Life after high office

An excellent blog post which looks at what happens to politicians after they leave office. Theresa May is the central theme, but the net is cast much wider: Losing political office

As is pointed out, the psychological costs of political exit can be high, particularly if you have no 'hinterland'. I remember being at an event where Ted Heath was sulking in a corner and being rude. Dennis Healey read me his latest poem.

Of recent prime ministers, John Major has probably made the best adjustment, in part because he is seen as a fundamentally decent guy and not as bad a prime minister as he was seen to be at the time, surrounded by rampant Eurosceptics.

PMQs today showed what political exit can look like, both the PM and the front bench looked as if they were attending a wake in a morgue, which I suppose they were.

The Major premiership

Yesterday I attended a book launch at Liverpool University's impressive London premises for a book on the Major premiership to which I contributed. Contributors were invited to make presentations.

A view that emerged was that John Major was more successful than he appeared at the time, also a theme in the book. For example, he did much of the heavy lifting on Northern Ireland, although Tony Blair took much of the credit.

Professor Lord Norton pointed out that he was actually the third longest serving continuous prime minister of the last hundred years (the 2017 date excludes Asquith).

One view was that it takes a good jockey to ride a difficult horse, but perhaps there had been too much emphasis on the horse in terms of the political context at the time.

Major was first elected in 1979 and hence never served in opposition. He had no opportunity to prepare to be prime minister and to think through what he wanted to do. He fell into the pragmatic category of Conservative prime ministers. His lack of principle and philosophy was to some extent his undoing. However, he did have deep Conservative instincts as well as being pragmatic.

One speaker drew a comparison with Theresa May, asking what does she believe in? The electorate seem to compare her with Mrs Thatcher.

He has been one of the most successful post Prime Ministers, making rare and judicious interventions with good timing. Of course, in a way that is faint praise. It is rather like saying Jimmy Carter was a better post president than he was president.

His long autobiography was one of the best written by a prime minister since Churchill and was characterised by his dry wit.

The book concludes, 'In history, Major is not a towering figure like Attlee or Thatcher, but nor is he a failure like Balfour or Eden, nor a footnote in the party's evolution like Bonar Law or Douglas Hume.'

What happens to former prime ministers?

I have been reading a very interesting book by Kevin Theakston After Number 10. In the States, the notion of an effective post-presidency was really invented by Jimmy Carter who seems to have made a more positive impact once he left office. There are analogies in Britain, Balfour being a prime example.

Some of the least successful prime ministers have enjoyed life much more after leaving office, examples including Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who returned to office as Foreign Secretary, and Sir John Major who has developed a series of business roles and enjoyed his cricket. Hinterland seems to be important. For those for whom politics was the centre of their lives, such as Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher, the adjustment has been much more difficult.

What is certainly the case is that prime ministers no longer have financial problems once they leave office. Asquith had to be helped out by his friends, as did Churchill (who admittedly was a big spender) and Attlee left very little money. These days not only is there the autobiography, but also the chance to make big bucks on the American lecture circuit.

Gordon Brown is not, of course, in the book. But he said that he intends to devote himself to his constituents and to international development work, particularly in Africa where he has been this weekend.

The 1992 show?

Peter Hain thinks that Labour could pull of a surprise 1992 style poll victory: Hain

The difficult with this analogy was that John Major was a relatively new face in 1992 and, whatever else people thought about him, they generally found him personally likeable. Gordon Brown has been a major figure for thirteen years, initially in a 'dual monarchy' leadership.

Hain thinks the opinion polls are overstating the Tory lead because it's not 'cool' to admit one is backing Brown. No doubt when it gets to decision day some loyal Labour voters will reluctantly stick with the party, if only for fear of something worse. But it could also be seen as not 'cool' to be a Conservative.

What Dave Cameron has to be careful of is not talking the country down too much, either by predicting a Greek-style collapse of the public finances or over emphasising the broken society theme. If he can't give people some hope for a better future, they may not be enthused about voting for him.

Interestingly, Hain does admit that Labour has been losing ground in Wales, in part as a result of social changes. This is not insignificant given that the principality is somewhat over represented at Westminster: Cymru

Who is in charge?

When Lord Mandelson became First Secretary of State (a title once held by the late George Brown) we were told that in effect he was deputy prime minister. But as Gordon Brown goes on holiday in the Lake District we are told that Harriet Harman is running the country.

She has taken the opportunity to demand that one of the Labour leaders in future must always be a woman. This did not get a sympathetic hearing in the media with ITV (a woman reporter) using the politically incorrect 'Harriet Harperson' joke. No doubt the aristocrat from Dulwich would see this as further evidence of sexism in British politics.

Meanwhile, rumours persist that Mandy will take advantage of new legislation to resign as a peer so that he can become Labour leader. The Labour Finance and Industry Group, made up of wealthy donors, has threatened to cut off funding to Labour unless Gordon Brown goes.

This is objectionable on a number of fronts. Wealthy individuals should not deciding who leads a political party. For me it reaffirms my view that the business class and the political class should be kept apart. The rapid disappearance of the business 'goats' from Gordon Brown's government confirms this view.

We first heard in the 1960s that the country should be run as a company, Great Britain Ltd., with business persons bringing their gift for efficiency to the table. Most of them quickly learn that the problems in politics are far more complex and intractable. Moreover, your instructions are not carried out to the extent that they would be in a business.

The Labour Finance and Industry Group also called for Mandy to replace Gordon. This again shows their lack of judgment. Mandy is a very smart political operator, probably the smartest we have around at the moment. But that does not qualify him to lead the country. His grandfather, Herbert Morrison, had many of the same qualities, but he was out smarted by Attlee in his attempts to become prime minister.

Gordon Brown is now as unpopular as John Major was when he left office, but in many ways he is a more tragic figure. People thought that Major was a weak prime minister, but they generally regarded him as a likeable person. Today he makes occasional pronouncements as an elder statesmen whilst enjoying his cricket.

So who will succeed Gordon Brown when he leaves the back door of Downing Street and Dave Cameron comes through the front? I doubt whether it will be Mandy. Harriet Harman has a coalition of support and could come through a crowded field. Perhaps it will be man on the make Andy Burnham? Or Labour could go for the equivalent of Pope Benedict and choose the Home Secretary Alan Johnson.

For some observations on Harriet Harman's remarks by John Prescott go here: Prezza