Tuesday, October 25, 2022

What brings down a Prime Minister? *Updated*


The P.M. has been forced from office...

Either by a cabal of bitter opponents and disloyal M.P.s or the inevitable consequences of his own conduct, depending on your point of view. Is this a democratic outrage or simply par for the course?

I do not generally use this blog for opinion pieces or articles on anything other than local politics; very rarely national politics, much less so political history! But the resignation of Boris Johnson on July 7th prompted a flurry of outrage among the hearty band of Boris fans that populate my Twitter feed. Many of them were appalled that a P.M. who won an 80-seat majority, got Brexit done and led us through an unprecedented global pandemic could be removed by a 'cabal' of M.P.s, rather than by the British people at the ballot box.

Portrait photograph of a 55-year-old UK PM Boris Johnson Rt. Hon. Boris Johnson, M.P. (P.M., 2019-22)

I have already blogged about Boris' resignation and so the nuances of my own rather more sanguine thoughts on the circumstances of his fall from grace have been well trod and need not be rehearsed here. But, I wondered how unusual this situation really is. In my own lifetime, that colossus Margaret Thatcher was forced from office in 1990 (when I was 8 years old), arguably knifed in the back by her own side (albeit in her case after 11 and 1/2 years in office rather than only 3). Similarly, Tony Blair was cajoled into departing 10 Downing Street in 2007, despite having won three successive election victories but having become increasingly unpopular with his own rank and file. More recently, David Cameron and Theresa May were undone by Brexit - Mr. Cameron resigned in 2016 having lost the E.U. referendum and Mrs May in 2019, having failed to deliver on the outcome. Only John Major and Gordon Brown lost office at a General Election (in 1997 and 2010 respectively). So, of the seven P.M.s of my lifetime, most have been forced to resign by circumstance rather than by the voters.

But what does history tell us? After all, my lifetime only covers 40 of the 300-year history of the premiership, from Robert Walpole taking up the seals of office in 1721 and Boris handing them back in 2022 as the 55th holder of the post. Being an appalling nerd, of course, I set about finding out and I thought it was interesting enough to share with others (my wife tells me that I abuse the word 'interesting' a lot but, hey, reading on is not compulsory).

Robert-Walpole-1st-Earl-of-Orford.jpg Sir Robert Walpole (P.M., 1721-42) ~ first and longest-serving P.M.

It makes sense to start at the beginning and the office of Prime Minister dates back to the 18th-Century. The aforementioned Mr. Walpole was the first holder of the office but never known officially as 'Prime Minister'. Most historical P.M.s held the office of First Lord of the Treasury (and, indeed, still do). The term 'Prime Minister' did not become official until the 20th-Century. It was originally intended as an insult, implying the holder was little more than chief lackey to the King. Sir Robert Walpole, however, was one of the most skilled politicians ever to bestride British politics. A member of the old Whig Party, he headed the government for an as yet unbeaten, uninterrupted run of 20 years and, for most of that period, had King George I and later King George II eating out of his hand and exercised near-total mastery of the House of Commons. But all things end and advancing age caused his domination of Parliament to wane and increasingly political factions worked against him. The curiously-named 'War of Jenkins' Ear' with Spain made him unpopular and reduced his parliamentary majority. Ultimately, he lost an important vote following a naval disaster, which was treated as a vote of no confidence and he was forced to retire (albeit as the Earl of Orford, with a seat in the House of Lords - only time will tell if Boris will be so lucky).

This became a fairly typical way to leave office. Indeed, it was nearly 130 years until a British P.M. was removed simply by losing an election. When the Victorian prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, lost the General Election of 1868 he was the first P.M. in history to lose power directly as a consequence of losing an election. This created a run, as his Liberal successor, William Gladstone, lost office in the 1874 G.E. and Mr. Disraeli (later ennobled as the Earl of Beaconsfield) went on to lose again in 1880. Lord Beaconsfield has the distinction of being both the first P.M. to lose office in an election and the only one to have done so twice.

Disraeli in old age, wearing a double-breasted suit, bow tie and hat Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield (P.M., Feb.-Dec. 1868 & 1874-80) ~ first P.M. to lose office in an election

Apart from Lord Beaconsfield and Mr. Gladstone, only ten more of the 55 P.M.s have lost power in this way - Ramsay MacDonald in 1924, Stanley Baldwin in 1929, Winston Churchill in 1945, Clement Attlee in 1951, Sir Alec Douglas-Home in 1964, Harold Wilson in 1970, Edward Heath in 1974 and James Callaghan in 1979. Mr. Major and Dr. Brown, I have already referred to. The late Sir Edward Heath was the last P.M. to both enter and leave office at a G.E.

So what about the rest?

Well, some were simply dismissed by the monarch - back in the days when monarchs had an unfettered ability to do this. A repeat offender was King George III, who removed the Duke of Newcastle in 1762 essentially due to personal animosity and a preference for his new favourite, the Earl of Bute, who became the first ever Tory P.M. Likewise, the King dismissed George Grenville and replaced him with the Marquess of Rockingham (both Whigs) in 1765 more or less out of preference for the latter over the former. Mr. Grenville's son, William, Lord Grenville, also served as a Whig P.M. and, like his father, was dismissed by the King in 1807 in opposition to Lord Grenville's policies on Catholic Emancipation. King William IV was the last monarch to sack his prime minister when he dismissed Viscount Melbourne in 1834 in opposition to his proposed reforms. Queen Victoria, though she often interfered in politics, never directly sacked a P.M. and neither have any of her successors (so far at least).

Quarter-length portrait in oils of a clean-shaven young George in profile wearing a red suit, the Garter star, a blue sash, and a powdered wig. He has a receding chin and his forehead slopes away from the bridge of his nose making his head look round in shape. King George III (1738-1820) ~ serial sacker of P.M.s

Some P.M.s resigned (at least ostensibly) because of ill health. The first was the Earl of Chatham, perhaps better known to history as 'Pitt the Elder', in 1768. He suffered ill health for many years, typically gout but also severe bouts of mental illness. He nevertheless lived for another ten years, famously collapsing whilst delivering a vituperative speech in the House of Lords on the subject of American independence. A further eleven P.M.s resigned over the years under similar circumstances. Some, like Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1908, died soon thereafter. Indeed, Sir Henry died at Number 10, having been too ill to move out. Others lived a good while yet, like Harold Macmillan, who resigned ostensibly on health grounds in 1963. He was purportedly so convinced he was about to die that the Queen had to break with protocol to visit him at hospital to accept his resignation. He nevertheless lived for a further 23 years, leading some to suspect his resignation had more to do with the fallout from the Profumo sex scandal. Privately, he regarded himself as having been hounded from office by a backbench minority (sound familiar?). The last P.M. to resign explicitly on health grounds was Mr. Wilson, who resigned in 1976 after being diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

A small number of P.M.s actually died in office, including both Lord Orford's two immediate Whig successors, the Earl of Wilmington in 1743 and Henry Pelham in 1754. Lord Rockingham served two terms of office, resigning due to internal dissent in 1766 and then returning to office in 1782, only to die fourteen weeks later in a 'flu epidemic. Lord Chatham's son, William Pitt the Younger, also served as P.M. He was, at 24, our youngest ever premier and died in office in 1806 aged just 46 with a cumulative length of service of 18 years, second only to Lord Orford himself. Spencer Perceval earned a place in the history books by being the only P.M. to be assassinated - shot in the lobby of the House of Commons in 1812 by a disgruntled merchant with a grievance against the Government. George Canning, meanwhile, became a pub quiz footnote by having the shortest tenure of any P.M., dying in office in 1827 after just 119 days in power. The last P.M. to expire in office was Viscount Palmerston, who enjoyed rude health in his later years and remained in office at the grand old age of 80, until he died suddenly of a chill in 1865 just shy of his 81st birthday.



Spencer Perceval (P.M., 1809-12) ~ only P.M. to be assassinated

Apart from Lord Orford, I calculate a further sixteen P.M.s were forced to resign by a so-called 'Vote of No Confidence' (known nowadays by the acronym 'VONC'). Some of them more than once - the record being held jointly by Mr. Gladstone and the Marquess of Salisbury at three each. Some of these were straightforward confidence votes while others were important votes, the loss of which was deemed to constitute a VONC. Lord North, for example, was removed in a VONC in 1782, following the British loss at the Battle of Yorktown during the American Revolution. By comparison, in 1846, Sir Robert Peel failed to repeal the Corn Laws and the loss of the crucial vote on the repeal Bill, whilst not explicitly a VONC, caused him to resign. In recent years, VONCs have become far less frequent and the most recent P.M. brought down this way was Jim Callaghan in 1979. Following several by-election defeats, which had chipped away at his majority, a vote was triggered by Mrs Thatcher as Leader of the Opposition, which Mr. Callaghan lost by a single vote (311 to 310). This was the first VONC since 1924, when the National Government of Mr. MacDonald fell apart. The events of the 1979 VONC were so dramatic, they were immortalised in a stage play called This House by James Graham. There have been several unsuccessful VONCs since then. Mrs Thatcher survived five plus a vote of censure. More recently, Mrs May survived one in January 2019 and, just last month, Boris Johnson survived a vote moved by Leader of the Opposition Sir Keir Starmer (the P.M. having already announced his intention to resign).

