Book Review: Britain and Ireland: Leaders of the Opposition from Churchill to Cameron
| Date | 01 May 2013 |
| Published date | 01 May 2013 |
| Author | Elizabeth McEnhill |
| DOI | 10.1111/1478-9302.12016_95 |
| Subject Matter | Book Review |
reforms have been successfully introduced,while others
have stalled,been abandoned, or defeated’.Their central
argument is that reform produces too many divisions,
once there is no immediate problem to be overcome.
The book discusses the six key set-piece battles: the
1911 Parliament Act,the 1949 Parliament Act, the 1958
Life Peerages Act, the 1963 Peerage Act, the 1969
Parliament Bill and the 1999 House of Lords Act.But
it also looks at the assorted skirmishes that occurred in
between: cross-party commissions and committees set
up in (usually forlorn) attempts to get agreement.
Drawing on a range of sources, from memoirs and
biographies to parliamentary debates and manifestos, in
accessible language, it provides a detailed examination
of what reform has managed and where it has failed.
The result is relatively little new evidence, but rather
old evidence re-examined.
The literature on House of Lords reform has tended
to focus on the contemporary position (asking the
question: where to now?) or has looked at a single
reform asking whether it was successful in its stated
aims. What Dorey and Kelso do is look at the overall
process, analysing levels of change through the move
towards a politically appointed chamber as a result of
the expansion of life peers, the growing professionali-
sation following increased remuneration, and the repo-
sitioning of the Lords as a constitutional safeguard.
They also show how the process of reform has
changed, from being a reaction by the government to
one in which there is no consensus.
The evidence for the arguments is well presented,
and the focus on process is refreshing. But the reform
debate is approached, primarily, from the point of view
of what governments wanted, with the response of the
Lords often discussed only in passing, and more focus
on the behaviour in the Lords – such as the divide
between the ‘hedgers’ and the ‘ditchers’ in 1911 –
might have been useful.
More could also havebeen made of their discussion of
the Lords’ legitimacy,an issue that is left until the con-
clusion. Dorey and Kelso argue that the often-cited
question of legitimacy is frequently confused with
democracy. Much of the Lords reform debate, they
argue, is almost self-defeating until the constitutional
positions of the Lords and the Commons can be agreed.
Fiona Williams
(University of Nottingham)
Leaders of the Opposition from Churchill to
Cameron by Timothy Heppell (ed.). Basingstoke:
Palgrave MacMillan, 2012. 273pp., £60.00, ISBN 978 0
230 29647 3
There is a paucity of existing literature on the
‘hardest job in British politics’ – that of Leader of the
Opposition – which this edited book begins to
address. Sixteen leaders of the opposition are assessed
for effectiveness in short, chronological chapters,
against criteria drawn from established party leader-
ship studies. These are: proficiency at public commu-
nication; ability to construct a party platform; party
management ability; and emotional intelligence. The
chapters are all tightly structured around these criteria
(barring Garnett’s chapter on Heath, whose case is
slightly different thanks to his two stints at the role),
making for a highly coherent edited volume. This
structure and coherence allows for an overall appre-
ciation of the reasons why leading the opposition is
viewed as such a difficult job, and of how the role has
changed since 1945.
The volume suggests that the pressures associated
with the role have become greater in recent decades for
two main reasons. A reduced toleration of ‘failure’ has
emerged. The strongest illustration of this is perhaps
Duncan Smith, who suffered the ‘ignominious failure’
of being removed by his party not due to electoral
defeat itself, but because of the perceived inevitability
of defeat under his leadership (p. 208).This contrasts
sharply with, for example,Churchill, who despite being
shown to be a rather ineffective opposition leader
remained in post following electoral defeat in 1945 as
‘Conservative recovery happened under him rather
than because of him’ (p. 19).
Additionally, the growth of valence politics has led
the electorate to place increasing emphasis on leaders’
perceived competence and personalities, while their
ability to act in a way that is perceived as‘effective’ is as
constrained as ever by the circumstances in which they
acquire and carry out the role. The issue of context is
a challenging one in assessing leadership.This is perhaps
more so for leaders of the opposition who, as this
volume acknowledges, normally have less control over
the political agenda than do prime ministers. A key
strength of this book is therefore its theoretical frame-
work: this provides a set of objective criteria through
which the extent to which opposition leaders have
286 BRITAIN AND IRELAND
© 2013 TheAuthors. Political Studies Review © 2013 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2013, 11(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial