What do you think?
Rate this book
The Prime Ministers: Winner of the PARLIAMENTARY BOOK AWARDS 2020
**SHORTLISTED for the PARLIAMENTARY BOOK AWARDS**
A Times Political Book of the Year
'An entertaining, thorough and informative canter through the characters and stories of prime ministers past.' - New Statesman
'A wealth of enjoyable insights into three centuries of Westminster politics... It is a most elegant hardback volume, with a gilded cover that looks a little like the famous front door of No. 10 itself; the ideal Christmas gift.' - Joyce McMillan, The Scotsman
'This is a timely study of UK Prime Ministers and Iain Dale has done the subject a great service with this measured and thoughtful labour of love which offers a fascinating set of insights into the history of Britain, politics, the role of Prime Minister, and elite and establishment power... a superb guide to the times we have lived through and are living in.' - Gerry Hassan, Scottish Review
***
'Many of my predecessors were giants, some had feet of clay, all possessed human foibles.' - From the foreword by Boris Johnson
It has almost been 300 years since Sir Robert Walpole arguably became the first holder of the office of Prime Minister in 1721 - an office which today is under scrutiny like never before. The Prime Ministers, edited by leading political commentator Iain Dale, brings to life all 55 of Britain's 'First Among Equals' with an essay for each office holder, written by key figures in British politics. From the obscure 18th-century figures like the Earl of Shelburne to 20th-century titans like Churchill and Thatcher, this book provides a much-needed reminder about their motivations, failures and achievements.
A Times Political Book of the Year
'An entertaining, thorough and informative canter through the characters and stories of prime ministers past.' - New Statesman
'A wealth of enjoyable insights into three centuries of Westminster politics... It is a most elegant hardback volume, with a gilded cover that looks a little like the famous front door of No. 10 itself; the ideal Christmas gift.' - Joyce McMillan, The Scotsman
'This is a timely study of UK Prime Ministers and Iain Dale has done the subject a great service with this measured and thoughtful labour of love which offers a fascinating set of insights into the history of Britain, politics, the role of Prime Minister, and elite and establishment power... a superb guide to the times we have lived through and are living in.' - Gerry Hassan, Scottish Review
***
'Many of my predecessors were giants, some had feet of clay, all possessed human foibles.' - From the foreword by Boris Johnson
It has almost been 300 years since Sir Robert Walpole arguably became the first holder of the office of Prime Minister in 1721 - an office which today is under scrutiny like never before. The Prime Ministers, edited by leading political commentator Iain Dale, brings to life all 55 of Britain's 'First Among Equals' with an essay for each office holder, written by key figures in British politics. From the obscure 18th-century figures like the Earl of Shelburne to 20th-century titans like Churchill and Thatcher, this book provides a much-needed reminder about their motivations, failures and achievements.
655 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 12, 2020
225 people are currently reading
858 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
April 19, 2021
There are some funny examples of the Peter Principle at work here – this is where a person is very good at their various jobs in an organisation but is finally promoted to the job they can’t do. We just lived through the three gruesome years of Theresa May, Queen Midas in Reverse, and you had to ask yourself, as she was continually presented with betrayals and treacheries and calamities and situations she could not rise to why on earth did she want that job in the first place? For her it was a vale of suffering and tears.
In British history there are so many famous names that I know almost nothing about so this was a great one stop shop for some of them. Who was William Pitt The Younger? Well, he became prime minister at the age of 24 – imagine that! And he was good at it too.
Some PMs were there for the best part of a decade like John Major but were thought of as continually failing the entire time. Some were immediately crushed by events beyond their control (Gordon Brown with the 2008 financial meltdown, Neville Chamberlain with Hitler). Some began as universally beloved and made a single disastrous decision and became universally detested (Tony Blair). Some were cosy and reassuring (Harold Macmillan) and some were screechy and turbulent (David Lloyd George). Some were modesty itelf and some were flat-out egomaniacs, such as the only novelist to have become prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli (“I am one of those to whom a moderate reputation can give no pleasure.”)
