Compare and contrast the approaches to political leadership of post-war Conservative leaders
Compare and contrast the approaches to political leadership of post-war Conservative leaders
The approaches to political leadership of the Conservative party is an interesting subject because the leader has so much power at their disposal that the party is so obviously affected by them, "Much of the character of the Conservative Party at any one time is delivered from its' leader, who sets the tone and much of the acceptable agenda." The approaches to leadership of the seven Conservative leaders since 1945 are all unique. They do however contain certain similarities between them that can be identified. In this essay I will use two definitions of style of leadership and show how each leader fits the definition. I will then draw the two definitions together and attempt to show which leaders were the most similar and which ones the most contradictory.
The seven Conservative leaders are; Winston Churchill (1940-1955); Anthony Eden (1955-1957); Harold Macmillan (1957-1963); Alex Douglas-Home (1963-1965); Edward Heath (1965-1975); Margaret Thatcher (1975-1990); and John Major (1990-present). Unlike those of the Labour party, every Conservative leader since 1945 has held some time in power. No Conservative leader has not been Prime Minister. Although it can be argued that a leader will act differently in opposition to when in power, it seems fair to examine their approaches whilst they were in power, thereby analysing them in broadly similar circumstances.
The first typology is that of Francis Williams' who was Clement Attlees press secretary. He differentiates leaders in to three categories; Pathfinders, Problem Solvers, and Stabilisers. Pathfinders are visionaries and attempt to achieve a goal and are prepared, if necessary to do this despite their party. Problem Solvers produce novel solutions to particular situations, they however lack long term consistency and colleagues can find it hard to follow their leadership. Stabilisers are leaders that attempt to unify their party by instilling confidence in them and the electorate, they can however be sometimes seen to be dull and unwilling to take control of their government. Linked to this typology is style in Cabinet, Pathfinders lead and dominate their Cabinets whilst Problem Solvers and Stabilisers tend to be more conciliatory
Leaders normally associated with Pathfinders are Chuchill, Heath and Thatcher. Mrs Thatcher was perhaps the most extreme of the three Pathfinders. To an extent Churchill and Heath were more in line with their party on policy. Mrs Thatcher was very much in a minority inside her party and her agenda was peculiar to herself. Thatcher described herself as a "conviction politician" and was determined not to change her policies in public as much as possible. She exercised great party discipline and used her powers in such a way to give herself enormous influence over the policy making process, her personality was sometimes known to be quite fierce and created a sense of fear with ministers and the civil service "Normans' [Tebbitt] own position is particularly strong, as he is known to be a particularly strong favourite of the Lady [Mrs Thatcher], of whom they [the Civil service] are all completely terrified. And with good reason." She interfered greatly with the affairs of departments, taking an unprecedented close interest in the promotion of Mandarins. In Cabinet, she did not chair the meetings, it was more of domination. She led government from above, dragging it along with her as opposed to being part of it, this was epitomised by her speech, referring to Government as "they" not "we."
Heath "was determined to modernise Britain in a way which his mentors in the Tory governments of the 1950s and early 1960s had shied away from." Heath had a view of where Britain should be, and attempted to place it there, however, his view was in the minority of the party, he subsequently treated Ministers and Members of Parliament in an offhand, brusque manner. The overriding commitments for Heath were Europe, the Trade Unions and Local government. He was elected to power with a manifesto that was more radical than Thatchers' in 1979. His style in Cabinet was ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Heath "was determined to modernise Britain in a way which his mentors in the Tory governments of the 1950s and early 1960s had shied away from." Heath had a view of where Britain should be, and attempted to place it there, however, his view was in the minority of the party, he subsequently treated Ministers and Members of Parliament in an offhand, brusque manner. The overriding commitments for Heath were Europe, the Trade Unions and Local government. He was elected to power with a manifesto that was more radical than Thatchers' in 1979. His style in Cabinet was quite confrontational and the loss of Iain Macleod meant that "Heath had lost a minister who would have stood up to him," instead, "Heath established a dominance in Cabinet which was not good for his ministers." By the time of the big economic U-turn in 1972, Heath was relying on a few senior servants for advice and not Cabinet.
