PMs and Chancellors
An interesting Guardian article yesterday about potential Conservative divisions over the EU Referendum, the Human Rights Act, and welfare cuts, also described David Cameron and George Osborne as
"the first prime minister and chancellor in living memory to maintain warm and harmonious relations"
There is no doubt whatsoever that DC and GO get on vastly better than most PM and Chancellor teams have, and ironically this especially applies where they were in place for a long time. Poor relations between the two most important members of the government has often been one of the biggest problems for the governments concerned and not usually worked in the national interest.
Bad blood between Leaders of the Opposition and their Shadow chancellors have often been a problem for oppositions, too. Relations between Ed Miliband and Ed Balls were sufficiently poor that the suggestion could be made in newspapers immediately after the 2015 election that the Miliband team knew Ed Balls might be in trouble in Morley and Outwood but deliberately didn't tell him so that he would go on campaigning elsewhere despite the risk of losing his own seat (which, of course, he duly did.)
I don't believe that story for an instant, not because I would put such behaviour past Ed Miliband but because all the evidence suggests that the Labour leadership thought they were doing much better than they were, in which case Balls would not have been in danger. But the fact that the Spectator could print the allegation that "a Balls ally" had told them Miliband's office had sat on polling data in this way tells you, at the very least, something about how the relationship between the two men was perceived.
However, I do wonder if the Guardian isn't overstating the case when they describe Cameron and Osborne as the first Prime Minister and Chancellor team in living memory to have stayed on good terms.
It is an interesting exercise to go through the pairings in the last few decades. I've allocated a number of stars to each PM/Chancellor combination based on the state of their relationship towards the end of the time they were in those posts - though in two cases I've noted that it got much worse after one or both had moved on. The extreme example of this is Mrs Thatcher and Sir Geoffrey Howe, who worked reasonably well together while he was her Chancellor but subsequently fell out so badly that his resignation as her deputy brought her down.
I've given five stars where the relationship appears to have been excellent, four stars where it was good, three for acceptable, two for poor, which I have always given where the chancellor concerned ultimately resigned or was sacked, and one star for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Based on this, my rating relations between the PM/Chancellor pairings over the last 60 years is
Cameron/Osborne *****
Brown/Darling **
Blair/Brown *
Major/Clarke *****
Major/Lamont **
Thatcher/Major *** (though she was a major thorn in his side after he succeeded her)
Thatcher/Lawson **
Thatcher/Howe *** (though as mentioned above they fell out big time when he was deputy PM)
Callaghan/Healey ****
Wilson/Healey ***
Heath/Barber ***
Heath/McLeod - Iain McLeod tragically died suddenly a month after becoming chancellor.
Wilson/Jenkins **
Wilson/Callaghan **
Douglas-Home/Maudling **
MacMillan/Maudling ***
MacMillan/Lloyd **
MacMillan/Heathcote-Amory ****
MacMillan/Thorneycroft ** (the latter's resignation was the original "little local difficulty")
Eden/MacMillan ***
Eden/Butler **
Churchill/Butler **
Looking at this list, if the article had described DC and GO as having maintained the best relations of any Prime Minister and Chancellor in living memory, I think I would have agreed.
Not sure I would go along with the statement that they were the only pairing to have managed to stay on good terms: Sir John Major appeared to retain a friendly and constructive relationship with Ken Clarke and Callaghan with Healey.
Does say something interesting, and not good, about British politics that so many relationships between the top people in government appear to have been poor however. Very interested in comments.
"the first prime minister and chancellor in living memory to maintain warm and harmonious relations"
There is no doubt whatsoever that DC and GO get on vastly better than most PM and Chancellor teams have, and ironically this especially applies where they were in place for a long time. Poor relations between the two most important members of the government has often been one of the biggest problems for the governments concerned and not usually worked in the national interest.
Bad blood between Leaders of the Opposition and their Shadow chancellors have often been a problem for oppositions, too. Relations between Ed Miliband and Ed Balls were sufficiently poor that the suggestion could be made in newspapers immediately after the 2015 election that the Miliband team knew Ed Balls might be in trouble in Morley and Outwood but deliberately didn't tell him so that he would go on campaigning elsewhere despite the risk of losing his own seat (which, of course, he duly did.)
I don't believe that story for an instant, not because I would put such behaviour past Ed Miliband but because all the evidence suggests that the Labour leadership thought they were doing much better than they were, in which case Balls would not have been in danger. But the fact that the Spectator could print the allegation that "a Balls ally" had told them Miliband's office had sat on polling data in this way tells you, at the very least, something about how the relationship between the two men was perceived.
However, I do wonder if the Guardian isn't overstating the case when they describe Cameron and Osborne as the first Prime Minister and Chancellor team in living memory to have stayed on good terms.
It is an interesting exercise to go through the pairings in the last few decades. I've allocated a number of stars to each PM/Chancellor combination based on the state of their relationship towards the end of the time they were in those posts - though in two cases I've noted that it got much worse after one or both had moved on. The extreme example of this is Mrs Thatcher and Sir Geoffrey Howe, who worked reasonably well together while he was her Chancellor but subsequently fell out so badly that his resignation as her deputy brought her down.
I've given five stars where the relationship appears to have been excellent, four stars where it was good, three for acceptable, two for poor, which I have always given where the chancellor concerned ultimately resigned or was sacked, and one star for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Based on this, my rating relations between the PM/Chancellor pairings over the last 60 years is
Cameron/Osborne *****
Brown/Darling **
Blair/Brown *
Major/Clarke *****
Major/Lamont **
Thatcher/Major *** (though she was a major thorn in his side after he succeeded her)
Thatcher/Lawson **
Thatcher/Howe *** (though as mentioned above they fell out big time when he was deputy PM)
Callaghan/Healey ****
Wilson/Healey ***
Heath/Barber ***
Heath/McLeod - Iain McLeod tragically died suddenly a month after becoming chancellor.
Wilson/Jenkins **
Wilson/Callaghan **
Douglas-Home/Maudling **
MacMillan/Maudling ***
MacMillan/Lloyd **
MacMillan/Heathcote-Amory ****
MacMillan/Thorneycroft ** (the latter's resignation was the original "little local difficulty")
Eden/MacMillan ***
Eden/Butler **
Churchill/Butler **
Looking at this list, if the article had described DC and GO as having maintained the best relations of any Prime Minister and Chancellor in living memory, I think I would have agreed.
Not sure I would go along with the statement that they were the only pairing to have managed to stay on good terms: Sir John Major appeared to retain a friendly and constructive relationship with Ken Clarke and Callaghan with Healey.
Does say something interesting, and not good, about British politics that so many relationships between the top people in government appear to have been poor however. Very interested in comments.
Comments