Most people I think will pick Churchill as the GOAT but I rather think William Gladstone was the GOAT :
Yes, it’s true he would encounter prostitutes in the London streets and take them back to Downing Street to convert them to Christianity and the respectable life, and yes it’s true that when he felt he was tempted by their voluptuous charms he flagellated himself on occasion, but let’s put that to one side. He set up employment exchanges for dock workers to stop the gross exploitation by the shipping companies; he organised the new railway network ensuring cheap fares for all and making the new technology of the telegraph run alongside the train tracks; he scrapped ancient laws which kept basic foodstuffs artificially expensive, and this turbocharged the whole economy; he campaigned to extend the vote to the working class; all of this was before he became PM; then, he provided free education for all children up to the age of 12; he abolished the sale of army commissions, replacing patronage with meritocracy; he introduced the secret ballot in all elections; he supported the London dock strike of 1889 when he was back in opposition (aged 77); he began a campaign for state funded old age pensions; he fought the 1892 election at age 83 and won (take that Joe Biden) and so had a 4th time as prime minister). He was an old man in a hurry.
Although it feels not a little uncomfortable to endorse a volume with a foreword written by Boris Johnson, I must say this is a lot of historical nerdy fun.
My unlikely hero
In British history there are so many famous names that I know almost nothing about so this was a great one stop shop for some of them. Who was William Pitt The Younger? Well, he became prime minister at the age of 24 – imagine that! And he was good at it too.
Some PMs were there for the best part of a decade like John Major but were thought of as continually failing the entire time. Some were immediately crushed by events beyond their control (Gordon Brown with the 2008 financial meltdown, Neville Chamberlain with Hitler). Some began as universally beloved and made a single disastrous decision and became universally detested (Tony Blair). Some were cosy and reassuring (Harold Macmillan) and some were screechy and turbulent (David Lloyd George). Some were modesty itelf and some were flat-out egomaniacs, such as the only novelist to have become prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli (“I am one of those to whom a moderate reputation can give no pleasure.”)
Most people I think will pick Churchill as the GOAT but I rather think William Gladstone was the GOAT :
Yes, it’s true he would encounter prostitutes in the London streets and take them back to Downing Street to convert them to Christianity and the respectable life, and yes it’s true that when he felt he was tempted by their voluptuous charms he flagellated himself on occasion, but let’s put that to one side. He set up employment exchanges for dock workers to stop the gross exploitation by the shipping companies; he organised the new railway network ensuring cheap fares for all and making the new technology of the telegraph run alongside the train tracks; he scrapped ancient laws which kept basic foodstuffs artificially expensive, and this turbocharged the whole economy; he campaigned to extend the vote to the working class; all of this was before he became PM; then, he provided free education for all children up to the age of 12; he abolished the sale of army commissions, replacing patronage with meritocracy; he introduced the secret ballot in all elections; he supported the London dock strike of 1889 when he was back in opposition (aged 77); he began a campaign for state funded old age pensions; he fought the 1892 election at age 83 and won (take that Joe Biden) and so had a 4th time as prime minister). He was an old man in a hurry.
Although it feels not a little uncomfortable to endorse a volume with a foreword written by Boris Johnson, I must say this is a lot of historical nerdy fun.
My unlikely hero
August 20, 2021
I listened to the audio version of this book, although I couldn’t find that edition listed in GR and I’m not always successful at adding covers for new editions.
The editor of this collection comments in the Introduction that many British people’s knowledge of their Prime Ministers begins only with Gladstone and Disraeli in the second half of the 19th century. Some people have heard of Sir Robert Walpole or of Pitt the Younger but have very little idea of what they achieved. Prior to reading this book, that description almost perfectly fitted my own knowledge of the subject.
The novelty tactic with this book is that each of the 55 PMs gets an essay written by a different author. In some cases the essays are written by descendants of the PM in question, or in more recent cases by their friends. There’s a twist with the essay on Spencer Perceval, the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated in office. It’s written by Henry Bellingham, who is from the same family as the assassin.
