More than a memento mori? Assessing the participation of former Prime Ministers in the House of Commons
| Published date | 01 May 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13691481231215737 |
| Author | Alia Middleton,Louise Thompson |
| Date | 01 May 2024 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481231215737
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2024, Vol. 26(2) 528 –547
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13691481231215737
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
More than a memento mori?
Assessing the participation of
former Prime Ministers in the
House of Commons
Alia Middleton1
and Louise Thompson2
Abstract
The successes and failures of political leaders and their rise and fall from power are well analysed
by academic studies. The roles played by former leaders however are more obscure, particularly if
they continue to maintain an institutional presence. This article explores the backbench behaviour
of 12 former UK prime ministers following their departure from Downing Street. We find that
contemporary former prime ministers display more diverse backbench behaviour in the House
of Commons, are more focused on performing constituency representation in the chamber
and engage in a form of statecraft focused on real time assessments of their successors. This
is significant as it suggests that our traditional assumptions of post leadership careers may need
reinterpreting. It also demonstrates an ongoing democratic benefit to the presence of former
leaders within legislatures.
Keywords
backbenchers, constituency work, former prime ministers, House of Commons, political leaders,
statecraft
Introduction
Regardless of the success or failure of their time in power, all leaders will at some point
become former political leaders. Political leaders are increasingly well studied in politi-
cal science, with attention paid to their impact in elections (Bittner, 2011), their policy
making style (Nye, 2014), their ability to govern (Bartha et al., 2020) and the way they
attempt to garner popularity (Blassnig et al., 2019). Yet there remain important gaps in
understanding leadership in its entirety – specifically the avenues former leaders choose
to pursue. Compared to the volume of studies of routes to the top of the political career
1Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
2Senior Lecturer in Politics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Corresponding author:
Louise Thompson, Senior Lecturer in Politics, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13
9PL, UK.
Email: louise.thompson-4@manchester.ac.uk
1215737BPI0010.1177/13691481231215737The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsMiddleton and Thompson
research-article2023
Original Article
Middleton and Thompson 529
ladder and the work of political leaders during their time at the apex of the political sys-
tem, research on post-presidential or prime ministerial careers, or what Theakston (2012:
52) describes as the ‘second Act’ is less extensive. It shows, however, that relinquishing
political power is very difficult, something de Vries (2003: 708) refers to as ‘retirement
syndrome’. While these authors acknowledge that former leaders can ‘do good works for
democracy’ (Keane, 2009: 295), existing studies often portray the careers of former
leaders in a negative light, using terms such as the ‘afterlife’ (Strangio, 2011), ‘political
death’ (Keane, 2009: 295) and ‘political sunsets’ (Theakston and de Vries, 2012). Where
analyses of former leaders have been developed, they most typically concentrate on their
activities outside political institutions (Belenky, 1999) in speaking out on topics that
matter to them, commenting on current political events, or retiring from the limelight.
Studies concentrating on former political leaders inside political institutions (Blondel,
1980; Theakston, 2010, for example), are comparatively limited and unclear in their appli-
cability for contemporary former leaders. For example, Blondel (1980) proposes that for-
mer leaders may become leaders once again or serve in the Cabinets of their successors (if
they do not leave politics immediately). Theakston (2010) in the case of the United
Kingdom refers to former prime ministers (FPMs) entering the Lords, but not to their con-
tinued service in the Commons. Yet, this does not reflect the realities of being a contempo-
rary former political leader in the United Kingdom. It has been over 50 years since an FPM
last regained their position in Number 10 (Harold Wilson) and almost the same length of
time since an FPM served in a later Cabinet while still an MP in the Commons (1970–
1974, when Alec Douglas-Home served as Edward Heath’s Foreign Secretary). Only two
of the last 10 former Prime Ministers have entered the House of Lords, and it has been a
decade since any FPM has held a seat in the Lords. Times have clearly changed, but the
literature is yet to catch up. There is, in particular, a lack of attention paid to FPMs who
remain within political institutions, but do not aim to hold high office – instead sitting on
the backbenches of the House of Commons. This absence is curious given the media atten-
tion that their contributions often draw (see Parkinson, 2022, for example). Not all FPMs
choose to remain as backbenchers – David Cameron, British Prime Minister between 2010
and 2016, sat on the backbenches for weeks before standing down as an MP, citing the
‘difficult existence being an ex-prime minister in the House of Commons’ (Cameron,
2019: 695). Likewise, while Boris Johnson committed to remaining in Parliament after his
resignation as Prime Minister, he stepped down as an MP less than a year later. At time of
writing, however, two FPMs (Liz Truss and Theresa May) remain on the backbenches of
the Commons.
Although one study (Just, 2004) does offer some limited understanding of FPMs who
remain in Parliament, there are substantial gaps in our knowledge of what FPMs do as
backbench MPs. This article addresses this gap, providing a detailed and comprehensive
understanding of the ways in which former leaders engage in parliamentary activities,
focusing on the experience of 12 FPMs in the United Kingdom across almost 70 years,
and adding substantially to the existing literature. In doing so, it considers the variety of
their contributions, their focus on particular policy areas, their critique of the govern-
ment’s statecraft, and their representation of their constituents.
Understanding former political leaders
Academic research is increasingly paying attention to the diverse roles and importance of
political leaders, including their accumulation of power (Bennister et al., 2015), their
To continue reading
Request your trial