This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/26/who-will-replace-david-cameron
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Who will replace David Cameron? History points to the 2010 intake | Who will replace David Cameron? History points to the 2010 intake |
| (6 months later) | |
| This feels like deja vu, but I had a quick thought on Ben Brogan's latest essential article on the mood inside the Tory party, especially his conclusion that its next leader may come from the hugely ambitious and variously talented group of MPs first elected in 2010. | This feels like deja vu, but I had a quick thought on Ben Brogan's latest essential article on the mood inside the Tory party, especially his conclusion that its next leader may come from the hugely ambitious and variously talented group of MPs first elected in 2010. |
| There are many Labour types who look at the superb calibre of its own 2010 intake, and think the same thing. Well, what are their chances? | There are many Labour types who look at the superb calibre of its own 2010 intake, and think the same thing. Well, what are their chances? |
| The whole idea of the "intake" may not mean anything to anyone outside Westminster, but it matters hugely inside. For MPs, it's equivalent to your year-group at school or university, but even more so, since they tend always to be four to five years apart from the intake on either side. | The whole idea of the "intake" may not mean anything to anyone outside Westminster, but it matters hugely inside. For MPs, it's equivalent to your year-group at school or university, but even more so, since they tend always to be four to five years apart from the intake on either side. |
| Just like at school, it throws up rivalries and tensions, but equally a sense of solidarity, and certainly a desire that your group should be regarded as the lead candidates for promotion and advancement, provided of course that you are one of those advanced. | Just like at school, it throws up rivalries and tensions, but equally a sense of solidarity, and certainly a desire that your group should be regarded as the lead candidates for promotion and advancement, provided of course that you are one of those advanced. |
| It was hugely symbolic that, in 2006, members of every recent intake wrote to Tony Blair calling for him to set out plans for a stable and orderly succession to Gordon Brown; it showed – in a way nothing else could have done – that there was broad (although not universal) support for that view among the younger Labour backbenchers. | It was hugely symbolic that, in 2006, members of every recent intake wrote to Tony Blair calling for him to set out plans for a stable and orderly succession to Gordon Brown; it showed – in a way nothing else could have done – that there was broad (although not universal) support for that view among the younger Labour backbenchers. |
| So what does history tell us about the chances of the Class of 2010? Well, if we assume that modern British politics began in 1975 with the selection of Margaret Thatcher as Tory leader, then this has been the sequence of Tory leaders, alongside the year they first entered the House of Commons, and how long they led the party for: | So what does history tell us about the chances of the Class of 2010? Well, if we assume that modern British politics began in 1975 with the selection of Margaret Thatcher as Tory leader, then this has been the sequence of Tory leaders, alongside the year they first entered the House of Commons, and how long they led the party for: |
| Margaret Thatcher: 1959 – leads from 1975-1990 (15 years) | Margaret Thatcher: 1959 – leads from 1975-1990 (15 years) |
| John Major: 1979 – leads from 1990-1997 (seven years) | John Major: 1979 – leads from 1990-1997 (seven years) |
| William Hague/Iain Duncan Smith/Michael Howard: 1989/1992/1983 – collectively lead from 1997-2005 (eight years) | William Hague/Iain Duncan Smith/Michael Howard: 1989/1992/1983 – collectively lead from 1997-2005 (eight years) |
| David Cameron: 2001 – leads from 2005 to present (seven years and counting) | David Cameron: 2001 – leads from 2005 to present (seven years and counting) |
| Now, I'm cheating a little by bracketing together the group of Tory leaders who took on Blair as PM, but – strategically – that was a weird period in Tory history, and I'll long argue that the Tories should have stuck with Hague even after 2001, and that the short reigns of IDS and Howard were an aberration. | Now, I'm cheating a little by bracketing together the group of Tory leaders who took on Blair as PM, but – strategically – that was a weird period in Tory history, and I'll long argue that the Tories should have stuck with Hague even after 2001, and that the short reigns of IDS and Howard were an aberration. |
| As our internal polls used to tell us, there were a number of Tory leaders who could potentially have beaten Blair in 2005, and Hague was arguably one of them. Howard definitely wasn't. | As our internal polls used to tell us, there were a number of Tory leaders who could potentially have beaten Blair in 2005, and Hague was arguably one of them. Howard definitely wasn't. |
| Anyway, if we imagine – not implausibly – that Hague had seen the Tories through two elections, then we'd observe a pattern where – for every seven to eight years a Tory leader is in charge – recent history suggests that the intake from which their successor is drawn shifts forward around 10 years. | Anyway, if we imagine – not implausibly – that Hague had seen the Tories through two elections, then we'd observe a pattern where – for every seven to eight years a Tory leader is in charge – recent history suggests that the intake from which their successor is drawn shifts forward around 10 years. |
