Easing of Covid restrictions have allowed a friend and myself to resume our “putting the world to rights” sessions over a couple of beers. As is normally the case with old guys, we tend to view the present through the lens of the past. During a recent stroll down memory lane, we surprised ourselves by calculating that we have seen 14 prime ministers come and go. Well, 13 have gone, and the 14th probably won’t be far behind. As baby boomers, our lives have been bookended by Attlee and Johnson, the most and least able of the 14. From there it was a small step to consider who might be our 15th should, heaven forbid, Mr Johnson go under the proverbial bus, possibly the red one with that big lie on its side.
Our difficulty identifying possible successors underlines the current lack of political talent or even promise. To be fair, we had a similar problem with possible successors to the First Minister at Holyrood. At Westminster, any expectation that the next tenant of Number Ten must be better than his/her predecessor has been cruelly dashed. The Tory party has a flair for choosing leaders of monumental inadequacy. Perhaps not surprising, as the selection process isn’t burdened by trivialities such as ability, application, principle and honesty. Alarmingly, it’s possible that despite his failing every test, we may not have reached the nadir with Mr Johnson.
Read more: A free press is the best guardian of things we hold most dear
It’s tempting to contrast the current dearth of talent with the decades after the end of World War Two. Sure, there were some rotten prime ministers during those years. Eden and Home were duds, while Macmillan and Wilson were as slippery as bars of soap. Nevertheless, there was a depth of ability sadly absent from the current political scene. In his book The Lost Leaders, Edward Pearce, former writer for the Herald, Telegraph and Guardian, identified “the best prime ministers we never had”. The book is a reminder that there was once a crop of politicians who, despite their experience and ability, never made it to the top of the greasy pole. Pearce focuses on just three; Labour’s Denis Healey, and two Conservatives, Richard “Rab” Butler and Iain Macleod. It’s ironic that Butler was bypassed twice for Macmillan and Home. Even more bizarrely, Labour, in one of its death-wish phases, chose Michael Foot ahead of Healey. Pearce could have included others, such as Roy Jenkins, Hugh Gaitskell and Kenneth Clarke. Their omission further underlines the present lack of political talent.
Why should one generation be blessed with an abundance of ability while ours is so devoid of political flair? A partial explanation might be the wartime service and experiences of post-war politicians. Many of the leading figures of the Fifties, Sixties and Seventies had first-hand experience of fascism and of warfare. Enoch Powell and the unfortunate Jack Profumo for example, were brigadiers and Edward Heath was a colonel. Macleod went ashore at Gold Beach on D-Day. Healey, still in his 20s, shouldered the awesome responsibilities of beachmaster at the Anzio landings. At a similar age the current Prime Minister and his fellow Bullingdons were trashing Oxford restaurants. It’s hard to imagine Mr Johnson or Mr Hancock marshalling men and material under fire at Anzio. It was inevitable that wartime experiences shaped the characters, beliefs, principles and careers of politicians such as Butler, Healey and Macleod. All three shared a sense of decency that ironically, impeded their paths to Number Ten. It’s a blessing that today’s leaders have been spared the horrors of war, but it partly explains the current deficiencies in principle, perspective and morality. In later years Healey turned down the lucrative chairmanship of GEC because it was incompatible with his role as a former defence secretary. Mr D Cameron of Chipping Norton, please note.
Post-war politicians faced multiple, complex problems that make Covid appear trifling in comparison. Generally, they were well equipped and up for the challenge. Beyond their character-forming wartime experiences, Butler and Healey were formidable scholars. Macleod had a less glittering academic record but all three had a clear view of the world and Britain’s place in it. Even in wartime, Butler had driven forward far-reaching educational reforms. In later years he held several of the great offices of state including chancellor. As home secretary he laid the foundation for Roy Jenkin’s later reforms. Healey is regarded as one of the ablest defence secretaries and as chancellor, dealt as effectively as was possible with the country’s virtual bankruptcy. Early death cruelly cut short Macleod’s ministerial career. In contrast, Mr Johnson and his front bench colleagues have assumed the highest offices not on the back of similar life and political experience, but on a wave of uncritical populism. Putting it generously, Mr Johnson’s brief spell at the Foreign Office was at best, undistinguished. Butler, Healey, Macleod and others, none of whom made it to Number Ten, would not have seen Mr Johnson, Ms Patel or Mr Sunak in their way.
Read more: It’s time to stop blaming others and take more personal responsibility
There’s no mystery to the Westminster and Holyrood quality issue. Politics has become a career and an end in itself. The shortest route into both and possibly a ministerial position, is via the party machine. A university degree, assistant to a MP or MSP, election as a local councillor and then adoption as a parliamentary candidate is the well-trodden path. Character forming experiences and service that shape principles and actions rarely figure, thus contributing to general cynicism about politicians on the make and politics generally. Late in life, Healey said of his military service, “It made everyone realise that there is such a thing as society and we all depend on one another. And that’s completely gone now.” How right he was.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel