No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
It is no Accident That Almost Every Major British political leader in the post-war period has been troubled by the question of consistency. As Harold Macmillan recognized when he identified his greatest fear as ‘events’, politicians are liable to be driven off their chosen courses when they least expect problems. Macmillan seems to have been referring to events outside his control, and in the increasingly interdependent world since 1945 the number of these events has greatly increased. Technological advances bring crises in far off places promptly into the cabinet room; instant responses from Downing Street are now possible, and the media expects them. If this were not enough, cabinet ministers are faced with the potential events which might be brought into existence by their policy decisions. Ministers can scarcely plan several moves ahead when their next action might cause a major upheaval, yet such foresight is demanded by commentators, supporters and opponents. In an atmosphere of economic difficulty the margin of error becomes tighter; initiatives are more likely to fail, and the cost of persevering with dubious policies becomes greater. Nowadays, if a politician wishes to hold to a unwavering line on every important issue his career is likely to be spectacular — and short. Perhaps only a highly-skilled follower of Machiavelli could escape from this predicament, by gaining a reputation for consistency without deserving it.
1 Browning, Robert, quoted in Poetical Works, ed. Jack, Ian and Smith, Margaret, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1984, Vol. II, p. 35 note.Google Scholar
2 Hazlitt, William, Cemplete Works, ed. Howe, P. P., London, J. M. Dent, 1934, Vol. XIX, p. 277.Google Scholar
3 Trollope, Anthony, The Three Clerks, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1952 ed., pp. 346 ‐ 8Google Scholar. Lord John Russell made similar accusations about Peel, but at least he avoided the mistake of alleging that his opponent had changed his mind over parliamentary reform; see Churchill, W. S., Thoughts aid Adventures, London, Odham’s Press, 1948 ed., pp. 28–9.Google Scholar
4 Gash, Norman, Peel, London, Longman’s, 1976, pp. 121–4.Google Scholar
5 Blake, Robert, Tht Omstrvatiee Parly frm Ptd la Churchill, London, Fontana, 1972 ed., p. 11.Google Scholar
6 Gash, op. cit., p. 203.
7 Haley, K. H. D., The First Earl of Skaftabmy, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1968, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
8 ibid., p. 743.
9 Lewis, Roy, Enoch Powell: Principle in Politics, London, Cassell’s, 1979, pp. 167–94.Google Scholar
10 There is insufficient space here for a full discussion of the problems involved in a ‘hunt for ideological essences’. The rejection of essences at the heart of ideologies seems to undermine all but the most abstract treatments of the subject – a suggestion supported by the fact that those who dismiss the idea of essences often end up identifying ideologies by means of very similar criteria. However, the notion that there is any necessary logical connection between our views of human nature and particular policies is irrelevant to the present discussion. See Greenleaf, W. H., The British Political Tradition, Volume II, The Ideological Heritage, London, Mediuen, 1983, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
11 Quoted in Harris, R. W., Romanticism and the Social Order 1780–1830, London, Blandford Press, 1969, p. 203.Google Scholar
12 Taylor Coleridge, Samuel, Essays on His Own Times, Vol. III, ed. Erdman, David, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978, p. 372.Google Scholar
13 Coleridge, , Essays on His Own Times, Vol. I, ibid., p. lxxix.Google Scholar
14 Todd, F. M., Polities and the Poet, London, Methuen, 1957, p. 203.Google Scholar
15 Marxism and Social Democracy: The Revisionist Debate 1890 ‐1898, ed. and trans. Tudor, H. and Tudor, J. M., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 71 Google Scholar (Belfort Bax).
16 Shinwell, E., The Labour Story, London, MacDonald, 1963, p. 43 Google Scholar; Beatrice Webb quoted in Tanner, D., Political Change and the Labour Party, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 340.Google Scholar
17 In his article on consistency Churchill reaches several conclusions which appear in the present piece: for example, he draws a distinction between ‘action in the march of events’ and ‘inconsistency arising from a change of mood or heart’ (Thoughts and Adventures, p. 25). It is no surprise, however, that Churchill reaches conclusions which dear his name but allow him to settle a few scores with old foes, notably Joseph Chamberlain: see Thoughts and Adventures, pp. 27 – 8).
18 Oswald Mosley, who abandoned both the Conservative and the Labour Parties before setting up his own organizations, believed that his record of disloyalty was responsible for his imprisonment during the Second World War.
19 Published in Crewman, R. H. S. (ed.), Nov Fabian Essays, London, Turnstile Press, 1952, pp. 69–90.Google Scholar
20 Foot, Michael, Loyalists andLonm, London, Collins, 1986, pp. 88–100.Google Scholar
21 However, as might be expected, the contributors to the volume in question tended to lay the responsibility for their changes of view on other people (or, most regularly, the Labour Party). See Cormack, Patrick (ed.), Right Turn: Eight Men Who Changed Their Minds, Leo Cooper, London, 1978 Google Scholar. It is interesting how often political converts have availed themselves of relative safety in numbers; to face the public with others who have experienced a similar transformation offers much needed comfort. See also, for example, Crossman, R. H. S. (ed.). The God that Failed: Six Studies in Communism, London, Hamish Hamilton, 1950.Google Scholar
22 Quoted in Halcrow, Maurice, Keith Joseph: A Single Mind, London, 1991, p. 45.Google Scholar