One thing that strikes the reader is how obscure most past Prime Ministers are. Of the 55 there are only about 10, (12-15 at the most) who can be said to have left a significant legacy. Of course, this becomes easier to assess with the passage of time. Ten years ago, if you had asked me about Ted Heath, I’d have said his great legacy was taking Britain into the Common Market – what become the EU. Now that the UK has left, Heath’s achievement is diminished.
Most of the authors are sympathetic to their subjects. Even Neville Chamberlain and Jim Callaghan are defended to a degree, although most people consider them to have been failures as Prime Minister. A few do get a critical assessment, notably Anthony Eden, David Cameron and Theresa May. There are lively essays on some of the big guns such as Gladstone, Disraeli, and Churchill, and I thought the piece on Harold Wilson, written by current Labour MP Rachel Reeves, was one of the most thoughtful. The number of individuals covered means that the reader doesn’t get an in-depth biography of anyone, but you do get an understanding of the achievements, or otherwise, of some of our lesser-known PMs. One of the liveliest essays was on the unfortunate Viscount Goderich (PM 1827-28). His home was once attacked by a London mob who broke down his front door and smashed up his furniture and possessions. In Parliament he broke down in tears when describing how the attack had affected his wife and children, and this performance earned him the nickname of “The Great Blubberer”.
With the 18th and 19th century PMs, I largely accepted the assessments provided by the authors. As the book moved into the 20th century I found myself disagreeing more, simply because I had some background knowledge of my own to go on. I didn’t mind that though – I was never going to agree with everything in the book.
Iain Dale reads the audio version himself, but you could tell he isn’t a professional on audio. He sometimes stumbles over words, and he had some problems with pronouncing Welsh and Scottish place names. In terms of the content though, I really enjoyed the book.
Obviously it’s only really for those with an interest in British political history.
The editor of this collection comments in the Introduction that many British people’s knowledge of their Prime Ministers begins only with Gladstone and Disraeli in the second half of the 19th century. Some people have heard of Sir Robert Walpole or of Pitt the Younger but have very little idea of what they achieved. Prior to reading this book, that description almost perfectly fitted my own knowledge of the subject.
The novelty tactic with this book is that each of the 55 PMs gets an essay written by a different author. In some cases the essays are written by descendants of the PM in question, or in more recent cases by their friends. There’s a twist with the essay on Spencer Perceval, the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated in office. It’s written by Henry Bellingham, who is from the same family as the assassin.
One thing that strikes the reader is how obscure most past Prime Ministers are. Of the 55 there are only about 10, (12-15 at the most) who can be said to have left a significant legacy. Of course, this becomes easier to assess with the passage of time. Ten years ago, if you had asked me about Ted Heath, I’d have said his great legacy was taking Britain into the Common Market – what become the EU. Now that the UK has left, Heath’s achievement is diminished.
Most of the authors are sympathetic to their subjects. Even Neville Chamberlain and Jim Callaghan are defended to a degree, although most people consider them to have been failures as Prime Minister. A few do get a critical assessment, notably Anthony Eden, David Cameron and Theresa May. There are lively essays on some of the big guns such as Gladstone, Disraeli, and Churchill, and I thought the piece on Harold Wilson, written by current Labour MP Rachel Reeves, was one of the most thoughtful. The number of individuals covered means that the reader doesn’t get an in-depth biography of anyone, but you do get an understanding of the achievements, or otherwise, of some of our lesser-known PMs. One of the liveliest essays was on the unfortunate Viscount Goderich (PM 1827-28). His home was once attacked by a London mob who broke down his front door and smashed up his furniture and possessions. In Parliament he broke down in tears when describing how the attack had affected his wife and children, and this performance earned him the nickname of “The Great Blubberer”.
With the 18th and 19th century PMs, I largely accepted the assessments provided by the authors. As the book moved into the 20th century I found myself disagreeing more, simply because I had some background knowledge of my own to go on. I didn’t mind that though – I was never going to agree with everything in the book.
Iain Dale reads the audio version himself, but you could tell he isn’t a professional on audio. He sometimes stumbles over words, and he had some problems with pronouncing Welsh and Scottish place names. In terms of the content though, I really enjoyed the book.
