DOCSLIB.ORG

Evidence from Professor Vernon Bogdanor 7 December 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evidence from Professor Vernon Bogdanor 7 December 2015 Evidence from Professor Vernon Bogdanor 7 December 2015 BK: We’ll kick off, if we can. Thank you very much for coming to present to us this afternoon. I’d like to start with quite an open question. You wrote this very excellent report before the election, which set out the crisis in the constitution. If you were taking stock now, post the election, what would you say? Would you feel more or less optimistic? VB: I have taken stock and there is now a second edition of my pamphlet, `The Crisis of the Constitution’, published in February 2016. I am more optimistic to the extent that there is now a broad general policy of devolution and decentralisation in England which I welcome. But there are some fundamental problems that have not been fully confronted. I still hold very strongly to the view that to confront them, we need, if not a constitution, at least a charter, laying out what policy areas are suitable for devolution and decentralisation, and which need to remain at the centre. That is crucial not just for devolution in England, but also for devolution in the non-English parts of the United Kingdom. We do need a clear criterion of what is suitable for devolution and decentralisation and what is not. BK: One of the phrases you use in this document is that ‘asymmetry is the price we pay for the Union’ which is a very striking phrase. VB: There has been a lot of loose talk about a federal system for Britain. Federalism could take two alternative forms, first a Parliament in England, or second regional authorities in England with roughly similar powers to those of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly. Now, as to the first, an English Parliament does have some support, but not, I believe, majority support. I know of no federal system in which 85% of the country live in one of the units. I believe it would annoy the non-English people in the UK by replicating English dominance. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare if one imagines an English Parliament sitting in, shall we say, Bristol or Newcastle, and the various conflicts of jurisdiction that would occur with a United Kingdom Parliament sitting in Westminster. I believe that the last thing the public want is another set of politicians and officials staffing an English Parliament. John Major said once, ‘If the answer is more politicians, you’re asking the wrong question.’ Now, as regards a regional system, that would not solve the West Lothian question because no one proposes regional governments with legislative powers, so that there would be different laws in Newcastle from those in Bristol. Even with the sort of scheme that John Prescott proposed in 2004 for the North East, the area thought to be most sympathetic to devolution, no one was particularly interested. I think the trouble is that, in England, regions do not attract the kind of emotional allegiance as do Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, or regions on the continent. If you were to ask somebody in Bristol or Canterbury what region they belong to, they would look at you rather oddly and say they live in Canterbury which is a town, and in Kent, which is a county. They do not think of themselves as living in a region. So I do not believe that regional devolution is really an option. This means that federalism in either form is not really suitable for England. The right approach is that adopted by the government of combining local authorities or in some cases devolving to unitary local authorities. Asymmetry is the price we pay for a union. England is the naturally dominant nation with 85% of the country, and 85% of the MPs. Anything it wants it can get. The problem is to reconcile non-English people, a permanent minority, to the United Kingdom. We refused to give devolution in the form of Home Rule to Ireland, in the late 19th century with disastrous results. We failed to keep Ireland within the United Kingdom and of course that exacerbated the community problem in Northern Ireland. We do not have a community problem in Scotland, but I hope we do not repeat the mistake there that we made with Ireland. We must do all we can to keep Scotland within the United Kingdom. That is what I mean by saying asymmetry is the price we pay for the Union. BK: That’s very clear. Introduce yourselves as you ask a question. Barbara? BJ: I’m from the House of Lords. I’m the former leader of Bristol. I did quite a lot of work with core cities on the current proposals. I hear what you say about a federal system and there are two points I’d like to make. On the one, there’s a very strong belief that unless we have something that much more resembles a federal system, the union will cease to exist