Premiers Emeritus and Parliament: new research and reflections on old 1/3

This week, an article on the activity of former prime ministers in the House of Commons was published in The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. The article - More than a memento mori? Assessing the participation of former Prime Ministers in the House of Commons - is written by Dr Alia Middleton, Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Surrey, and Dr Louise Thompson, Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Manchester.

Our knowledge of ex-premiers and of their continuing impact - both alive and dead - as ex-premiers is improving. In 2010, Professor Kevin Theakston published a seminal work, After Number 10: Former Prime Ministers in British Politics. But there is still a long way to go in studying ex-prime ministers' roles once they have surrendered Government or party office. Not least because Professor Theakston's work did not capture all aspects of life after Downing Street. It was also published some five ex-prime ministers ago. 

Drs Middleton and Thompson, therefore, are to be congratulated for adding significantly to what remains the too little amount of research into - and understanding of - what Harold Macmillan described as 'life after death'. 

In their study, Drs Middleton and Thompson quote research we undertook back in 2004 into the parliamentary activity of those we've called premiers emeritus. That research built on earlier research we had undertaken in 1996 on the same issue. In this blog post we're going to offer some reflections on the comments about our research in More than a memento mori?. In future posts, we'll cover the article's findings, and reflections on other aspects of the continuing parliamentary lives of former prime ministers that require more research.

Comment one

'Although one study (Just, 2004) does offer some limited understanding of FPMs who remain in Parliament, there are substantial gaps in our knowledge of what FPMs do as backbench MPs.'

Drs Middleton and Thompson have more than usefully filled in some of those gaps. Alas, for reasons of space in 2004, we weren't able to do an analysis of a) the themes on which premiers emeritus intervened and b) the mechanisms they used to intervene.

Both of those areas were covered in an earlier piece of work of ours. Back in 1996 we wrote a research paper in legislative studies. 

That paper covered the parliamentary activity of former prime ministers from Winston Churchill to Margaret Thatcher in both the House of Commons and, crucially, the House of Lords. It included the number of interventions they made, the themes they intervened on, and the mechanisms they used, from April 1955 through to the end of the 1994-95 parliamentary session.

During the course of this year, we have updated that research to the 2023 summer recess. We had hoped to have written it up by now. But our study of Margaret Thatcher's life after Downing Street has taken over our lives. Maybe we'll get to write-up the research in 2024 - if only politicians would stop talking about Lady Thatcher, meaning we need to keep adding to the 80,000 words we've already got. In fact, we think Sir Keir Starmer's Thatcher love-fest, hate-fest warrants a separate study. Especially, as it is in keeping with how Labour leaders since Tony Blair have responded to Lady Thatcher - and perhaps how Conservative leaders have responded to her too.

Comment two

'Looking at the more specific literature relating to FPMs and their actions in the Commons, one study that has explored former political leaders’ post-leadership parliamentary service is Just’s (2004) piece on former British Prime Ministers. This is a useful overview of post prime ministerial behaviour and legislative activity, highlighting for instance that James Callaghan was the most active FPM in British history. However, it is driven by personality-based dimensions of leadership and is now dated (p. 69).'

Our research absolutely has been - and continues to be - driven by personality-based dimensions of leadership. In our view, it is impossible to understand the Office of Prime Minister Emeritus without taking a personality-first approach. How former prime ministers conduct themselves as former prime ministers is rooted in their character. It impacts their response to how they become an ex-premier, and how they see and undertake their continuing role in political life. Crucially, it also impacts on others' responses to them as former prime ministers. Think Margaret Thatcher. Think Edward Heath. Think Lord Home of the Hirsel. Look at and learn from James Callaghan, especially when he becomes Lord Callaghan of Cardiff.

Plus, we subscribe to Peter Hennessy's 'Max Bygraves school of history', which we also think is applicable to political science in some situations. Most of all in post-premiership studies.

Comments three and four

'Just (2004: 73) alludes to this in his discussion of statesmen-type FPMs who, ‘admired for their own conduct as ex-prime ministers, they intervene within the legislature when they believe that someone is behaving, or something is being done, badly, irresponsibly or unwisely’, although the link to Bulpitt is not established.'