Winston Churchill as Prime Minister during the second World War was definitely a Pathfinding leader. However after the war had ended and the Labour victory of 1945, there was a change of style. He remained committed to his ideals about the Welfare State and reformist sympathies. He however became quite distant from his front bench mainly due to old age - he was 76 when re-elected in 1951 - and ill health. He described himself as having quite conciliatory views but his leadership style was still of a Pathfinder. The three Pathfinders tried to lead the party from the front, they were less prepared to be discursive or compromise over policy than the following to categories. Thatcher and Churchill and to a lesser extent also Heath also possessed a degree of charisma which allowed them to be so dominant in their party.
Anthony Eden was the only Problem Solver. Eden spent a long time waiting to become leader but spent a very short time in office; principally due to the Suez crisis which is unusual because his forte was considered to be Foreign affairs. In Cabinet, his "Former colleagues speak of a Jekyll and Hyde character, charming and considerate one moment, petty and ill-tempered the next." He was a meddler, constantly contacting them at all hours and interfering with their work. His attempt to solve the Suez crisis was indeed a novel solution but ultimately it failed. He was not in power long enough to make any significant impact as leader and his time could be well summed up as 'crisis' management.
John Major; Douglas-Home; and Macmillan were stabilisers. John Major describes himself as stabilising and conciliatory, His style is "to go to a great deal of trouble to take the views of colleagues, to take colleagues through all the options and reach a considered view that all colleagues will rally behind." He is described by Jones as "the classic balancer" in his nature; and his negotiation of the opt-out clause of the Maastricht treaty helped to keep the party together. His style in Cabinet is certainly conciliatory in contrast to someone like Thatcher, his Cabinet discussions "were more relaxed and more like discussions [compared to Thatcher]." He is less keen to claim personal credit and more concerned to reflect the Cabinet view. The two can be best contrasted in the two following quotations, "If, in development of policy, I can reach a conclusion that I believe to be right with the minimum of noise...I will do so. If I can soothe wounds, I will do so. If I can avoid people feeling excluded, I will avoid people feeling excluded." [Major] "I couldn't waste time having internal arguments" [Thatcher] However, this approach has led to an image crisis for Major, he is often perceived as a weak leader lacking vision, something which he seems to have a hard time combating.
Macmillan was considered a 'middle of the road' remote character. He saw Cabinet as a cohesive body to keep all the factions in line and was very discursive in Cabinet. His characterisation as 'Supermac' captured his personal dominance of politics during the first five years and his mastery of the relatively new invention of Television with quotes such as "people 'have never had it so good.'" gave him a strong image with the public. He was a supporter of the mixed economy and the Consensus which was broadly in line with his party. His success at restoring the Conservative party to power after Suez led some to believe that the party was in permanent ascendancy. His power was eventually weakened by DeGaulles' veto of Great Britains entry into the Common Market in 1963 and his mis-management of his Cabinet - the night of the long knives and finally the Profumo affair - showed that he was out of touch with his party and the ensuing debate about Profumo was used to wound him deeply. His image with the public began to falter also, the 'Grouse-moor' image was used to reinforce the detachment, sense of decline and drift which characterised his government.
Douglas-Home was considered the first Conservative leader to be from the right of centre since Bonar-Law. It was claimed at the time that he was chosen because of his stabilising, unifying abilities but some could argue that Rab Butler was also able to do so. Homes' style was also a problem for him, he was perceived as an outdated character continuing the 'Grouse-moor image' increasingly failing in running the government, the city and industry. Whilst on television he came across as skeletal and quite unimpressive. The attacks by Iain Macleod on the leader and the selection process for leader hit a nerve with the Conservative party who promptly changed the process and forced Home to resign.
There are a number of similarities between the stabilising leaders. Firstly, they all had an image crisis whilst in power, The effects however were quite different. All three were prepared to listen and be more discursive in Cabinet than the Pathfinders, this is a point worth making even though it can be argued that being discursive is a defining characteristic of a Stabiliser. Both Home and Macmillan were quite relaxed in their approach to leadership; Major, however, appears more prepared to be involved but not in the domineering style of the Pathfinders.