and Scotland will become independent. On the point you made about regional assemblies, I take the point that people don’t necessarily have local allegiance, but the big problem with the regional assemblies was that they had no powers. Do you not think if powers were to be devolved to a much greater degree there would be much more interest in it? If you take places like Cornwall, I was in the South West, which I think is one of the areas where everyone argued about whether they were in it or not, but the need for partnership in terms of equalisation of funding and resources was really important. If you have no powers, there’s no obligation to cooperate or form any sort of local government. VB: In Cornwall, there will be devolution to the county, rather than to the South West as a region. I do not wholly agree that the main reason for the rejection of devolution in the North East was the inadequacy of the powers proposed. I believe there was a general disinclination to support another layer of politicians and officials. It is worth saying perhaps that devolution does not necessarily mean decentralisation. In Scotland, the government has centralised. It has for example centralised the police force. It is up to the devolved government whether there is decentralisation or not. Decentralisation is not a necessary concomitant of devolution. As regards the Scottish question, in general, I believe that the problem is as much social and economic as constitutional, and it is a problem that England faces as much as Scotland. The problem is that of skills. If one looks at the outcome of the referendum in Scotland in 2014, the strongest yes areas were Labour voting areas such as Strathclyde and Dundee. SNP middle class areas such as Perthshire, Angus and Aberdeenshire voted no. The skills problem also gives rise to the UKIP vote in England. It is the problem facing those who are left behind by globalisation. Those people are saying, both in England and in Scotland, that government is not doing very much for them. They are also objecting to immigration which, so they believe, keeps wages low. BJ: I think the point I was making was it’s not necessarily local identity that is generating the wish for devolution. It is the whole issue of self-interest, lack of funding, the idea that everything done at arm’s length, whether regeneration or investment. People want more local economic leadership and the ability to prosper within their own area, whatever that might be. VB: I agree with that. There is a huge imbalance between London and the rest of the country. The further you go from London the more strongly it is felt. BK: The reasons for devolution vary. In Scotland, it’s the notion of national identity. In other parts of England it’s about economic balance and tackling social issues. There are different drivers. VB: Absolutely, and I think there is a sense of alienation, a feeling that people in London do not understand the problems of, shall we say, Cornwall, Newcastle, Liverpool or Manchester. I think that is felt quite strongly. BK: What’s your sense about the mayor? You say you were supportive of it at the time. VB: We need clarity on when a mayor is needed, and when it isn’t. Cornwall, which is a unitary authority, is not required to have a mayor as long as it has suitable arrangements for accountability i.e. the council leader model. I do wonder under what circumstances a mayor is required and when a mayor is not required. Directly elected mayors were rejected by many of the northern cities in 2011. One may argue that to impose a mayor when the voters do not want it is itself a centralising measure. It is being said that local government can have whatever structure it likes as long as it is one of which central government approves! I would like to know, and I think the government should be clearer, about the circumstances under which a directly elected mayor is required. In addition, it is important to know what the scrutiny arrangements are to be. In Greater Manchester, there seems no equivalent to the Greater London Assembly. Combined authorities can make accountability very difficult. A directly elected mayor has a great deal of power. It is important that he or she be accountable. BK: It’s combined authorities that hold the mayors to account. VB: Combined authorities are some degrees away from the voter. One does not vote for a combined authority.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 6FFLK015: Advanced Constitutional Law | King's College London
