David Cameron’s recent appointment as foreign secretary raised eyebrows among politicians and public alike. But, as Richard Toye explains, he’s far from the first former prime minister to enjoy a post-number-10 cabinet career
Rishi Sunak’s decision to appoint David Cameron as foreign secretary on 13 November sparked widespread surprise – even shock. This was partly because Cameron’s time in number 10 Downing Street left a controversial legacy – including the fallout from the Brexit referendum – from which Sunak had earlier distanced himself in an effort to present himself as the ‘change’ candidate.
But it was also because today we don’t usually expect former prime ministers to return from the political grave. Yet there are plenty of examples from earlier eras of ex-PMs who, having seemingly left the limelight, went on to enjoy successful second acts.
The first point to note is that a significant number of premiers, having lost office once, returned as prime minister. The first holder of that role is generally considered to have been Robert Walpole, who acted as de-facto PM between 1721 and 1742. Of the 56 men and women who have followed him, 17 had two or more non-consecutive terms; 15 of these having held office before 1940.
In the period before universal suffrage was achieved in 1928, changes of government often hinged less on the vicissitudes of public opinion than on the shifting balance of forces within parliament, and sometimes on the monarch’s relationship with the resident of number 10. A prime minister who lost power was not necessarily terminally discredited; it could make sense for them to bide time, waiting for the chance to return.
For example, William Pitt the Younger served from 1783 to 1801, then again from 1804 to 1806, when he died in office. Lord John Russell established the record for the longest gap between prime ministerial terms, serving 1846–52 and again 1865–66. The only prime minister to have served four non-consecutive terms (1868–74, 1880–85, 1886 and 1892–94) was William Ewart Gladstone.
In the modern era, Winston Churchill was defeated in the general election of July 1945 and lost a further election in 1950 but won the following year, serving as PM until his retirement in 1955. Harold Wilson was the last to serve non-consecutive terms, in 1964–70 and 1974–76.
Given the turmoil in recent politics, we might speculate that, had he not given up his Commons seat shortly after stepping down as prime minister, Cameron could now be eyeing a return to Downing Street rather than serving in the lesser role from the House of Lords.
Settling for second
It may seem surprising that, like Cameron, so many who once held the top place were later willing to accept subordinate positions. Certainly, some ex-premiers – such as the Liberal HH Asquith – regarded offers of lesser posts as insulting.
But Asquith himself had in 1915 recruited a Conservative predecessor to his cabinet: Arthur Balfour, whose short premiership (1902–05) was rather unsuccessful, and who was later forced out of the Tory leadership. However, he was an experienced figure with a willingness to work across party lines.
When the political upheavals of the First World War forced Asquith to form a coalition, Balfour was a logical choice as First Lord of the Admiralty, the minister in charge of the Royal Navy. Second only to Asquith in the cabinet hierarchy, Balfour thus outranked Andrew Bonar Law, the official leader of the Conservative Party.
The following year, Asquith was displaced by David Lloyd George, who made Balfour foreign secretary in his new coalition.
In 1917, with the agreement of the cabinet, Balfour issued his famous declaration stating in part that: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” In 1919, he became Lord President of the Council, and finally stood down as a cabinet minister 10 years later, at the age of 80.
The Lord Presidency did not come with departmental responsibilities but, in the right hands, it could be a powerful role – one held by three further ex-prime ministers. The first of these was Stanley Baldwin, who occupied the post in the early 1930s as a member of the cross-party National Government under Ramsay MacDonald – and, arguably, was the real power behind MacDonald’s throne.
As that PM’s health declined, Baldwin worked hard to maintain the cohesion of the government, and in 1935, with an election on the horizon, Baldwin and MacDonald simply swapped jobs. MacDonald, by that stage a broken man, was kept in the cabinet largely because, as a former Labour figure, he helped the government maintain its thinning ‘National’ veneer.
Neville Chamberlain also ended his career as Lord President after he was forced out as prime minister in May 1940, remaining in Churchill’s war cabinet for several months in that role. He stayed on as leader of the Conservative Party, too, placing him in a powerful position – and putting Churchill’s premiership at risk – as the military situation deteriorated.
Churchill also wanted to recruit another of his former bosses, Lloyd George, but was unsuccessful – in part because of the ‘Welsh Wizard’s’ refusal to serve with Chamberlain, whom he loathed.
“I have received a very great deal of help from Chamberlain,” Churchill told Lloyd George. “His kindness and courtesy to me in our new relations have touched me. I have joined hands with him and must act with perfect loyalty.” Nevertheless, Churchill may well have breathed a sigh of relief when Chamberlain, suffering from cancer, finally stood down.
Home again
The most recent precedent for Cameron’s appointment dates back more than 50 years. Lord Home served as foreign secretary in Harold Macmillan’s Conservative government and then, when Macmillan resigned in 1963, emerged as his surprise successor. Becoming prime minister required him to disclaim his peerage and fight a by-election.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home, as he became, served only a year in number 10 before being narrowly defeated in the general election of 1964. In 1970, Edward Heath, his replacement as Tory leader, gave him the top job in the Foreign Office.
Home showed decisiveness with the expulsion of 105 alleged Soviet spies, which did not damage UK–USSR relations as much as many had expected. He brought experience to a relatively untried cabinet, and ran his department with competence at a time of domestic and international turbulence. Sunak must be hoping that Cameron will be an equally cool head.
Lord Rosebery, briefly prime minister in the 1890s, once wrote that having an ex-premier in the cabinet is “a fleeting and dangerous luxury”.
However, as we have seen, many former PMs have served in cabinet roles with distinction, and for substantial periods of time. Given the current stage in the electoral cycle, Cameron’s appointment may well prove fleeting, though it is not obviously dangerous.
The question remains as to whether Sunak will ever enjoy the luxury of appointing Cameron’s replacement.
Richard Toye is professor of history at the University of Exeter