The rest? Well, they can basically be filed under 'misc.' The Duke of Devonshire, for example, was brought down in 1756 by a variety of factors, not least of which was the execution of Admiral Byng during the Seven Years' War, widely seen as a miscarriage of justice. The Duke of Portland resigned after a scandal in 1809 when two of his Cabinet ministers, Mr. Canning (later P.M. himself) and Viscount Castlereagh, fought a duel. Some, such as the Earl of Shelburne in 1783, were brought down by the shifting allegiances among the various parliamentary factions of the day. For some, such as David Lloyd George in 1922, it was the breakdown of a temporary coalition. Others, like Earl Grey in 1834 or Arthur Balfour in 1905, were undermined by Cabinet splits and internal party disunity. Viscount Goderich, meanwhile, resigned in 1828 simply because he was completely inept and knew it.

Frederick John Robinson, 1st Earl of Ripon by Sir Thomas Lawrence.jpg Viscount Goderich (P.M., 1827-8) ~ who reportedly begged King George IV in tears to be allowed to resign

Boris' fall is difficult to categorise. He certainly was not incompetent and desperate to go, like Lord Goderich, whatever his opponents may say. As I said in my blog, he has been a by and large successful P.M. Like most P.M.s, he was unpopular among certain sections of his own party but one does not detect the kind of fatal internal disunity that plagued Mr. Major's final days or that broader sense of dissatisfaction that characterised the death throes of Mrs Thatcher's government. His Cabinet did not seem particularly split. Rather, Boris' is a whole new category of resignation in having been prompted by apparent weariness amongst ministerial colleagues with the constant trickle of entirely avoidable controversies. Some of his supporters claim he was 'hounded' from office by unprecedented press hostility but, while there is some truth in that, I recently read a short biography of Lord Bute and few P.M.s before or since could claim to match the relentless and deeply personal animus that was directed at Lord Bute, largely on account of nothing more than his being a Scotsman.

So, in conclusion, while I think the Conservative Party may yet regret the fact that Boris Johnson has been forced out of office, the truth is it was not that unusual.

UPDATE

Fifty days after succeeding Boris Johnson, Elizabeth Truss was forced to resign in the face of widespread opposition to her economic policies. Her resignation, after just over a month in office, makes her officially the shortest-serving Prime Minister in British history. She has displaced George Canning, who set the previous record at four months and has held the dubious distinction unchallenged for the past 195 years. Miss Truss' new record is going to take some breaking!

photograph Rt. Hon. Elizabeth Truss, M.P. (P.M., Sept.-Oct. 2022)

She is also the eighteenth British Prime Minister never to have won a General Election, following on from Gordon Brown, who succeeded Tony Blair upon his resignation in 2007 and went on to lose the 2010 General Election. Miss Truss is, however, the first Prime Minister since Neville Chamberlain to have served as Prime Minister without ever even contesting and losing a General Election. Mr. Chamberlain succeeded Stanley Baldwin in 1937 and resigned in 1940 following the outbreak of World War II, with no intervening election. Mr. Chamberlain was replaced by Winston Churchill, who would lead Britain through the war only to lose office at the General Election of 1945.

Perhaps more significantly from a constitutional point of view, as I outlined above, it is by no means unusual for the governing party to switch leaders between elections - indeed, if anything, it has been the norm'. In my lifetime, Margaret Thatcher was succeeded by John Major, Tony Blair by Gordon Brown, David Cameron by Theresa May, Theresa May by Boris Johnson and then Boris Johnson by Liz Truss. What is more unusual is for this to happen twice between elections. In fact, until I researched it, I felt sure it must be unprecedented. I have discovered, in actuality, that there is ample precedent, though it has become highly unusual.

For the most recent historical example, we must go back to the aforementioned changeover from Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Churchill in 1940 - over 80 years ago. That was the last time a Prime Minister succeeded a Prime Minister who had themselves succeeded a previous Prime Minister without either of them having fought an election.