    09/27/21 6FFLK015: Advanced Constitutional Law | King's College London 6FFLK015: Advanced Constitutional Law View Online 1 Bradley AW, Ewing KD, Knight C. Constitutional and administrative law. Seventeenth edition. Harlow, England: : Pearson 2018. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=5418645 2 De Smith SA, Brazier R. Constitutional and administrative law. 8th ed. London: : Penguin 1998. 3 Turpin CC, Tomkins A. British government and the constitution: text and materials. 7th ed. Cambridge: : Cambridge University Press 2011. http://kcl.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=775039 4 Le Sueur AP, Sunkin M, Murkens JE. Public law: text, cases, and materials. Third edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: : Oxford University Press 2016. 5 McEldowney JF. Public law. 3rd ed. London: : Sweet & Maxwell 2002. 6 Phillips OH, Jackson P, Leopold P. O. Hood Phillips & Jackson’s constitutional and 1/58 09/27/21 6FFLK015: Advanced Constitutional Law | King's College London administrative law. 8th ed. London: : Sweet & Maxwell 2001. 7 Loveland I. Constitutional law, administrative law, and human rights: a critical introduction. Eighth edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: : Oxford University Press 2018. 8 Barnett H. Constitutional & administrative law. Twelfth edition. London: : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group 2017. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=4917664 9 Jowell JL, Oliver D. The changing constitution. Eighth edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: : Oxford University Press 2015. 10 Munro CR. Studies in constitutional law. 2nd ed. London: : Butterworths 1999. 11 Tomkins A. Public law. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2003. 12 Marshall G. Constitutional conventions: the rules and forms of political accountability. Oxford: : Clarendon 1984. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198762027.001.0001 13 Griffith JAG, Ryle M, Wheeler-Booth MAJ, et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Queen Elizabeth II
    16 May 2017 Queen Elizabeth II PROFESSOR VERNON BOGDANOR FBA CBE Today’s lecture is on the Queen. I gave a lecture on the Queen last year to commemorate her 90th birthday, and of course, I want to avoid repeating anything I said in that lecture, which is naturally available on the Gresham College website, so what I want to discuss today is the constitutional role of the Queen and, more generally, the role of constitutional monarchy in the 21st Century, but I shall also discuss the constitutional role of the Prince of Wales, which is I think widely misunderstood. But above all, I shall discuss the changes, which I think are very considerable in the monarchy since 1952 when the Queen came to the throne. But let me begin with a confession: this has been the most difficult lecture of the series to prepare, and the reason is that, inevitably, we know far less about the Queen than about her predecessors. There are official biographies of all the past monarchs whom I have discussed in this series, except for Queen Victoria, and that was because Edward VII, for some reason, would not allow an official biography. We also have historical works about past monarchs, based on material in the Royal Archives and in the National Archives. What we have learnt about past monarchs does, in many cases, alter the view that people had of them at the time, especially perhaps in the case of Queen Victoria. Bagehot, writing in the 1860s, thought her a perfect constitutional monarch, but later research has shown that she was very far from that.
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral System Change in Europe Since 1945
    Electoral reform in Europe since 1945 Article Supplemental Material online supplement Renwick, A. (2011) Electoral reform in Europe since 1945. West European Politics, 34 (3). pp. 456-477. ISSN 1743-9655 doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2011.555975 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/21318/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . Published version at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402382.2011.555975 To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2011.555975 Publisher: Routledge All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement . www.reading.ac.uk/centaur CentAUR Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading’s research outputs online Electoral System Change in Europe since 1945 West European Politics 34:?, ??–?? Online Supplement: Details of Categorizations Used in and Sources Used For Tables This supplement provides additional details regarding the criteria for including and classifying cases of electoral system change and lists the principal sources used for each country. Contents Abbreviations 2 Criteria Used to Identify and Classify Cases 3 Sources Used to Identify and Classify Cases 16 1 Abbreviations MMM mixed-member majoritarian MMP mixed-member proportional PR proportional representation SMP single-member plurality STV single transferable vote 2 Criteria Used to Identify and Categorize Cases Countries Included The sample used for this article includes European countries since 1945.