We fess up, we knew nothing of Bulpitt's work in 2004. Research fail. More seriously, we think our statesmen definition has stood the test of time. Theresa May is the supreme example of this, as Drs Middleton and Thompson note in another reference to our research.

'This latter example fits well with Just’s (2004: 73) assertion that some intervene in parliamentary debates ‘when they believe that some one is behaving, or something is being done, badly, irresponsibly or unwisely’. Our sample of FPMs brings evidence of this from both a policy and a personal perspective.'

In fact, a special shout out to Theresa May is needed. Her interventionism has been truly fascinating to witness. As has the impact of her interventions, not least on her own reputation. In many ways, her activity reminds us of that of James Callaghan's, in both quantity and quality. Mrs May is also well on her way to becoming a challenger for the title of most parliamentary active former prime minister in British history. Indeed, it is not unlikely that if she continues to serve in Parliament, either in the Commons or the Lords, James Callaghan may well lose his title as the most parliamentary active.

Comment five

'There appears to be an unwritten assumption that former PMs concentrate their remaining parliamentary time on the construction of their own legacies as great figures of ideology or policy (Just, 2004). However, in an age which seems to place more value on constituents and their opinions, it is plausible that the parliamentary activities of FPMs also reflect this wider trend.'

Drs Middleton and Thompson's research identifies what is effectively new ground in the parliamentary activity of former prime ministers: their focus on their constituency. As 'More than a memento mori?' highlights, this is due largely to Gordon Brown, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Liz Truss. Interestingly, the increase had started with John Major. 

This illustrates another point about the post-prime ministership. In many ways, Lady Thatcher's was a bridge from one type of former prime minister to another. Never has the UK had so many living former prime ministers. And never has the UK had so many living former prime ministers who are not members of Parliament, either Commons or Lords. Five until David Cameron was elevated to the Lords, and now four: John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Boris Johnson.

Comment six

'However, our own analysis seeks to be more comprehensive than the approach of Just (2004) who groups all contributions together regardless of type, by examining both the frequency and the type of contribution made. Where relevant some appearances where no speech is made are included in the frequency counts. We therefore further distinguish between full speeches and short interventions, to ensure that patterns of former prime ministerial activity are consistent, detailed and comparable. Relying solely on the frequency of contributions can be misleading, as one full speech may be listed as several different entries in Hansard. Each oral contribution listed on the TheyWorkForYou website1 was thus hand-coded. We read the full contribution in Hansard rather than simply counting the number of entries for each prime minister.'

As per our reflections on comment one, type of intervention was covered in our 1996 research and alas space in 2004 meant they couldn't be covered there. Our 2023 research has done that, covering both Commons and Lords from 1955 to 2023.

Beyond that, we think that grouping all contributions together does matter. The total number of interventions (irrespective of type) tells us something about the former prime minsters' approach to Parliament. Those who intervene more often are more likely to be attending Parliament than those who intervene less often. In addition, those with a greater number of interventions are continuing to take a (relatively) active part in parliamentary proceedings, unlike those who have made a smaller number of interventions. A good example of this is their interventions on legislation. As we showed with Lord Home's activity, he was an active participant across all the stages of legislation. So was James Callaghan.

Without trespassing too much onto the third post in this series, another aspect of premiers emeritus in Parliament needs studying, as an example of their parliamentary presenteeism or absenteeism: how many divisions they take part in. So, for example, while not speaking in Parliament after 1999, Lady Thatcher famously continued to attend to take part in votes. Similarly, while attending many of the debates on the Maastricht Bill, she substantively intervened only twice: on its Second Reading and at Report Stage.

Comment seven

'First, by operationalizing a more rigorous coding framework than Just (2004), we are able to observe that backbench activity by FPMs is more diverse than before. Contemporary FPMs are far more likely to use oral questions compared to their earlier counterparts, who preferred to make interventions.'

Again, our reflections on comment one cover some of this; and, without trespassing too much on the second and third blogs in this series, had the activity of former prime ministers in the Lords been studied, it would have both challenged and reinforced some of Drs Middleton and Thompson's findings 

So, for example, on oral questions (combining standard oral questions and questions on ministerial statements), these accounted for 21% of Lord Attlee's interventions, 20% of Lord Home's, and 33% of James Callaghan's (across both Commons and Lords to the end of the 1994-95 parliamentary session).