Obviously it’s only really for those with an interest in British political history.
November 27, 2020
This book is really quite fascinating. I picked it up because I was slightly ashamed that I could name more American presidents than I could prime ministers. It was the right book to choose as it gives you a good overview of all the PMs since Walpole. Some are naturally more interesting than others. Some surprisingly so - I think Percival was one of my favourite entries, and i had definitely never heard of him before. Each prime minister is written about by a different author and this is where it lost a star - the quality just didn’t seem consistent. Yes it’s interesting to know about the Reform Act and the corn laws etc but the really successful entries were when you got a feel for the personality and motivations of the woman/man being discussed. If, like me, you want a good, solid reference point then this is a good choice.
February 19, 2022
A strong collection of essays on every Prime Minister the country has had since Sir Robert Walpole, through to Boris Johnson. The makeup of the book works heavily in its favour - with each essay being penned by a different author, what had the potential to become a very repetitive read is improved by the varied approaches and writing styles.
This book, on one level, can be quite depressing. It makes you realise how often we end up with the wrong leaders, and highlights the entrenched interests of the establishment which have existed since modern 'democracy' began.
If you can look past this though, it is certainly an enjoyable whistle-stop tour of British political history, illuminating not only those with the title of Prime Minister, but the evolution of the office itself.
This book, on one level, can be quite depressing. It makes you realise how often we end up with the wrong leaders, and highlights the entrenched interests of the establishment which have existed since modern 'democracy' began.
If you can look past this though, it is certainly an enjoyable whistle-stop tour of British political history, illuminating not only those with the title of Prime Minister, but the evolution of the office itself.
May 9, 2021
Interesting book that details the evolution of politics in the UK. Not necessarily an easy read as each chapter is written by a different author so the quality and style vary drastically.
What struck me is how leadership (and being able to cling to it) is finally a strange mixture of competence, likeability, circumstances, luck, perseverance, political manoeuvring and keeping a rein on one’s own ego and megalomania.
And interestingly none were very good at it for long 😅
What struck me is how leadership (and being able to cling to it) is finally a strange mixture of competence, likeability, circumstances, luck, perseverance, political manoeuvring and keeping a rein on one’s own ego and megalomania.
And interestingly none were very good at it for long 😅
January 25, 2021
Recommended for pub quizzers over people who have a keen interest in political history.
Less than 10 pages given for each Prime Minister which vary in quality depending on the author (Adonis on Blair is as groveling as you might suspect).
Will stay on my shelves as a handy reference book.
Less than 10 pages given for each Prime Minister which vary in quality depending on the author (Adonis on Blair is as groveling as you might suspect).
Will stay on my shelves as a handy reference book.
June 25, 2025
The Prime Ministers is a series of 55 essays, each on one of the modern British Prime Ministers (up to Boris Johnson, when the book was released). Each Prime Minister gets about 10 pages, plus or minus a few (a long tenured or especially significant one might get up to 15-16 pages, a caretaker leader might only get 6-7 pages) that very roughly lays out their life and accomplishments with focus being on their tenure. Each essay is written by its own unique author, many of them accomplished in their fields and having some authority, whether academically or politically, to speak on their subject.
So why the relatively low rating? Well some of the essays are amazing (Sir Robert Walpole, Benjamin Disraeli, David Lloyd George come to mind) and some are not. Some authors use excellent prose and writing techniques to really paint a picture of their subject, and others read like a Wikipedia list of accomplishments. Some really hold their subject to task, confronting the missteps of their careers, and while none reads particularly of propaganda, some are definitely written by a sympathetic author who seems to gloss over the questionable things some leaders did. All in all, it’s thoroughly a mixed bag.
But part of it is not the book’s nor author’s fault. As a resource for entry level information on the United Kingdom’s leaders, it’s amazing. But frankly, some of these people are just not interesting. For every wartime hero or radical reformer there’s a compromise candidate and a caretaker manager. There’s perhaps a reason some of these leaders have been mostly forgotten. History is important, and I am glad that I have learned about many of my Prime Ministers who I knew nothing about, but I’m not in any hurry to revisit a good half of these essays. 3.4/5, rounded down.