Still, none of this is as bad as the period between the General Elections of 1761 and 1768, when there was no less than FOUR changes of Prime Minister. This was when the office of Prime Minister was still relatively new and the system of political parties less well established. In those days, M.P.s sat in factions and loose alliances rather than organised political parties. Despite having won the General Election of 1761, King George III dismissed his Whig Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, the following year and replaced him with his new favourite, the Earl of Bute (a Tory). Lord Bute proved so wildly unpopular that he had to be sacked after less than 10 months in office and was replaced by George Grenville. Even by the factional standards of the time, the Whig Party had by then begun to splinter into several warring cliques, centred around the leading men of the day - principally the 'Grenvillites', 'Rockingham Whigs' and 'Chathamites'. As they vied for power, Mr. Grenville was dismissed by the King a couple of years later in preference for the Marquess of Rockingham and, only a year after that, replaced Lord Rockingham with the Earl of Chatham. Lord Chatham suffered a nervous breakdown in 1768 and the subsequent General Election returned a new coalition government nominally led by the new Chathamite Whig leader the Duke of Grafton but in reality dominated by the Tory leader Lord North.

photograph Rt. Hon. Rishi Sunak, M.P. (P.M., 2022-present)

The principle here is that it is not the Prime Minister of the day who wins a mandate at an election, as prime ministers are not directly elected. Fortunately, we now have properly organised parties rather than factions and, although there are many who dislike the party system, as I have always said, if we did not have political parties then we would need to invent them. It is the party they lead that wins the mandate in an election rather than the person of the Prime Minister. The sole qualification for the office is to be capable of leading the largest party and commanding a majority in the House of Commons. As Rishi Sunak is now the Leader of the Conservative & Unionist Party and enjoys an 80-seat Commons majority, King Charles III has invited him to form a government in His name and serve as our new Prime Minister (the second of His Majesty's reign). Mr. Sunak is, incidentally, the first British Asian and the first Hindu to serve as Prime Minister and, at 42 years of age, the youngest P.M. since the Earl of Liverpool took office at the same age in 1812. Over all, he is our sixth youngest P.M. ever.

I have updated my list of prime ministerial downfalls below. [I shall continue to update the list below as new P.M.s bite the dust but I shall leave the article above as is. A.S.]

 

Partly for my own entertainment, I've compiled a list of prime ministerial downfalls:

 

The Earl of Orford (Whig) – Resigned after 20 years in office in 1742 after losing an effective VONC. *Better remembered as Sir Robert Walpole; died in 1745 aged 68

The Earl of Wilmington (Whig) – Died in office in 1743 aged 69, after only a year in power.

Henry Pelham (Whig) – Died in office in 1754 aged 59, after 10 years in power.

The Duke of Newcastle (Whig) – Forced to resign after 2 years in office in 1756 following the loss of Menorca in the Seven Years’ War.

The Duke of Devonshire (Whig) – Forced to resign after less than 8 months in office in 1757 for various reasons including the execution of Admiral Byng. *Died in 1764 aged 44

The Duke of Newcastle (Whig) – Dismissed by King George III in 1762, largely due to personal animosity, after a total of 8 years in power. *Died in 1768 aged 75

The Earl of Bute (Tory) – Resigned after less than 10 months in office due to his intense unpopularity and having lost the confidence of King George III in 1763. *Died in 1792 aged 78

George Grenville (Whig) – Dismissed by King George III after 2 years in power in 1765 in preference of Lord Rockingham. *Died in 1770 aged 58

The Marquess of Rockingham (Whig) – Resigned in 1766, after only a year in office, due to internal dissent within the Cabinet.

The Earl of Chatham (Whig) – Resigned nominally due to ill health in 1768 after 2 years in office. *Died in 1778 aged 69

The Duke of Grafton (Whig) – Resigned in 1770 due to a number of crises and public attacks after only a year in office. *Died in 1811 aged 75

Lord North (Whig) – Resigned after 12 years in office in 1782 after losing a VONC following the defeat at Yorktown during the American Revolution. *Later succeeded his father as Earl of Guilford; died in 1792 aged 60

The Marquess of Rockingham (Whig) – Died in office in 1783 aged 52, after just 14 weeks.

The Earl of Shelburne (Whig) – Forced to resign after less than 9 months by an alliance of Charles James Fox and Lord North in 1783. *Later created Marquess of Lansdowne; died in 1805 aged 68

The Duke of Portland (Whig) – Lost a vote in the Lords on reform of the East India Co. in 1783 and forced to resign after just 8 months in power.

William Pitt (Tory) – Forced to resign after 17 years in power in 1801 in the face of opposition from King George III to Catholic Emancipation.

