Certainly not for me.
John Smith was the best Prime Minister we never had.
Not in a million years was it dear old Jeremy.
He probably did more to lose the Scottish Labour vote than any other influence here.
Daniel Finkelstein agrees with you (almost)
My vote for the best PM we never had
Daniel Finkelstein
Butler was bitterly disappointed. It had been widely expected, following the resignation of Anthony Eden, that he would be chosen. The decision floored him. He was regarded at the time as a “good loser” but this is only because the lobby correspondent to whom he expressed his real opinion thought it so intemperate that, as an act of friendship, he didn’t publish it.
Butler did, however, earn another title. Because of how close he came and the way he was thwarted, because he had repeatedly stood in as acting prime minister, and most of all because he was seen as a modern, more liberal Conservative, Butler was dubbed by many “the best prime minister we never had”.
Over the weekend my colleague Matt Chorley incautiously organised a Twitter poll in advance of discussing on Times Radio who should actually be considered, in the modern era, the best prime minister we never had (BPMWNH). Butler or any number of rivals?
Thousands of supporters of Jeremy Corbyn piled in, voting their man the winner. Rather sweetly, they were so jubilant about their triumph — the victorious Mr Corbyn (I promise I’m not making this up) broadcast an acceptance speech — that Matt was forced to remind his followers that it had only been a bit of fun.
But of course it’s only fun because there is a serious edge. It’s about considering the characteristics of a successful prime minister and reviewing the reputations of historical figures.
Let’s consider the basics. In order to be a successful prime minister, you’ve got to be able to win elections. Macmillan, for instance, would not be as highly regarded if he had been defeated at his first general election in 1959. So we shouldn’t consider any party leader who had the chance to be prime minister but was rejected by the voters. Either they weren’t right for the job and couldn’t take people with them, or they weren’t running at the right time. I would certainly argue that timeliness — suiting the moment — is an important part of being a leader.
Sponsored
This obviously eliminates Mr Corbyn, which I am content to do as I regard him as the prime minister it is best we never had. But in case you think I have established this criteria just to exclude people I disagree with, it also eliminates William Hague. Given the hours I put in to make it happen, I naturally think he would have been a very good prime minister. That is not, however, the point. To be a party leader you have to animate a faction that thinks you are terrific. Enough to win more than a Twitter poll. To be prime minister, certainly a good one, you have to win over the large part of a nation.
This narrows the field to those who came close, were taken seriously as possible leaders, but were never actually rejected by voters.
It is important to note just how narrow this is. It excludes many people who might have been excellent. Almost everybody commonly discussed as BPMWNHs is a man. Statistically it is highly likely that the actual BPMWNH is a woman who was never even elected to parliament.
Now to Butler. It wasn’t an accidental oversight or a gross injustice that led him to be denied the top prize. It was because his support base in the party was too narrow and he lacked the killer instinct.
Repeatedly — in 1953 when Churchill was incapacitated, in 1957 and in 1963 — Butler failed to press his case at the crucial moment. In 1963, in particular, the job might have been his if he had made clear he wouldn’t serve under Home. But it’s not just that he wasn’t ruthless enough; it’s that, for all his subtle humour, he couldn’t fill the stage.
In 1963 Lord Hailsham was considered too vulgar to prevail but Butler was not vulgar enough. He had a big conference speech to make as Macmillan’s stand-in, with the leadership vacant, yet he couldn’t make his address personal enough or exciting enough to make his claim irresistible.
This failing suggests he might have struggled in office too. Successful prime ministers need to be just vulgar enough and just enough of an actor. That’s true of Macmillan, but also of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. Boris Johnson is finding it a challenge to locate the sweet spot. Gordon Brown certainly struggled. Butler would have been nowhere near.
Lacking the killer instinct also puts paid to the BPMWNH ambitions, supposing they have any, of David Miliband and Alan Johnson. As it did of Shirley Williams before them.
Yet there are others who have too much killer instinct. Denis Healey for example, Barbara Castle, Nye Bevan and certainly Ken Clarke. Too combative, too many enemies. I once asked a wise Tory observer who would win the leadership in 2001. Iain Duncan Smith he said. Really? I replied. Yes, he said. His rivals Michael Portillo and Mr Clarke want the leadership, but only on their own terms. You can’t win the leadership like that.
So principle is important, but a certain flexibility and opacity is essential not just for gaining the office, but being successful in it. As Clement Attlee showed, for example, and Stanley Baldwin.
It is also important to have those principles at the right moment. Ask Mr Johnson. Michael Heseltine might have been a brilliant prime minister before Mrs Thatcher (when he wasn’t viable) but couldn’t have built a governing coalition after her. George Osborne’s moment went with Brexit. And there was never quite the moment when Roy Jenkins could have united Labour behind him, which he would have needed, however capable he was.
Which leaves me just with John Smith and Hugh Gaitskell. I believe both these Labour leaders would have become prime minister if they had not died so young. Both were just thespian enough, just principled enough. You could pick either. But Gaitskell was the braver, the more reformist and the superior as a minister. He also would, I think, have made a better prime minister than Harold Wilson who succeeded him as opposition leader. So he gets my vote.