“Events, dear boy, events” – Harold Macmillan
Starmer, in his dark moments, will have understandably been able to reflect on the series of unfortunate events which have resulted in his resignation as Labour leader, and a timetable for his departure from office.
Barring some unforeseen scandal, or political earthquake, Andy Burnham is set to become the next Leader of the Labour party, and consequently Prime Minister. The coming weeks and months will be filled with a sense of intrigue about who Burnham is and what his Government will seek to do?
History can give us a sense of the answer to these questions.
Events matter; events can really matter in British Politics.
Macmillan knew how events act as a constraint on government. His quote is often thought of as referring to unpredictable events which knock a government off course, such as the impact of geopolitics on Britain’s economy. Yet, the idea of events as a constraint on political action can help us understand the relevance of the most recent King’s Speech on the future of Burnham’s Government.
In fact, Macmillan himself was once constrained by a monarch’s Speech. On the 6 November 1956, the Queen’s Speech was delivered with Antony Eden as Prime Minister. 65 days later, Macmillan became Prime Minister, where he then had to wait 299 days until the Queen delivered a speech outlining an updated legislative agenda. In the meantime, he fulfilled set piece legislation from the 1956 Queen’s speech, including the Ghana Independence Act, the Homicide Act, the Rent Act, and the Electricity Act.
It is worth noting that Eden lost his office as Prime Minister due to a combination of health complications and foreign policy challenges, namely around Suez. Therefore, when Macmillan came to office, there was little pressure or expectation for him to immediately deviate from Eden’s domestic agenda.
Looking forward, we have had two other post 1945 instances of there being a brief period of time between a Queen’s Speech and a change of Prime Minister.
30 years after Macmillan’s experience with legislative confines, the Queen delivered a speech with Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister on 7 November 1990. A week later, a leadership election was called, and on 28 November, John Major was elected Prime Minister. He continued with his legislative inheritance, passing the following key pieces of legislation from the speech: the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act, New Roads and Street Works Act, Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, and Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act, the Planning and Compensation Act, Atomic Weapons Establishment Act, Child Support Act, School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Act, and Criminal Justice Act. He had his first Queen’s speech 337 days after becoming Prime Minister.
More recently, on the 18th May 2016, David Cameron was in-post as Prime Minister when the Queen delivered a speech. 56 days later, Theresa May became Prime Minister. She fulfilled a reasonable portion of this speech’s legislation, including the National Citizen Service Act, Children and Social Work Act, Technical and Further Education Act, Neighbourhood Planning Act, Bus Services Act, Criminal Finances Act, Higher Education and Research Act, and Digital Economy Act.
May then had her first Queen’s speech 343 days after becoming Prime Minister, effectively she pursued Cameron’s agenda as laid out in the Queen’s Speech for a year. When we consider that Cameron left office due to the outcome of the Brexit Referendum, then May’s behaviour makes sense. When Cameron left, there was no explicit rejection of his domestic agenda, in fact, just over a year ago, he had won a majority to pursue this agenda.
These three post-1945 cases, when there has been the quickest change of Prime Minister since a monarch’s speech, lead us to believe that the speech remains informative regardless of the leadership change. In each case, significant portions of the speech were fulfilled by the next Prime Minister, with the new Prime Minister waiting close to or longer than 300 days before having their own monarch’s speech.
The historical recurrence of new prime ministers, who come to office without a general election, continuing the core legislative agenda of their predecessors may, at first glance, appear surprising. One might expect that when a party has rejected a Prime Minister, or they feel the need to step aside, the incoming prime minister would seek to establish a distinct political identity and differentiate themselves from their predecessor.
This is true in some sense, it is far less evident in the legislative sphere. In each of the examples discussed above, as well as in the case of Keir Starmer, the departure of the previous prime minister was not primarily the result of a rejection of the Government’s broad legislative programme. The closest exception may be Margaret Thatcher, whose downfall was closely linked to the unpopularity of the poll tax. Yet even under John Major, much of the wider Thatcherite legislative and policy agenda remained intact. As a result, incoming prime ministers have generally inherited and pursued the central legislative objectives of their predecessors rather than seeking to replace them with an entirely new programme.
This may also point to something broader; the Government is elected to fulfil their manifesto. Insofar as a monarch’s speech is reflective of a party’s manifesto, then a new leader has a mandate to fulfil those commitments. They may wish to tinker around the edges, reprioritise issues, approach commitments in a different way, but the manifesto and previous monarchs’ speech provide a strong foundation for the legislative focus of a new Prime Minister.
The further a new Prime Minister strays from a manifesto, the more space is opened to question whether they have a mandate for their agenda.
The question this invites is whether there is any reason to think that Burnham would break from this historic pattern? He does not appear to be radically rejecting the Labour manifesto or Starmer’s policies, in fact, one of his core topics, devolution, is an issue which the Labour Manifesto gives him grounds to engage with. If Burnham does reject anything from Starmer, he would first and foremost be rejecting the communication style, as opposed to the policies.
For those who want to know what Burnham will do on the legislative front, the most recent King’s speech is likely to be a powerful guide.