Henry Addington (Tory) – Forced to resign after 3 years in office following the return to favour of Mr. Pitt in 1804. *Later created Viscount Sidmouth; died in 1844 aged 86

William Pitt (Tory) – Died in office in 1806 aged 46, after just over a year back in power.

Lord Grenville (Tory) – Dismissed after a year in office in 1807 due to ongoing disagreements over Catholic Emancipation. *Died in 1834 aged 74

The Duke of Portland (Tory) – Resigned after 2 years in office following the scandalous duel between George Canning and Viscount Castlereagh in 1809. *Died 3 weeks later aged 71

Spencer Perceval (Tory) – Assassinated in 1812 aged 49, after 2 years in office.

The Earl of Liverpool (Tory) – Resigned after 15 years in power due to ill health in 1827, dying shortly thereafter aged 58.

George Canning (Tory) – Died in office in 1827 after less than 4 months in office aged 57.

Viscount Goderich (Tory) – Resigned in favour of the Duke of Wellington in 1828, just 5 months after taking office, due to his ineptness. *Later created Earl of Ripon; died in 1859 aged 76

The Duke of Wellington (Tory) – Lost a VONC in 1830 and resigned after 2 years in office.

Earl Grey (Whig) – Resigned in 1834 after 4 years in office over Cabinet splits. *Died in 1845 aged 81

Viscount Melbourne (Whig) – Dismissed by King William IV in 1834, after less than 4 months in office, in opposition to reforms.

The Duke of Wellington (Tory) – Caretaker Prime Minister from Nov.-Dec. 1834, resigned on the return to England of Tory leader Sir Robert Peel, who had been in Sardinia when Lord Melbourne fell. *Died in 1852 aged 83

Sir Robert Peel (Tory) – Resigned after less than 100 days in 1835, having failed to win a majority in the 1835 G.E.

Viscount Melbourne (Whig) – Lost a VONC in 1841 and resigned after 6 years in office. *Died in 1848 aged 69

Sir Robert Peel (Tory) – Resigned after 5 years in office following defeat in a vote on the Corn Laws (effective VONC) in 1846. *Died in 1850 aged 62

Lord John Russell (Whig) – Lost a VONC in 1852 and resigned after 6 years in power. *Later created Earl Russell

The Earl of Derby (Conservative) – Lost a VONC (Budget) in 1852 and resigned after just 10 months.

The Earl of Aberdeen (Peelite Tory) – Lost a VONC (concerning the Crimean War) in 1855 and resigned after 2 years. *Died in 1860 aged 76

Viscount Palmerston (Liberal) – Lost a VONC in 1858 and resigned after 3 years in office.

The Earl of Derby (Conservative) – Lost a VONC in 1859 and resigned after just over a year.

Viscount Palmerston (Liberal) – Died in office in 1865 aged 81, after a total of 9 years in power.

Earl Russell (Liberal) – Resigned in 1866 due to party disunity after only 8 months. *Died in 1878 aged 85

The Earl of Derby (Conservative) – Retired from public life on medical advice in 1868 and died the follow year aged 70. He served a total of 4 years as P.M. over three terms.

Benjamin Disraeli (Conservative) – Lost the 1868 G.E. just 10 months after taking over from Lord Derby.

William Gladstone (Liberal) – Lost the 1874 G.E.

Benjamin Disraeli, later the Earl of Beaconsfield (Conservative) – Lost the 1880 G.E. after a total of 7 years in power. *Died in 1881 aged 76 

William Gladstone (Liberal) – Resigned in 1885 after 5 years in office following the murder of General Gordon in Khartoum.

The Marquess of Salisbury (Conservative) ­– Forced from office in 1886 after only 7 month when the Irish Nationalists switched their support to the Liberals.

William Gladstone (Liberal) – Forced to resign in 1886 after just 5 months back in power due to internal party splits over Irish Home Rule.

The Marquess of Salisbury (Conservative) – Lost a VONC in 1892 and resigned after 6 years back in power.

William Gladstone (Liberal) – Resigned for the last time in 1894 over internal party disputes around naval rearmament and tax matters, capping off a total of 13 years in power. *Died in 1898 aged 88

The Earl of Rosebery (Liberal) – Resigned in 1895 after losing a vote on the army supply after just over a year in office. *Died in 1929 aged 82

The Marquess of Salisbury (Conservative) – Resigned in 1902 in failing health and heartbroken by the death of his wife and died the following year aged 73, after a total of 14 years in office.

Arthur Balfour (Conservative) – Resigned after 3 years in office in 1905 over internal party disputes around free trade. *Later created Earl of Balfour; died in 1930 aged 81

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (Liberal) – Resigned after 2 years in office in 1908 due to ill health and died shortly afterwards aged 71.

