Evans, Eric J. (2001). "Compendium of Information". The Forging of the Modern State: Early Industrial Britain, 1783–1870 (3rded.). Routledge (published 2013). ISBN 978-1-317-87371-6. I went to sign the commemoration book in the Royal Mile and then to his funeral at Cluny Church. It was one of the most emotional days of my life. I thought this book was generally good. I found it interesting and informative, but overall, it felt quite wooly. As I probably should have expected from the title, it does rely on the authors opinions of why these certain people didn't manage to become Prime Minister, and some of the reasons were wishy-washy. We’ve taken a look at all the new Prime Ministers the UK has had since 1900. Including Boris Johnson, 23 different people have become Prime Minister since 1900 (we’re ignoring the Marquess of Salisbury who was Prime Minister for spells during the nineteenth century and until 1902). Morrill, John (25 January 2018). "Robert Harley, 1st earl of Oxford". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Archived from the original on 5 September 2015 . Retrieved 5 February 2018.

Browne, J. Houston (1858). Lives of the Prime Ministers of England: From the Restoration to the Present Time. Vol.1. London: Thomas Cautley Newby. Courthope 1838, p.33; Eccleshall & Walker 2002, p.123; Englefield, Seaton & White 1995, pp.124–130; Evans 2001, p.471; Mahon & Cardwell 1856, p.17; Shaw 1906, p.447. Courthope 1838, p.33; Eccleshall & Walker 2002, p.123; Englefield, Seaton & White 1995, pp.124–130; Pryde et al. 1996, p.47; Shaw 1906, p.447; Tout 1910, p.740. Introduction". Britain before the Reform Act: Politics and Society 1815–1832 (2nded.). Routledge (published 2014). ISBN 978-1-317-88547-4. To take some recent examples, Tony Blair and David Cameron came in due to elections in 1997 and 2010, while Gordon Brown, Theresa May and Boris Johnson all entered office following the resignation of their predecessors.

‘Electing’ Prime Ministers

I think he was the one man who people did believe, whether they agreed with him or not, and I think he was the best Prime Minister Britain never had! I was only 11 at the time but I remember watching him as a child and thinking how impressive this man was. He inspired me as a youngster - he spoke with such truth and conviction that I wanted to vote for him. If only. Law, Bonar (27 November 1922). "Irish Free State Constitution Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol.159. House of Commons. col.327. Archived from the original on 27 April 2018. Balfour, Arthur (29 March 1910). "Duration of Parliament". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol.15. House of Commons. col.1189. Archived from the original on 2 September 2018. in 1860... Lord Palmerston, then the Leader of this House. Mr. Lloyd George's War Administration, 1916". The Constitutional Yearbook. Vol.33. National Unionist Association. 1919.

Part of Richards’s gift is making observations that seem so self-evidently correct as to be banal, but are in fact new – as when he points out that Margaret Thatcher’s decision to go to war to retake the Falklands was neither a display of weakness or strength, but simply a reflection on the fact that “the only alternative to a military response would have been her resignation”. John Smith always seemed a very noble, brave and honest man and I confess that I had to drive to a quiet spot and sat in my car and sobbed for a time. I can remember too feeling such sympathy for Elizabeth and the girls too. Butler & Butler 2010, pp.61, 270; Eccleshall & Walker 2002, p.392; Seldon 2007, pp.77, 371, 647; UK Parliament 2017b.Ten of those 28 occasions followed a general election where the new Prime Minister led the party which gained the most votes at that general election. One changeover followed a general election where the new Prime Minister led the party which came second in the general election (Labour’s Ramsay Macdonald in 1924 who, despite coming second, managed to form a coalition government with the Liberal party). Cook & Stevenson 1980, p.11; Courthope 1838, p.25; Eccleshall & Walker 2002, p.77; Englefield, Seaton & White 1995, pp.69–74; Venning 2005, p.93. I was happy to see Tony Blair elected as PM in 1997, but could never shake the feeling that if he had lived, John Smith would have been PM, and in my opinion would have done a much, much better job. A committed Christian, an honourable man and sorely missed in these days of image and spin. Unsurprisingly, as a former editor of Harper’s Bazaar UK, Picardie writes most vibrantly when reflecting on the sartorial history and effervescent atmosphere of postwar Paris. The hope that the opulent silks of Dior’s 1947 “New Look” collection represented ­– the luxury, femininity and freedom ­– was everything that the Nazi occupation had sought to extinguish and, as we now know, Catherine’s bravery helped to restore.

Lee, Simon; Beech, Matt, eds. (2011). The Cameron–Clegg Government: Coalition Politics in an Age of Austerity. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-30501-4.I was devastated, having spent my entire adult life under the Tories, my family suffering as a direct result of Thatcher's "ideology". I remember that day very well. I was working as a barman and as I had been working a late shift the previous night, I didn't hear any news before I got to the pub the following morning. By far the sanest president of recent times was Obama,” Runciman declares. Which may well be true, but Runciman has no way of reliably establishing it. He moves from that assertion to the argument that Obama’s exemplary sanity was the reason he achieved less than Lyndon Johnson as president. A claim that is unknowable is used to justify an argument that is, at best, disputed. Might the differences between the two presidencies not be found in the fact that Johnson received significant cross-party support for all of his great reforms while every one of Obama’s legislative achievements, from healthcare to financial services regulation, were opposed bitterly by the Republicans? Wingate, Sophie (6 September 2022). "Liz Truss to become UK's third female prime minister". independent.co.uk. Independent . Retrieved 25 October 2022. Cook & Stevenson 1988, p.41; Eccleshall & Walker 2002, p.14; Englefield, Seaton & White 1995, pp.7–10; Jones & Jones 1986, p.222.

Butler & Butler 2010, pp.6–9; The Constitutional Yearbook 1919, p.42; Eccleshall & Walker 2002, p.252; Englefield, Seaton & White 1995, pp.237–243. Eccleshall & Walker 2002, p.106; Englefield, Seaton & White 1995, pp.104–108; Evans 2008, p.4; Pryde et al. 1996, p.47. I enjoyed this book immensely. It is British political history as Plutarch might have written it: these short vignettes are Lives, not histories, composed with an eye for character rather than a magnifying glass for detail, and expressed in conversational prose seasoned with anecdotes and peppered with quips. Like Plutarch, Richards is interested in drawing wider lessons from the lives he studies. While he tells these politicians’ stories very well, he never shies away from evaluating their actions, and asking why they never made it to the very top of British politics. Often, his conclusions are sapid: that the enemies you make to be a successful minister will make prevent you from ascending higher; that few things are more dangerous than being hailed as your party’s next leader before the vacancy arises; and that you can never stray too far from your party’s beliefs, regardless of how deeply held your own convictions are, if you aspire to lead it. And while Richards emulates Plutarch in many admirable respects, I trust his historical accuracy is better.A similar sense of modesty might well have rescued Where Power Stops, David Runciman’s new collection of essays on political books. I say “new”: actually, only the introduction and the afterword are new; the rest are revisions of pieces that Runciman penned for the London Review of Books. Collections of this type are always something of a challenge to review: taken singly, the essays are well-written meditations on a biography or memoir of a major political figure; presented together as reflections on the nature of personality and what they reveal about the limits of power renders them irksome. The introduction, which claims that “once we can understand the character of a person, we can follow that character behind the curtain and get to see what is really there”, writes a cheque that the essays cannot cash, because Runciman is not familiar with the character of the people he is writing about – he is familiar with books written about and by them.