    [Show full text]
  • FLJ+S Bogdanor 6 (Q6) 27/6/07 15:16 Page 3 Page 15:16 27/6/07 6 (Q6) Bogdanor FLJ+S FLJ+S Bogdanor 6 (Q6) 27/6/07 15:16 Page 4
    FLJ+S Bogdanor 6 (Q6) 27/6/07 15:16 Page 3 The Foundation for for Foundation The Law, Justice and Society Justice Law, Bridging the gap between academia and policymakers Bridging the gap between Courts and the Making of Public Policy The Conflict between Government and the Judges Vernon Bogdanor The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society in collaboration with The Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford www.fljs.org 4 FLJ+S Bogdanor 6 (Q6) 27/6/07 15:16 Page 4 The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society FLJ+S Bogdanor 6 (Q6) 27/6/07 15:16 Page 1 THE CONFLICT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND THE JUDGES . 1 Executive Summary ■ The United Kingdom has been engaged over the ■ The Human Rights Act seeks to secure a democratic centuries in the process, unique in the democratic engagement with rights on the part of the world, of gradually giving itself a constitution. representatives of the people in Parliament. This is being achieved in an ad hoc fashion with no However, the main burden of protecting human stated consensus as to what the end result should rights has been transferred to the judges, whose be. The cornerstone of this new constitution will be role is bound to become more influential as a result. the Human Rights Act of 1998. It is the closest the United Kingdom can get, under its current system, ■ The compromise upon which the Human Rights to a bill of rights. The Act is transforming our Act is based is a tenuous one, dependent as it is understanding of rights and of the relationship upon self-restraint by judges, ministers and MPs.
    [Show full text]
  • Issues in Implementing Referendums in Israel: a Comparative Study in Direct Democracy
    Chicago Journal of International Law Volume 2 Number 1 Article 10 4-1-2001 Issues in Implementing Referendums in Israel: A Comparative Study in Direct Democracy Elizabeth Garrett Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Garrett, Elizabeth (2001) "Issues in Implementing Referendums in Israel: A Comparative Study in Direct Democracy," Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 2: No. 1, Article 10. Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol2/iss1/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Issues in Implementing Referendums in Israel: A Comparative Study in Direct Democracy Elizabeth Garrett* In 1994, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin promised that any peace agreement with the Syrians, which would return some or all of the Golan Heights to Syria, would be submitted for the people's approval in a national referendum. During his campaign in 1999, Ehud Barak reiterated that commitment and promised that any final-status agreement with the Palestinians, which would affect the sovereignty of Jerusalem as well as resolve other controversial issues, would also be the subject of a referendum. During the Camp David summit in the summer of 2000, Barak negotiated as his government fell apart at home, and he stated frequently that any deal with Arafat would be ratified by a vote of the people. Before the recent outbreak of violence and election of a new prime minister in February 2001, peace agreements seemed possible in the relatively near future, so Israeli politicians turned their attention to the mechanics of a referendum vote.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of the Union
    THE CULTURE of PROSPERITY THE CULTURE of PROSPERITY ROADS TO FREEDOM | NOVEMBER 2014 The Future of the Union by Vernon Bogdanor, Dafydd Elis-Thomas, Dominic Lawson and Hywel Williams www.li.com www.prosperity.com ROADS TO FREEDOM | 2 ABOUT THE LEGATUM INSTITUTE Front cover shows (left to right): The Legatum Institute is a charitable public policy think-tank whose Owain GlyndŴr (c.1349-c.1415 ). A direct descendant of the Princes of Powys (mid-Wales) mission is to help people lead more prosperous lives. The Institute and of Deheubarth (south-west Wales) Glyndŵr defines prosperity as wellbeing, not just wealth. Its Legatum Prosperity led the conventional life of a Welsh nobleman Index™ assesses a wide range of indicators including education, health, assimilated to English government until the social capital, entrepreneurship, and personal freedom to rank 142 late 1390s. But a quarrel in the late 1390s with Lord Grey de Ruthin, a Norman baron, countries. Published annually, the Index has become an essential tool for over landownership in north-east Wales turned governments around the world. Glyndŵr into a rebel with a cause. He led the national revolt that spread throughout the country Through research programmes including The Culture of Prosperity, from 1400 onwards and, aided by the French, he Transitions Forum, and the Economics of Prosperity, the Institute seeks won several major victories over English forces. to understand what drives and restrains national success and individual Edward I, King of England (1272-1307) whose flourishing. The Institute co-publishes with Foreign Policy magazine, the expansionist military campaigns sought to Democracy Lab, whose on-the-ground journalists report on political abolish the sovereign powers enjoyed by the Scottish Crown and the Welsh dynastic princes.