So why the relatively low rating? Well some of the essays are amazing (Sir Robert Walpole, Benjamin Disraeli, David Lloyd George come to mind) and some are not. Some authors use excellent prose and writing techniques to really paint a picture of their subject, and others read like a Wikipedia list of accomplishments. Some really hold their subject to task, confronting the missteps of their careers, and while none reads particularly of propaganda, some are definitely written by a sympathetic author who seems to gloss over the questionable things some leaders did. All in all, it’s thoroughly a mixed bag.
But part of it is not the book’s nor author’s fault. As a resource for entry level information on the United Kingdom’s leaders, it’s amazing. But frankly, some of these people are just not interesting. For every wartime hero or radical reformer there’s a compromise candidate and a caretaker manager. There’s perhaps a reason some of these leaders have been mostly forgotten. History is important, and I am glad that I have learned about many of my Prime Ministers who I knew nothing about, but I’m not in any hurry to revisit a good half of these essays. 3.4/5, rounded down.
November 2, 2023
Glad Maggie thatcher died
January 10, 2021
Interesting series of essays about the 55 individuals that have held the post of Prime Minister within Great British history from Robert Walpole to Boris Johnson. The interesting twist with this book is each entry is written by a different writer some of who have familial ties than other writers who openly critisise the subject of their essay especially the most recent individuals such as Blair, Brown, Cameron and May.
July 12, 2022
Iain Dale’s survey of the 55 Prime Ministers who have occupied the post since Sir Robert Walpole in 1721 offers a wealth of insights into three centuries of Westminster politics. But it lacks any unifying vision or analytical edge
Each of our 55 PMs, starting with Sir Robert Walpole, is granted a chapter, each written by a different hand. Not all the writers are scintillating. In fact, the podcast where the authors of the essays discuss their PMs is much more interesting (and its free).
Each of our 55 PMs, starting with Sir Robert Walpole, is granted a chapter, each written by a different hand. Not all the writers are scintillating. In fact, the podcast where the authors of the essays discuss their PMs is much more interesting (and its free).
September 13, 2021
I have finished reading “The Prime Ministers: 55 leaders, 55 authors, 300 years of history” by Iain Dale.
Where did the role of Prime Minister come from? Like much of what occurs in British political history, the role just emerged out of necessity, and then was formalised later in legislation. It was only later in the 20th century when much of it’s authority was explicitly stated, and then there may yet be more we are not aware of.
Robert Walpole was the first Prime Minister, a tour de force in managing to keep the state solvent, the monarch happy and the newly united (with Scotland) British state out of war. After Robert Walpole left the role the habit stuck (and 10 Downing Street was given to him by the king), a succession of Prime Ministers followed, each doing their bit to define the role.
The stories of the office holders are as interesting in terms of their similarities as much as their differences. The unique personalities of the office holder brought a certain flavour to the job, mixed in with the personal chemistry of the cabinet, which depending on the mix can be productive or explosive. Each PM had their own organisational and decision-making processes. Some of the PM’s different ways of operating complimented the cabinet, while others drove them to distraction.
A running theme among PMs throughout history has been confronting the question; “how to manage change?” Change was inevitable. Monarchs came and went with different expectations on their PM and their constitutional responsibilities. War and peace came and went bringing new challenges. But as all of this happened Britain as a country grew up demanding more from their politicians. The pendulum between reformist and conservative swung between wanting to encourage the momentum towards greater freedom or manage it. In many ways this is how Robert Peel created the prototype for blue collar conservatism; provide greater economic opportunity for the masses to lessen concerns about freedom.
What determined who the best PM’s were? It was a combination of factors including luck, particularly with regards to events. Jim Callaghan for instance had a vision for turning the UK into a Scandinavian state Oil driven balanced model between government, the trade unions and business. But personality helped or hindered too. Theresa May was too much of a loner to have a power base or sense the lack of confidence of her own cabinet in her. The Earl of Roseberry was too highly strung for his office and hostile to his cabinet.