The second characteristic of leadership is a simple distinction of involved or relaxed in their style. Here, only Home and Macmillan can be considered to be relaxed; The other five leaders are interventionists. Home has been described as the last Prime minister who was not particularly bothered about it. He described his 364 days as leader as "a year in which we had nothing to do because we had finished our programme and you couldn't do anything except await the election" Macmillan had a laid back 'Edwardian style' of leadership who preferred to read Jane Austin novels than meddle with ministers.
Major is involved in a conciliatory way, he is prepared to take the initiative in many policy areas of government, but is unwilling to make any decisions against the general will of the Cabinet. As already described, Mrs Thatcher was very involved in that she controlled Government as much as she could. Heath was a strategic-reformer, looking after what he saw to be the national interest, he was subsequently quite active and was quite offhand with Members of Parliament in getting his way. Eden was described by his colleagues as a meddler, interfering in Ministers' work, which made his dealings in Cabinet more difficult. Churchill helped set the tone and provide the vision for the Conservative government after 1951. He was a strong, dominant character but allowed his Ministers a high level of autonomy, Shepherd argues that he gave them too much.
The most contrasting leader to the rest is Thatcher. The main reasons for this are that she is a woman and her views are in the minority of the party. Her sex obviously altered her approach and political style; she had to fight her way to the top being the 'disadvantaged' sex, this seems to have entrenched her views that gain should be valued on merit not which school an individual went to. Once in power this disadvantage was turned into an advantage, she exploited her sex against Ministers' with 'traditional' values and found it hard to argue with a woman due to their chivalrous nature. The minority position she had in the party is an unusual position for the leader to be in. She was forced to use her charisma and perceived delectability to gain support and loyalty. It is hard to imagine any other leader of the post war era being able to pass some of the legislation which Thatcher managed to get through with policies such as the smashing of the Trades Unions, large scale privatisation and the reform of the civil service. As a direct contrast, Major does have an identifiable agenda, however his is not on such a grand scale. His deals with concepts such as the citizens charter; a classless society; and freedom of information. These concepts can be seen to be uncontroversial or even insignificant.
Finally the last distinction is that Major, Thatcher and Heath were all meritocrats, not coming from 'privileged' backgrounds as their predecessors had. This changed their approach by making them more aware of rewarding merit and being less inclined to favour the old school network. For example, Major talks of 'a nation at ease with itself' whereas Thatcher attempted to remove the upper class bias from the civil service.
The Conservative party is an interesting case to study approaches to political leadership for two main reasons, each leader since 1945 has held the office of Prime Minister; secondly, the leader is very powerful within the party. The two main typologies used to compare the approaches are Francis Williams' of Pathfinders, Problem Solvers and Stabilisers. The second is the distinction of a relaxed leader or an interventionist one. As discussed earlier, each leader is certainly unique in their approach to the leadership but they can be made to fit the above models. They can then be compared both within their groups and between each other. On top of these characterisations are the individual attributes which make them contrast with each other, the most extreme example of this being Mrs Thatcher.
Bibliography.
Behrens, R.
The Conservative Party From Heath To Thatcher. Saxon House. Westmead. 1980.
Clark, A.
Diaries. Weidenfield and Nicholson. London. 1993.
Dearlove, J and Saunders, P.
Introduction to British Politics. 2nd edition. Polity Press. 1993.
Gilmour, I.
Inside Right. Quartet Books. London. 1978.
Jones, B et al.
Politics UK. Harvester and Wheatsheaf. Hemel Hempsted. 1994.
Pearce, E.
The Quiet Rise Of John Major. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. London. 1991.
Shepherd, R.
The Power Brokers. The Tory Party and It's Leaders. Hutchinson, Somerset. 1991.
Seldon, A.
My First Five Years - By John Major. Daily Telegraph. London. 27/11/95.
Seldon, A.(Editor).
UK Political Parties Since 1945. Philip Allan. Hemel Hempsted. 1990.
Shell, D and Hodder-Williams, R. (editors).
Churchill to Major. The British Prime Ministership Since 1945. Hurst and Company. London. 1995.