H. H. Asquith (Liberal) – Resigned after 9 years in power in 1916, during W.W.1, having lost the confidence of coalition partners. *Later created Earl of Oxford and Asquith; died in 1928 aged 75

David Lloyd George (Liberal) – Forced to resign after 6 years in office in 1922 after the Conservatives withdrew from the coalition. *Later created Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor; died in 1945 aged 82

Bonar Law (Conservative) – Resigned just 6 months into office in 1923 due to ill health and died shortly thereafter aged 65.

Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) – Lost a VONC (King’s Speech) in 1924 and resigned, after 8 months in office.

Ramsay MacDonald (Labour) – Lost the 1924 G.E.

Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) – Lost the 1929 G.E.

Ramsay MacDonald (Labour) – Resigned after 7 years in power in 1935 due to ill health. *Died in 1937 aged 71.

Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) – Retired for the last time in 1937 following the Abdication Crisis and questions around rearmament, after just over 7 years in total. *Later created Earl Baldwin of Bewdley; died in 1947 aged 80

Neville Chamberlain (Conservative) – Resigned after 3 years in office in 1940 due to ill health and lack of support following the outbreak of W.W.2 and died six months later aged 71.

Winston Churchill (Conservative) – Lost the 1945 G.E.

Clement Attlee (Labour) – Lost the 1951 G.E., after 6 years in office. *Later created Earl Attlee; died in 1967 aged 84

Sir Winston Churchill (Conservative) – Resigned in 1955 due to ill health, after 9 years in power. *Died in 1965 aged 90

Sir Anthony Eden (Conservative) – Resigned after 2 years in office in 1957 due to ill health, exhausted by the Suez Crisis. *Later created Earl of Avon; died in 1977 aged 79

Harold Macmillan (Conservative) – Resigned after 6 years in office in 1963 due to ill health, also exhausted by the Profumo Affair. *Later created Earl of Stockton; died in 1986 aged 92

Sir Alec Douglas-Home, formerly the Earl of Home (Conservative) – Lost the 1964 G.E., just under a year after succeeding Mr. Macmillan. *Later created Lord Home of the Hirsel; died in 1995 aged 92

Harold Wilson (Labour) – Lost the 1970 G.E.

Edward Heath (Conservative) – Lost the 1974 G.E. *Later knighted; died in 2005 aged 89

Harold Wilson (Labour) – Resigned in 1976 due to ill health, after 8 years in office. *Later created Lord Wilson of Rievaulx; died in 1995 aged 79

James Callaghan (Labour) – Lost the 1979 G.E. following a VONC, after 3 years in office *Later created Lord Callaghan of Cardiff; died in 2005 aged 92

Margaret Thatcher (Conservative) – Ousted by Conservative M.P.s in 1990, after more than 11 years in power. *Later created Baroness Thatcher; died in 2013 aged 87

John Major (Conservative) – Lost the 1997 G.E., after 7 years in power. *Since knighted

Tony Blair (Labour) – Resigned after 10 years in power in 2007 under internal party pressure. *Since knighted

Gordon Brown (Labour) – Lost the 2010 G.E., after 3 years in office.

David Cameron (Conservative) – Resigned after 6 years in office in 2016 following defeat in the Brexit Referendum. *Now Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton

Theresa May (Conservative) – Resigned after 3 years in office in 2019 under internal party pressure over Brexit. *Now Baroness May of Maidenhead

Boris Johnson (Conservative) – Resigned after 3 years in office in 2022... for reasons still being hotly debated!

Elizabeth Truss (Conservative) - Resigned after just 50 days in office in 2022 due to widespread opposition to her economic policies.

Rishi Sunak (Conservative) - Lost the 2024 G.E., after 2 years in office.

Saturday, October 15, 2022

Boundary Review *2nd Update*


Boundary Commission publish draft recommendations

The Commission are now consulting on the proposed new warding arrangements for Basildon Borough

 

Doubtless you will all remember my last blog on this subject back in August, following the vote at Basildon Council in July on new ward boundaries (you could scarcely have forgotten something so riveting and memorable). These proposals were submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission as part of their review - the first of its kind in Basildon for 20 years. The purpose of the review is to ensure borough councillors represent similar sized electorates. Those proposals have now been considered, along with other submissions made in the recent consultation, and the Commission has published its draft recommendations. These are now open for further public consultation and some of you may have seen the Facebook ads (sadly, the comments from the public on the ads continue to evince little understanding of the purpose of the exercise and underscore the ongoing difficulties in enabling non-politicos to engage constructively with this process).

