are often fluid, changeable, or can even be ignored. Unlike in the US, the Prime Minister could become a dictator if they get enough votes (and if the Queen obliges - but that's a whole other issue).

So Boris Johnson, in trying to limit Parliament's power by shutting up shop for five weeks, has only achieved a muscular extension of Parliamentary sovereignty at his own expense. Aside from the rather satisfying end result this is, future Prime Ministers will curse him for how much harder their jobs have been made. Running the country is an intensely stressful occupation, never mind having to deal with one of the most active parliaments in the world. And now said parliament has suddenly been endowed with new possibilities and freedoms to act against the PM.

He is in trouble. This is not a magistrates court dealing in petty theft. The most intelligent and experienced justices in the country have declared him a criminal - a man who has broken the law. In moral terms, that is a deeply alarming judgement of a figure in No.10. In political terms, that means Johnson is likely to lose support from moderate Conservative MPs and much of the more liberal party membership, plus a swathe of the middle-class at an election. Resignation calls are coming from every quarter; remainers are-invigorated, leavers are demoralised; this is a man in trouble.

Don't write him off yet. Laura Kuenssberg earlier suggested that we must not 'underestimate how aggressive Number 10 might be willing to be in response'. In New York for the United Nations Assembly, Johnson could well fly straight home to start an immediate counter-campaign. He still has options. He still has power.

Yet this is a man who has lost all six of his first Commons votes, broken the law and misled the monarch. His Premiership has not been a success story.

And don't you think he looks tired?


Theo