Andrew Bonar Law | The Constitution Unit Blog

Following her appointment as Prime Minister yesterday, Liz Truss has become the third Prime Minister in a row to take office directly as a result of a party leadership election. Ben Worthy explains that taking office in the middle of a parliament has historically not gone well for the incoming Prime Minister, with none of the last three ‘takeover Prime Ministers’ able to complete a full parliamentary term in office.

There are two routes to becoming Prime Minister in the UK. You can either win a general election or triumph in a party leadership election to become head of the largest parliamentary party when a predecessor leaves. As section 2.18 of the Cabinet Manual puts it:

Where a Prime Minister chooses to resign from his or her individual position at a time when his or her administration has an overall majority in the House of Commons, it is for the party or parties in government to identify who can be chosen as the successor.

Prime Minister Liz Truss is a ‘takeover’ leader, securing the post via the second route rather than the first. Remarkably, she will be the fifteenth takeover since 1916 and the second woman appointed mid-term since 2016.

There are some downsides to being a takeover. As the table below shows, takeovers’ time in office tends to be relatively brief. UK prime ministers in the last 100 years have lasted an average of just over five years, equivalent to the maximum length of one parliamentary term. Takeover tenure was considerably shorter at just over 3.6 years, compared with an average of 6.6 years for those who came to office following a general election. The longest takeover premiership was that of John Major, which lasted seven years, and the shortest was Andrew Bonar Law’s seven months (due to ill health).

The most recent takeovers are bywords for difficult, if not failed, premierships. Major (1990–1997), Gordon Brown (2007–2010) and the successive takeovers of Theresa May (2016–2019) and Boris Johnson (2019–2022) stand out as dysfunctional and struggling leaders. All led deeply divided parties and their names are linked to deep crises, whether economic (the Winter of Discontent or Black Wednesday), political (Maastricht or Brexit) or global (COVID-19).

Continue reading →

The Anglo-Irish Treaty, which resulted in independence for what was initially known as the Irish Free State, was signed 100 years ago today. David Torrance outlines how MPs and peers reacted when asked to approve the treaty at a specially convened parliament later that month.

Despite its significance to the history of the United Kingdom, the Anglo-Irish Treaty – signed a century ago on 6 December 1921 – has had remarkably little attention from historians and constitutional scholars.

Especially neglected has been the UK Parliament’s consideration of that treaty, in marked contrast to considerable analysis of the Dáil debates during December 1921 and January 1922. In accordance with Article 18 of the treaty, its provisions required approval by both the UK Parliament and ‘a meeting’ of those elected to the (devolved) Parliament of Southern Ireland in May 1921.

Parliament was convened on 14 December 1921 for the sole purpose of considering the treaty. King George V said in his speech opening parliament that it was his:

earnest hope that by the Articles of Agreement now submitted to you the strife of centuries may be ended and that Ireland, as a free partner in the Commonwealth of Nations forming the British Empire, will secure the fulfilment of her national ideals.

Both Houses of Parliament were instructed to make a humble address by way of reply to the King’s Speech. This was unusual – Sir Austen Chamberlain later explained that this means of ratification was ‘founded […] on a precedent which had prevailed uninterruptedly up to the year 1890’ – but then the treaty itself was unusual in that it had been agreed between two parts of the UK rather than two (internationally recognised) sovereign states.

Continue reading →