    [Show full text]
  • Call Agenda and Panellists Download
    Brexit: Britain beyond the referendum Oxford Analytica Conference Call Thursday, 3 March, 15:00 UK Time © Oxford Analytica 201 6. All rights reserved. No duplication of this document is permitted without written consent of Oxford Analytica. Contact us: www.oxan.com/about/contacts or call +44 1865 2 61 600 or in North America 1 800 965 766 Oxford Analytica Conference Call 2016 Brexit www.oxan.com Brexit: Britain beyond the referendum We now have a date -- June 23, 2016 – and nearly four months to debate the merits of whether the United Kingdom should stay in the EU or go. The renegotiated terms for Britain’s membership will likely be pushed quickly to the side by the bigger and more emotional issues of migration, sovereignty, national security and the impact on the UK economy and financial sector. They will also be played out in a parallel struggle for the succession to Prime Minister David Cameron, who has said he will stand down before the next general election due in 2020. But it is the consequences of the outcome that matter most: If the United Kingdom votes to leave, what will be involved in unravelling itself from the EU and how long would that take? What could its future arrangements with the EU look like? Will its global standing in the world be diminished or enhanced? Would a smaller UK- or England-only market still be attractive to foreign investment? What difference will the referendum outcome make to the future of ‘the European project’; will it make a two-tier Europe more or less likely? Will there be similar referendum
    [Show full text]
  • The General Election, 2010 Transcript
    The General Election, 2010 Transcript Date: Tuesday, 21 April 2015 - 6:00PM Location: Museum of London 21 April 2015 Six General Elections: The General Election, 2010 Professor Vernon Bogdanor Ladies and gentlemen, this is the fifth of six lectures on post-War General Elections. The sixth one, on the 19th May, will be on the forthcoming Election, but I thought it better to wait until the Election has actually occurred before talking about it, though it may be that what I say today may offer some pointers as to what will happen on the 7th May, but that is for you to decide. I think the elections I have discussed so far have all had specific themes - one can attach a theme to them. For example, the last one, in 1979, was the Winter of Discontent Election, which was very much influenced by that. The February 1974 Election, known as the “Who Governs?” Election, took place, you may remember, in the middle of a miners’ strike. The 1959 Election is always known as the “Never Had It So Good” Election, though the Conservatives never actually used that slogan. The slogan was “Life’s Better with the Conservatives – Don’t Let Labour Ruin It” – perhaps they might use that slogan this time as well, I do not know. But in 2010, there were really two themes, I think two major crises, one of which did affect the Election and one, to many people’s surprise, did not. The first one was the economic crisis, the credit crunch, the downturn and collapse of financial markets, which led to a run on Northern Rock Bank in September 2007, the first run on a British bank since the nineteenth century, and then further banking crises which meant the Labour Government of Gordon Brown had to re-capitalise the banks, in effect nationalise them, with taxpayers’ money.
    [Show full text]
  • Whose Mandate Is It Anyway? Brexit, the Constitution and the Contestation of Authority
    This is a repository copy of Whose mandate is it anyway? Brexit, the constitution and the contestation of authority. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/120218/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Matthews, F. orcid.org/0000-0002-3248-5386 (2017) Whose mandate is it anyway? Brexit, the constitution and the contestation of authority. Political Quarterly, 88 (4). pp. 603-611. ISSN 0032-3179 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12419 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Whose mandate is it anyway? Brexit, the constitution and the contestation of authority Manuscript prepared for submission to The Political Quarterly by Dr Felicity Matthews Department of Politics University of Sheffield [email protected] Abstract Over the past year, a seemingly relentless barrage of Brexit-related challenges has besieged the constitution, which together have called into question the legitimacy of the British political system.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of the Parliamentary Voting System Act on the British Constitution*
    The Effect of the Parliamentary Voting System Act * on the British Constitution Perhaps presciently, in 2009 Vernon Bogdanor noted, “A hung parliament, were it to occur, would almost certainly put the reform of the first-past-the-post electoral system at the centre of the political agenda.”1 Subsequently, the 2010 British election for the House of Commons returned a hung Parliament with no party able to command an outright majority in the 650-seat House of Commons.2 The election results gave the Conservative Party a plurality of 307 seats, with the Labour Party receiving 258 and the Liberal Democrats receiving 57.3 Eventually the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government with David Cameron of the Conservatives as Prime Minister and Nicholas Clegg of the Liberal Democrats as Deputy Prime Minister.4 The formal agreement between the parties set out numerous legislative goals for the coalition, perhaps most im- portantly in the area of political and constitutional reform. In particular, as Bogdanor predicted, the coalition government pledged to “bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote . as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized [parliamentary] constituencies.”5 The coalition fulfilled this promise by passing the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act (PVS Act).6 The House of Commons passed the PVS Act on November 2, 2010.7 The House of Lords subsequently passed the PVS Act on February 14, 2011, and the PVS Act received the Royal Assent on February 16, 2011.8 In short, the PVS Act (1) provides for a referendum—to be held between May 5, 2011 and October 31, 2011—on * For my grandfather of blessed memory, David D.
