An Appetite for Power: A History of the Conservative Party since 1830

by John Ramsden

In An Appetite for Power John Ramsden – head of history at Queen Mary and Westfield College – has synthesized a life-time’s research, expertise and knowledge to write a authoritative reinterpretation of the Conservative Party from its formation as an identifiable political entity in 1714 until the present day, including the disastrous 1997 election and the current confusion in which it still finds itself. In many ways the book is a political history of the last three centuries of British history. Ramsden’s descriptions of the personalities – from Peel to Disraeli to Thatcher and John Major – and accounts of the great political debates, divisions and intrigue give a clear insight into the nature of politics and politicians over nearly three centuries. He concludes his book with a chapter on the lessons the Party must learn from its history if it is to regain its credibility as an electoral force.

Genres: Politics, History, British Literature

562 pages, Paperback

First published October 5, 1998

Reviews

[Sean Canty · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a history of the Conservative Party, written in the aftermath of the 1997 landslide defeat to Labour. The epilogue is optimistic on the chances of Conservatives returning to power as early as in 2001-2. It shows that the Conservative party's years of Government have often ended badly. And then, they recovered after their complete demise seemed inevitable.

The idea that runs through this book is that the Conservative party rightly has a reputation as an effective election-winning machine and it's a sure bet that it will go on doing so in the years to come.

Conservatives have run Britain for 67 of the last 100 years. Bonar Law said ahead of victory in the election in 1922, "Our system ... has hitherto gone on this principle: the party elects a leader, and the leader chooses the policy. And if the party does not like it, they have to get another leader." A failing leader is quickly dispatched by the ruthless "men in grey suits" of the 1922 Committee - so named after the against-the-odds 1922 snap election victory.

I personally think the Conservative party of today tells a different story. The party doesn't really have a genius for self-reinvention.

The 1922 Committee's power over the leader - summed up by the declaration that party leadership is a "leasehold not a freehold" - is a relatively late institution. That "leasehold" agreement that makes leadership precarious also emboldens leadership contenders, resulting in open competition between rival frontbenchers, supported by a compliant Tory press - a distraction from the main event of governing that ultimately compromised its rule.

Anyone who has lived through the last 14 years of Tory rule will question what makes them suited to power. Their successes started with Labour's failures - winning the 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 elections - and ended there too, because they had nothing to add in terms of effective policy or welcome legacy. So the Conservative party isn't what it is today because it has honed the art of winning elections.

On the contrary, it has adapted over years to become what it is now because it is a very sore loser. The 1922 Committee only started to grip the party with real force in the aftermath of Ted Heath's loss of a general election in October 1974. It was then that the party took on the form it has now, ensuring the leader was answerable to MPs only, without any sense of wider service. Had Labour made use of a constitution like that, it could never have held onto a leader for very long. The press would have detected its infighting pretty quickly and we wouldn't have to wait for the opening of private and government papers to historians decades later.

I think the Conservatives Party doesn't have an appetite for power so much as a sense of entitlement to it and I'm interested to see how that opinion shapes up over the coming months.

[Caroline Button · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very detailed account of the Conservative party from 1830, so packed with detail it took in the first half of the book several rereads to make sense of who was who and how they interplayed with each other and what impact this had at the time and in years to come. I particularly found fascinating the Baldwin: Churchill/Eden years and my interest started to trail off when we reached Thatcher which was a shame and I think there was very good observations and explanations - better perhaps in two volumes

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this book, it's particularly good over the start of the party and onto Peel and Disraeli. John Ramsden was perhaps a little optimistic in his predictions at the end (it was written before the 2002 election) but that doesn't take away from his fine historical analysis.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ramsden's account of the Tory party's ascendency and internal war between reformers and hard-line landed gentry is a bit dry at times and not meant for readers without backround knowledge in English political history or theory.