Just as a reminder, the current ward boundaries are below:

CURRENT WARD BOUNDARIES (since 2002):



 

 


 

 

 

Billericay and Wickford

I suppose the headline for my own ward in particular, and Billericay in general, it that it is mostly 'no change'. Fortunately, the Commission has rejected the wacky counter-proposals put forward by Basildon Labour, which would have entailed wholesale change to the Billericay wards. Under the proposals put forward by the Conservatives, adopted by both the Council and now the Commission, the boundaries of both my Billericay East ward and neighbouring Billericay West will remain unchanged. The only change proposed to Burstead is the inclusion of Steeple View to the south. The A127 will then form the southern boundary of the ward.

This is a very sensible outcome for Billericay. It means that the East and West borough wards will continue to be coterminous with the Town Council wards. Burstead is already physically large, comprised of the South-West ward of the town and the separate parishes of Little Burstead and Great Burstead & South Green. Despite that, the ward still has too few electors but Labour proposed a ridiculous 'uber-ward' that would have stretched almost the entire length of the borough into Wickford. Bringing Steeple View alone into Burstead is a more sensible and measured solution.

Another consequence of the Commission’s wise decision is that the A127 will remain the natural boundary between the north and south of the borough, whereas Labour proposed moving both Steeple View and Noak Bridge into Laindon Park to create a new ‘Laindon North’ ward, which would have straddled the arterial road. It made no sense to do that when the arterial is a natural and obvious boundary feature.

Looking at some of the consultation comments from Billericay residents there was, predictably, a suggestion that Billericay should be removed from Basildon Borough altogether. That would, however, not fall within the scope of a ward boundary review but would require a ‘Principal Area Boundary Review’, reviewing the boundaries of whole districts and boroughs, which is an entirely separate (and much more complicated) process. There were also suggestions from Billericay residents that Queen’s Park should have its own ward or that South Green should be included in a Billericay ward rather than Burstead. Queen’s Park is not big enough to be a ward on its own but it does form the bulk of Billericay West. South Green is part of the Parish of Great Burstead & South Green and has its own parish council, so its continued inclusion in Burstead is also sensible – though I grew up in South Green, so I am well aware that most South Green residents make no such distinctions and regard themselves firmly as Billericians! 

I realise that the changes to the rest of the borough are of limited interest to my constituents in Billericay but, for the purposes of this blog, I shall go through them. Having divested it of Steeple View, the proposal is that the remainder of Crouch – namely the parishes of Noak Bridge, Ramsden Bellhouse and Ramsden Crays – will be combined with the western area of Wickford that currently falls within Wickford Castledon. This ward is being provisionally called ‘Crouch’ though I have said I think ‘Castledon & Crouch’ would preserve the separate identity of the part of Wickford joining the ward.

The only area in which the Commission has demurred with the Council in Wickford is in the precise allocation of polling districts, apparently arising from a miscalculation of electors in the Bromfords area. The Commission proposes transferring an area around Wickford High Street into an enlarged Wickford Park ward instead, using the River Crouch as a boundary. With Wickford North remaining unchanged, I had proposed that it would be sensible to rename Wickford Park as ‘Wickford South’ but this has not been adopted by the Commission as this time. The Commission report would seem to indicate, interestingly, that I was the only consultee who commented upon ward naming at all! So none of my naming suggestions have been adopted, as I was the only one who suggested them.

Laindon, Basildon and Pitsea

Moving south of the '127, the Commission have endorsed our proposals that the current Laindon Park, Lee Chapel North and Pitsea North-West wards should remain unchanged and have rejected Labour’s extensive proposed alterations. The Commission has slightly modified our proposals for Langdon Hills by moving the Westley Green area into the ward as well as Lee Chapel South.  

The Commission's proposals for the New Town itself differ substantially from those proposed by both the Council and Labour. Instead, it has opted for a modified version of proposals put forward by an unnamed local resident (which just goes to show it is well worth having your say!). With Westley Green moving into the new Langdon Hills ward, the Commission propose a modified Nethermayne ward, with the boundary running along Clay Hill Road and London Road, with the southern part of Vange transferred into that ward. The remaining northern part of Vange around Honeypot Lane would then be tacked onto the end of St. Martin’s. Whereas we had proposed to break up Fryerns, the Commission propose no changes there.

