please empty your brain below
Re Lloyd George, although he was nominally a Liberal himself, he led a Conservative dominated govt, partic after the khaki election of 1918. Churchill’s first govt was more evenly split between Con and Lab ministers, and he himself had once been a Liberal, so possibly the first rainbow coalition? (Possibly not.)

Philip | 03.04.21 - 9:43 a.m. | #

Indeed. Coalitions complicate things. But it was clever of DG to use a very specific definition of who was in charge (the affiliation of the Prime Minister), to link that with the 300th anniversary of the role, and make a fact-based wide-ranging conclusion.

Any picture of three centuries in an essay of this brevity is bound to be a simplification. But I find this one is quite telling.

If only we could learn from this bit of history.

Malcolm | 03.04.21 - 9:51 a.m. | #

Love that this was posted at 03:00.

Hadders | 03.04.21 - 9:58 a.m. | #

BBC Radio has a new series titled "The Prime Minister at 300" which is worth a listen despite the less than promising introduction.
Also available on BBC Sounds.

dg writes: Indeed, I was listening to the first episode while you were typing that :)

Frank F | 03.04.21 - 11:01 a.m. | #

I find the last line of this post comforting.

MO | 03.04.21 - 11:07 a.m. | #

One of the best books I have read on the Prime Ministers is Gimson's Prime Ministers - very brief lives with two or three pages on each their, life and legacy - this is especially good for those you don't know that well.

Nigel Redford | Homepage | 03.04.21 - 11:23 a.m. | #

I've been reading 'Sybil', a novel by Disraeli from 1845. As an insight into the country of this era and where our politics came from, it's worth a read. Different times, but plenty of characters in public life who are easy to recognise.

mark addy | 03.04.21 - 11:24 a.m. | #

I was interested to read a biography of Queen Anne, which made it clear that in her day it was expected that a cabinet would be a blend of Whig and Tory, albeit with one or the other dominant. It was incumbent upon her to balance the different factions in her cabinet - rather like the present prime-minister's predecessor doing a similar thing within her own party. It seems that only in George I's reign did the idea come in of one party having total hegenomy.

cau1khead | 03.04.21 - 11:28 a.m. | #

The trouble with knowing a Prime Minster will be replaced is seeing the problems and conflicts they bring while being in power.

Tones | 03.04.21 - 11:49 a.m. | #

When I think of prime ministers, one of the first to come to mind is George Canning, since I used to live near a pub of that name.

Alan | 03.04.21 - 11:53 a.m. | #

I'm interested in how many elections/years of the partys' lives (or since first major result) they have been in power for. Labour for 37 of 98/121 years.

toby | 03.04.21 - 12:24 p.m. | #

Thanks for an interesting post DG

The ratio of Conservative to Labour wins is stark. Only one Labour leader born after World War Two has won a General Election. That was Tony Blair and he won three of them on the bounce.

Just goes to show quite what a mountain a Labour Leader of the Opposition has to climb in order to become a PM. Not insurmountable but very challenging under our current voting system.

IanD | 03.04.21 - 12:55 p.m. | #

And following on from the previous post - how the smaller parties really don't stand a hope of ever winning!

I find the last sentence depressing. Not that the current PM will be replaced, but the likelihood of it being more of the same, regardless of which colour wins!

Cornish Cockney | 03.04.21 - 5:34 p.m. | #

Just as long as the replacement isn't the slithy Gove. Though the rest of the crew isn't much better.

Autolycus | Homepage | 04.04.21 - 1:35 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy