Following up on my previous post, Four most influential British Prime Ministers, BBC History Magazine has published an article by Francis Beckett listing the historian’s greatest Prime Ministers of the 20th Century. His list is fairly close to mine, although he puts the emphasis on the successful implementation of policies and therefore Blair falls down the list somewhat with only three points out of a possible five.
Conservative leader David Cameron has announced new measures to bolster his existing plans to get more female MPs into the party. He has already been pushing pro-female measures for some time, but the new rules go even further than before. The main change is that a minimum of two out of the final four candidates shortlisted for selection (from whom the local party executive will choose the constituency’s Prospective Parliamentary Candidate) must be women.
Whilst I generally support the principle of encouraging people from underrepresented groups to get involved in politics, I think Cameron is using the wrong methods to achieve this. First of all, his policy is basically one of positive discrimination, and is the same as that used by my local students’ union to ensure that at least half the delegates to the NUS conference are women. Note that this restriction does not work both ways, as under these rules you could have a selection of candidates who were all female, but not a selection consisting entirely of male candidates. I’m not a fan of quotas in general, but if you’re going to insist on imposing them then at least make the figures fair to both sides. A better way to ensure a more even gender distribution would be to have a rule stating that one of the candidates must be female, another must be male, and the gender of the remainding two candidates is not an issue. This would ensure that both sexes would be represented by at least one candidate, whilst at the same time eliminating the possibility of the list comprising of candidates from one gender only.
One consequence that I fear may come about as a result of the application of this rule is the selection of candidates based purely on their gender. This could be manifested in two ways. Firstly, there is the possibility of women being put up as so-called “paper candidates”, where they are not expected to win but are on the ballot paper just to make up the numbers and keep Mr Cameron happy. The other possibility is where there is a choice between a male and a female candidate, and the woman is chosen because of her gender rather than her ability to do the job (I’m not implying that the female candidate wouldn’t be a better choice for other reasons, but the decision should be made on the basis of ability, not gender).
The other problem with this method of selection is that, in my opinion at least, it comes across as being somewhat patronising and degrading to female candidates. I don’t think any woman would like to be told or made to feel that she had been selected just because she was female, any more than a male candidate would want to find out that he had been turned down because there weren’t enough women on the shortlist.
In fact this whole debate, as is often the case in British politics, sounds suspiciously like an episode of the popular sitcom, Yes (Prime) Minister. The episode in question, ‘Equal Opportunities’, begins with Jim Hacker’s (the Minister for Administrative Affairs) plan to introduce more women into the top jobs in the civil service. As is usually the case, his plan is defeated by Sir Humphrey Appleby, and the final moments of the episode show him being admonished by one of the women he tries to promote, who accuses him of being patronising and treating her merely as part of a quota. Perhaps something similar could happen to David Cameron in the coming months?
As part of Problogger’s Lists Group Writing Project, I’ve decided to compile a short list comprising of the four British Prime Ministers of recent times who I think have had the most influence on national affairs (it’s a short list as to make it any longer would include too large a percentage of the potential candidates). The selected politicians are listed in no particular order and their inclusion does not imply that I agree with any or all of their policies, only that I believe they had a significant influence on British politics whilst they were in power.
N.B. I have only mentioned matters of national importance in this list, so anything regarding international affairs—such as the conflict in the Falkland Islands—has not been taken into account, although all four of the politicians also had a significant impact overseas.
Arguably both the most revered and despised British politician of recent times, it never ceases to amaze me how the mere mention of Baroness Thatcher’s name can invoke such strong and mixed responses from the general public. That alone justifies her place on the list, but she also had a profound influence on the UK economy, with her relentless pursuit of privatisation changing the way we buy basic utilities such as gas and telephone services by taking these companies away from government control and forcing them to compete for business, instead of holding a monopolistic grip on the industry. Her influence can also be felt on the side of the employees through her sweeping trade union reforms which, amongst other things, lead to secondary picketing being banned.
As well as all these changes, Thatcher still holds the record for the longest continuously serving Prime Minister in over 150 years, and remarkably she is also the only woman ever to have reached the highest office in British politics. Like her or loathe her, there is no denying that Thatcher had a significant impact during her time as Prime Minister.
No list of influencial British Prime Ministers would be complete without the revered Winston Churchill. Whilst his performance as a peace time leader is often considered to have been somewhat lacklustre, his legacy was secured by his premiership during World War II. His inspirational stance, soundbites and speeches (including such memorable quotes as “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few”) helped to rally the British people and encouraged them to fight on even as France surrended to Germany.
Widely credited as Britain’s greatest ever Prime Minister and almost certainly the most famous person to have held the post, Churchill is also one of the few people outside of the Royal Family to be honoured on his death with a state funeral.
Although Attlee is perhaps somewhat less well-known than the other names on this list, he did have a profound influence on British politics during his time as Prime Minister. Some of his efforts were subsequently undone by later governments, such as his nationalisation of several utilities industries (including coal and steel) and the railways, which were reversed by the aggressive privatisation programme spearheaded by Thatcher’s government.
However, by far and away the most influential decision that Attlee ever made was to create the National Health Service (NHS), which still survives to this day and provides healthcare free at the point of delivery to hundreds of thousands of people daily, as well as being the largest employer in Europe. In my opinion, this alone overshadows anything else that Attlee did whilst Prime Minister, and guarantees him a place on this list.
Another name that produces differences of opinion in the same way as Thatcher does, our current head of government has had a significant influence over the past nine years he has been at the helm. His first success was to lead the Labour Party (which he rebranded and relaunched as ‘New Labour’ with the help of several close colleagues) into a general election victory, simultaneously bringing the end to eighteen years of Conservative rule and securing a huge majority for his party in the House of Commons. During his time as Prime Minister, Blair has set up numerous significant programmes of reform in public services—most notably health and education—and has even changed the way Parliament works by making several alterations to the House of Lords. Under his leadership the government has also produced legislation on a massive scale, creating hundreds of new criminal offences, though often justified on somewhat dubious grounds.
Even though rumours about when he will resign continue to float around the media, I suspect that Blair will continue to have a significant influence on British politics for some time yet, and even after he has gone the foundations he has set will probably lead the Labour party into at least one more general election.
One of my friends forwarded me this link last night: George Galloway Savages SKY NEWS!. As usual Gorgeous George describes almost every question he is asked as “preposterous” and never actually answers the question but instead launches a tirade of shouting at the news reader. It’s interesting to watch though, if only to see the leader of Respect make a fool of himself.
There has been some speculation over the last week about the possibility of the Conservative Party adopting a new logo to replace the symbolic hand carrying a torch that has been used since 1977. The torch itself underwent a makeover in 2004, but it was still the same recognisable logo, although personally I think it looked a bit less symbolic afterwards. The actual details of the new logo have not been officially released, but a scan of the image has appeared on the BBC website and the general consensus seems to be that it will consist of an oak tree in some form.
My thoughts on the proposed new logo are somewhat mixed. First of all, I think the party really needs to concentrate on developing and publicising new policies, rather than embarking on a quest to find a new logo, which will probably create internal rumblings within the party—something to be avoided at all costs. Ditching the torch will almost certainly antagonise the older members of the party grassroots, but then again it’s probably about time that they were pushed to one side to an extent anyway.
However, I do think that a new logo will help move the image of the Conservatives away from the Thatcher era, the shadow of which still hangs over the party to an extent (I remember asking at a party meeting if it was about time to cast off the spectre of Thatcherism and get young people involved—it resulted in a round of applause but of course nothing came of it). With a new leader and more liberal policies, the party does seem to looking forward to the future instead of back to the past of the 80’s heydays. A new logo might be the final nail in the coffin of the old “home guard” Conservatives and the bridge to a prosperous future for a party that is starting to once again look like it could win a general election.
As for the logo itself (as opposed to whether a new one is actually needed), I think the oak tree is a bit of a strange choice. A tree is not a symbol that I would associate with politics in general (except perhaps with the Green Party), and certainly not with the Conservatives. It does appear that some of the logo will feature the traditional Tory blue though, but I remain unconvinced about how the general public will see an oak tree logo and think “Vote Conservative”—which is presumably the overall aim. Time will tell though, as it always does.