| Which would mean – if the Tories decide to unseat Cameron in the coming year or more likely, as Brogan says, after the next election – then it is indeed most likely his successor would come from the 2010 intake, even though none of the current cabinet comes from that group. | Which would mean – if the Tories decide to unseat Cameron in the coming year or more likely, as Brogan says, after the next election – then it is indeed most likely his successor would come from the 2010 intake, even though none of the current cabinet comes from that group. |
| Of course, the optimistic scenario for Cameron loyalists is that he wins the next election and the one after that, and steps down in 2020 after matching Thatcher, and leading the party for 15 years. In which case, the pattern would suggest his successor would come from that 2020 intake. Boris, anyone? | Of course, the optimistic scenario for Cameron loyalists is that he wins the next election and the one after that, and steps down in 2020 after matching Thatcher, and leading the party for 15 years. In which case, the pattern would suggest his successor would come from that 2020 intake. Boris, anyone? |
| And what of Labour, which has been quicker to advance members of the 2010 intake to its front bench, notably Chuka Umunna and Rachel Reeves? Its recent history – since the Thatcher period began – is even clearer. Look at the list of intakes from which its last seven leaders have been drawn: | And what of Labour, which has been quicker to advance members of the 2010 intake to its front bench, notably Chuka Umunna and Rachel Reeves? Its recent history – since the Thatcher period began – is even clearer. Look at the list of intakes from which its last seven leaders have been drawn: |
| 1945: Jim Callaghan | 1945: Jim Callaghan |
| 1945: Michael Foot | 1945: Michael Foot |
| 1970: Neil Kinnock | 1970: Neil Kinnock |
| 1970: John Smith | 1970: John Smith |
| 1983: Tony Blair | 1983: Tony Blair |
| 1983: Gordon Brown | 1983: Gordon Brown |
| 2005: Ed Miliband | 2005: Ed Miliband |
| So the pattern is that – while their periods in office differ – the Labour leadership tends to skip several intakes at a time, and shifts forward around 12-15 years each pair of leaders that go by. That would suggest the next Labour leader will – like Ed Miliband – come from the 2005 intake, but the one after that is not yet in parliament, and will take his or her seat for the first time in the 2020 election. | So the pattern is that – while their periods in office differ – the Labour leadership tends to skip several intakes at a time, and shifts forward around 12-15 years each pair of leaders that go by. That would suggest the next Labour leader will – like Ed Miliband – come from the 2005 intake, but the one after that is not yet in parliament, and will take his or her seat for the first time in the 2020 election. |
| Of course, patterns are made to be broken, and all this may change. But, right now and mainly because I'm a great believer in political history repeating itself, I'd have my money on Cameron's successor coming from the 2010 Tory intake, but their exceptional Labour equivalents – Umunna, Reeves, Tristram Hunt, Gloria De Piero, Michael Dugher, Jonathan Ashworth and many more – having to settle for great cabinet careers instead of the top job. | Of course, patterns are made to be broken, and all this may change. But, right now and mainly because I'm a great believer in political history repeating itself, I'd have my money on Cameron's successor coming from the 2010 Tory intake, but their exceptional Labour equivalents – Umunna, Reeves, Tristram Hunt, Gloria De Piero, Michael Dugher, Jonathan Ashworth and many more – having to settle for great cabinet careers instead of the top job. |
| So the question for them becomes not which one of us is ahead of the others, but which one of us is capable of breaking the mould? | So the question for them becomes not which one of us is ahead of the others, but which one of us is capable of breaking the mould? |
| Post-script: | Post-script: |
| Of course, it's also worth noting from the sequences above that – the Howard aberration aside – neither main party in the modern era has gone back to a previous intake to select its new leader. There are good explanations for that on both sides, but nevertheless, if you were placing your bets the way you always must in the Grand National – taking past history into account – you wouldn't see why Hague, Theresa May, David Miliband and Yvette Cooper are the bookies' favourites to take the lead if Ed or Dave fall at Becher's, given that they are all from previous intakes. | Of course, it's also worth noting from the sequences above that – the Howard aberration aside – neither main party in the modern era has gone back to a previous intake to select its new leader. There are good explanations for that on both sides, but nevertheless, if you were placing your bets the way you always must in the Grand National – taking past history into account – you wouldn't see why Hague, Theresa May, David Miliband and Yvette Cooper are the bookies' favourites to take the lead if Ed or Dave fall at Becher's, given that they are all from previous intakes. |
| • This article originally appeared on Damian McBride's blog and is republished with permission | • This article originally appeared on Damian McBride's blog and is republished with permission |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
Previous version
1
Next version