The resident proposed renaming St. Martin’s as ‘Barstable’. There was formerly a ward by that name but it was abolished in 1979. I have no idea what the boundaries looked like but I believe it became part of what was later known as ‘Fryerns Central’ (that too was abolished in 2002).

Pitsea South-East remains largely unchanged, as we advocated, but the Commission propose to snip a little off the western tip, north of London Road and west of Clay Hill Road, and add that into their new ‘Nethermayne’ ward.

 

PROPOSED NEW BOUNDARIES (Draft Commission Proposals):




Conclusion

The Commission recommendations seem measured and sensible. I am pleased that Labour’s wacky counter-proposals have been rejected and the Commission is not advancing widespread changes in the main Billericay wards, the boundaries of which have now been firmly established for well over 40 years. The addition of Steeple View to Burstead is a measured and reasonable solution there and the changes proposed for Crouch and the Wickford seats are minimally disruptive. I am gratified, also, that Laindon and Pitsea emerge relatively unscathed. The Commission proposals for the New Town differ from those we proposed but make sense. It is, however, a shame to lose Vange. There has been a ward named Vange ever since the formation of Basildon District Council in 1973 and the areas has a very strong sense of identity.

In my August blog, I asked ‘What’s in a name?’, referencing the passionate protestations of Councillor Davies (Lab, Fryerns) over the loss of his ward. Reading through the various submissions to the consultation, it does seem that I was the only respondent to make proposals in respect of what wards should be called. These things, of course, are not necessarily at the forefront of people's minds but I do think that they matter hugely, as that sense of identification within local communities is essential to effective political engagement.

The Commission did not take up any of my naming submissions, as nobody else commented on that aspect. For what it’s worth, I still think the name Burstead can safely be retained under the new ward boundaries but I remain of the view that it may be worth considering ‘Castledon & Crouch’ for the new ward. I shall defer to people from there, obviously, but it seems to me that there was a separate Castledon ward from 1973 until 1979, after which it became part of the new Wickford South ward. This, in turn, became Wickford Castledon in 2002. With much of that ward now being added to Crouch, the rest of which is made up of small hamlets and villages, all of whom have their own local parish councils and many of which identify more closely with Billericay than Wickford, I think it might be prudent to retain the Castledon name.

Westley Green is already closely identified with Langdon Hills but I still think it should be 'Langdon Hills & Lee Chapel South'. There were actually a few comments around the Pitsea seats, particularly relating to the Parish of Bowers Gifford & North Benfleet. Looking at the interactive map on the Commission website, which allows you to overlay the ward boundaries with the parish boundaries, again I shall defer to the affected residents, but I think it might be sensible to rename Pitsea North-West rather more straightforwardly as ‘Pitsea North’ and Pitsea South-East as ‘Pitsea South, Bowers Gifford & North Benfleet’ – rather long, I grant you, but with an elegant ring to it.

As for the New Town wards, in my previous submission I advocated ‘Basildon Town East’, ‘Basildon Town North’ and ‘Basildon Town South & Vange’. In light of the Commission’s revised proposals, it does seem sensible to retain the name Fryerns for the unaltered ward. One resident suggested St. Martin’s be renamed ‘Barstable’. This was another old pre-1979 ward and might be an artful solution. Likewise, somebody suggested that Nethermayne be renamed ‘Clay Hill’ but that is just swapping one road name for another. 'Kingswood' might be a more salubrious name for the ward. I did consider proposing that this ward be called 'Vange' but, although the proposed boundaries are not dissimilar to the old pre-2002 Vange, a large part of the area that people generally regard as Vange is effectively going to be split in half. One solution might be to rename St. Martin's as 'Vange North & Barstable' and Nethermayne as 'Vange South & Kingswood'. I suspect I may be alone in caring, however. 

 

What next?

Residents can comment on the Commission’s draft proposals via the consultation portal or by emailing reviews@lgbce.org.uk

Alternatively, as ever, if you are ‘old school’ you can write to:

The Review Officer (Basildon)
LGBCE
P.O. Box 133
Blyth
NE24 9FE
.

 

The consultation closes on December 12th, 2022.

 

When this second consultation is concluded, the Commission will analyse the submissions and form its final recommendations, which will be published in February 2023. An Order will then be laid before Parliament and, once approved, those will be the boundaries on which we will fight an ‘all-out’ election in May 2024 and elect all 42 borough councillors under the new warding arrangements.

 

Sexy, exciting stuff, I’m sure you’ll all agree!

New Draft Local Plan

Reg 18 Consultation now open The latest and possibly last chapter in the long-running saga of Basildon's Local Plan is about to commence...