    [Show full text]
  • The British Constitution After Brexit the Case for Popular Codification
    POLICY BRIEF The British Constitution after Brexit The case for popular codification AUTHOR Josh Simons, Harvard-Kennedy Scholar ABSTRACT The British constitution is under considerable strain. Brexit has drawn attention to the several competing sites of sovereignty within the British constitution and the transformed relationship between the executive and judiciary, fuelling a broader, popular interest in constitutional questions. The UK needs to reach an enduring constitutional settlement. This will require sustained political engagement with proposals for constitutional reform, guided by three underlying principles: the people, not parliament, are the ultimate source of sovereign authority in Britain; the United Kingdom is a voluntary union of nations which requires the ongoing consent of the people of each of its nations; and British democracy must be strengthened, extended, and re-energized. I argue that Britain should begin a process of codifying parts of the constitution. This process could confront many of the rumbling, structural challenges facing British politics, rather than brushing them under the rug, producing a codified constitution which retained the valuable capacity to adapt and change over time. This process of codification will involve risk, since the outcome cannot be preordained, controlled, legislated for, or determined in court. Embracing the process of codification would require a particular kind of trust in the citizens of the United Kingdom, a willingness to begin a collective journey whose destination cannot
    [Show full text]
  • Britain in the 20Th Century: Thatcherism, 1979- 1990 Transcript
    Britain in the 20th Century: Thatcherism, 1979- 1990 Transcript Date: Tuesday, 24 April 2012 - 6:00PM Location: Museum of London 24 April 2012 Britain in the 20th Century: Thatcherism Professor Vernon Bogdanor Margaret Thatcher was elected Leader of the Conservative Party in February 1975, much to the surprise of many leading Conservatives. Reginald Maudling, who had been Chancellor and Home Secretary in previous Conservative Governments, said that the Party had taken leave of its senses. Lord Carrington, who was to be Foreign Secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s Government, said that she would be out of the leadership by Christmas. However, she was Leader of the Conservative Party for 15 years and Prime Minister for 11.75 years, which is the longest continuous time of any Prime Minister since the Napoleonic Wars (Lord Liverpool 1812- 1827). Furthermore, she gave her name to an ideology: Thatcherism. She is the only Prime Minister of the twentieth century who did that. We do talk, it is true, about someone being Churchillean, but I think by that we mean a style rather than a set of ideas. But Thatcherism, is a set of ideas, and in this lecture I intend to describe what these ideas were. Now, Margaret Thatcher was very different from most of her predecessors, apart from, ironically, the man she supplanted, Edward Heath, with whom she had I think something in common. The four Prime Ministers of Conservative Governments in 1951 to 1964 were Churchill, Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan, and Sir Alec Douglas-Home. Churchill was the grandson of a duke; Eden was the son of a baronet; Harold Macmillan was the son-in-law of a duke; and Sir Alec Douglas-Home had been a 14th Earl before he renounced his title.
    [Show full text]