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

What’s a Tory, Balamory?

We often don’t understand what conservatism is. What we should understand is that it isn't pure evil.

Ahead of our episode with Sir John Redwood being released, I thought it would be worth revisiting what 'conservatism' is as an idea, and trying to give it a fair say in an increasingly uncompromising world.

Where does the idea come from; what does it actually believe in; and is it really important?

[Just to clarify: there is conservatism with a small ‘c’, which means the idea/ideology and Conservative with a big ‘C’, which means to belong to the political party. They are slightly different, so don't get confused!]

There are two types of people...

No, seriously. When modern political thought emerged out of the late 1700s, it basically worked out that there are two naturally opposing political groups. A yin and yang, if you will.

Firstly, there are those that want more change in society. They are ‘liberal’, or ‘progressive’, and are dissatisfied with the status quo, seeing it as allowing abuses of power. They feel the government should be the agent of change, and that individuals can benefit from government support. Business is to be regulated, and taxes higher. Labour, the Democrats (USA), the SDP (Germany) are all examples. 

To this, naturally, there must an opposite. Cue 'conservatism'. Conservatives prefers cautious, natural change over time, driven by local communities and institutions, generally feeling there is value in tradition and history. 

Slightly outdated graphic, but it roughly shows positions

They would see government-led change as dangerous, and allowing government excess, so these people prefer a smaller government and trust businesses more. They are the Conservatives (or 'Tories'), the Republicans (USA) and the CDU (Germany).

Naturally, these beliefs all range along a spectrum, with most somewhere in the middle, but if you were to divide society into two political groups, you’d find that it would broadly coalesce along these lines. There are always those who want change, and those who are cautious of it. Simple as that.

Vive la sitting-at-home!

British perception of the French chaos

Conservatism with a small ‘c’ emerged during the French Revolution, when the violent, painful destruction of the French elite (and the resultant wars) shocked much of the middle and upper class in Britain. 

In response they reestablished their commitment to trusting facts, pragmatism and the community in their politics. The flag-waving, 'egalitare'-proclaiming, abstract-thinking Revolutionaries were too distant from their own experiences. They preferred the hard truth to grand plans. 

The philosopher Michael Oakeshott put it like this: ‘To be conservative...is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, near to distant’.

It is not that conservatives hate change, but more that they trust what they can see and hear over lofty principles that mean well, but often fail. Conservatives rely on local communities to keep in check the government and the excesses of the individual. Liberals believe that government is always good, and that people are generally well-meaning. Conservatives are less naive.

The Party of Government

If you follow British or American politics, you will likely have an unfavourable view of the right-wing, having seen the behavior of President Trump, or the Conservative Party around Brexit. Yet, this is a chaotic anomaly for a group that in history has been the stewards of responsible economic management and reliability.

For instance, it was the Conservative Party that pulled Britain’s economy out of a post-World War Two slump, after the Labour Party struggled; 

it was Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in the 1960s who pioneered the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, accelerated decolonisation, and oversaw Britain's permanent transition into a modern economy by liberalising business;

thirty years later, John Major strengthened the European Union, began the Northern Ireland peace process and halved unemployment;

the Coalition austerity plans skillfully reduced a damaging budget deficit, while reducing the tax the poorest had to pay and making British universities world-class again.

Forty-four of the seventy-four years since 1945 have seen a Conservative PM. Time and time again they have been reelected. Surely, with the public so often backing them there must be merit in the Conservative belief of reliable, non-experimental politics?

Of course, we must except the present state of conservatism. It has failed to respond responsibly to nationalist populism and so has been corrupted by xenophobia and racism. Their policies are being pulled out of responsible thinking and into the realms of unicorn-land that more often belongs to the left-wing.

The sharp Republican turn to the right in the USA
has caused political deadlock

But conservatives have done a lot of good. By making progress steady, rather than excessive, and stabilising the United Kingdom when it needed it most, they have fully contributed to the effective running of this country. 

More worryingly is what fills the gap if the conservative parties crumble and forget their beliefs. Progressive parties are not perfect; something will emerge to oppose them, but it looks like 'something' will be very far right.


Conservatism isn't all bad, so it would be a shame if it screwed us over now.


Theo

Oh Jeremy Corbyn...?

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party is widely tipped to become Prime Minister in the next general election (in 2022) if not before. I’m not so sure.



The Economist predicts a Corbyn victory...

The Labour Party surpassed all expectations last June when they secured 262 of 650 seats in

Parliament- up 30 from 2015.

Pollsters and experts alike were discussing the probability of a Tory landslide, but maverick Jeremy Corbyn instead led Labour to not-exactly-victory-but-a-better-than-expected-result.

Most journalists are now pushing the idea that he could win the next election, but I feel they’re simply overcompensating for their badly incorrect predictions of the 2017 election.



...as does the i.



40% vote share

The Labour Party was founded in 1900 to represent the working class and trade unions. They’ve since had six prime ministers and varying degrees of success in Opposition; they're the only party equal to the Conservatives, with a far wider support base.

In 1992 the party suffered one of their most humiliating election defeats, only taking 271 seats. The then leader, Neil Kinnock, subsequently resigned.

Jezza celebrating what was, really, a defeat.

And last year, Jeremy Corbyn performed worse than Kinnock. Instead, he decided to stay in power, even though Labour's vote share was only around 40%.

For a party that’s meant to be on an equal footing with the Conservatives, and has trounced them in the past, Corbyn's 'successes' are quite hollow. It's worth remembering that for all the bombast about his performance in the last election, he still lost - badly. 

Hearts and minds

Theresa May had the worst ever approval rating for a British Prime Minister a month after an election. Her net rating of -25 (she's 'disliked' 25% more than 'liked') is far worse than Corbyn's -11.

That's good news for Labour, right? Well...no. May still has a clear margin on 'Suitability for Prime Minister' (12% more), and if Corbyn has a much better approval rating, why is Labour not making more headway in the polls?

The parties are only a few points apart, as they've been for months. If Labour are unable to exploit the raging disapproval of Prime Minister May after 6 months, then it doesn't bode well for the next five years.

Granted, Corbyn was in a similar position before the last election, but he's reached the limits of his current support base (i.e. the youth and poorer communities). He needs to find more votes from somewhere, and he's making little progress with over-35s and richer homes. It's hardly the success story that the media proclaims.

Jeremy Corbyn's political strength is grossly overestimated: he and the Labour Party aren't skilled enough to exploit their opponent's unpopularity and poor handling of Brexit; and his 2017 election result wasn't a success, no matter what his supporters may say.

His chances of securing a majority in Parliament are much smaller than he would have you believe.