Overall, I enjoyed this book. The way the book was structured (as it says in the title) in an intriguing way. However, I found some of the different authors’ accounts more balanced than others. While some were informative and balanced, others were slightly cringeworthy in their praise and lacking in criticism. Given the author, many though not all, of the authors came from a right wing background. That said every one of them was informative and most did well to paint a picture of the country during the various historical settings. The moving picture of a country and it’s people growing up, becoming more developed and clamouring for freedom and opportunities was a gripping one. Early PMs were concerned with mainly 3 issues; keeping the monarch happy and in check, keeping the state solvent and declaring or resolving war. This grew to actually force PM’s to actually step into the lives of their citizens. Only the march of democracy made this possible.
Iain Dale will be releasing a similar book in November about US Presidents. You can bet that I will be reading that too.
Key PM skills and qualities.
-Ability to build an effective team and manage personalities to the right jobs (eg Attlee and to an extent the early 20th century liberal PMs)
-Resolving grudges or not starting them (Palmerston and Russell as well as Churchill).
-Forging long term strategic political visions (Peel, Thatcher, Blair)
-Compassion and courage (Campbell-Bannerman and Attlee).
-Ability to take calculated risks (Lloyd George and Major).
Where did the role of Prime Minister come from? Like much of what occurs in British political history, the role just emerged out of necessity, and then was formalised later in legislation. It was only later in the 20th century when much of it’s authority was explicitly stated, and then there may yet be more we are not aware of.
Robert Walpole was the first Prime Minister, a tour de force in managing to keep the state solvent, the monarch happy and the newly united (with Scotland) British state out of war. After Robert Walpole left the role the habit stuck (and 10 Downing Street was given to him by the king), a succession of Prime Ministers followed, each doing their bit to define the role.
The stories of the office holders are as interesting in terms of their similarities as much as their differences. The unique personalities of the office holder brought a certain flavour to the job, mixed in with the personal chemistry of the cabinet, which depending on the mix can be productive or explosive. Each PM had their own organisational and decision-making processes. Some of the PM’s different ways of operating complimented the cabinet, while others drove them to distraction.
A running theme among PMs throughout history has been confronting the question; “how to manage change?” Change was inevitable. Monarchs came and went with different expectations on their PM and their constitutional responsibilities. War and peace came and went bringing new challenges. But as all of this happened Britain as a country grew up demanding more from their politicians. The pendulum between reformist and conservative swung between wanting to encourage the momentum towards greater freedom or manage it. In many ways this is how Robert Peel created the prototype for blue collar conservatism; provide greater economic opportunity for the masses to lessen concerns about freedom.
What determined who the best PM’s were? It was a combination of factors including luck, particularly with regards to events. Jim Callaghan for instance had a vision for turning the UK into a Scandinavian state Oil driven balanced model between government, the trade unions and business. But personality helped or hindered too. Theresa May was too much of a loner to have a power base or sense the lack of confidence of her own cabinet in her. The Earl of Roseberry was too highly strung for his office and hostile to his cabinet.
Overall, I enjoyed this book. The way the book was structured (as it says in the title) in an intriguing way. However, I found some of the different authors’ accounts more balanced than others. While some were informative and balanced, others were slightly cringeworthy in their praise and lacking in criticism. Given the author, many though not all, of the authors came from a right wing background. That said every one of them was informative and most did well to paint a picture of the country during the various historical settings. The moving picture of a country and it’s people growing up, becoming more developed and clamouring for freedom and opportunities was a gripping one. Early PMs were concerned with mainly 3 issues; keeping the monarch happy and in check, keeping the state solvent and declaring or resolving war. This grew to actually force PM’s to actually step into the lives of their citizens. Only the march of democracy made this possible.
Iain Dale will be releasing a similar book in November about US Presidents. You can bet that I will be reading that too.
Key PM skills and qualities.
-Ability to build an effective team and manage personalities to the right jobs (eg Attlee and to an extent the early 20th century liberal PMs)
-Resolving grudges or not starting them (Palmerston and Russell as well as Churchill).
-Forging long term strategic political visions (Peel, Thatcher, Blair)
-Compassion and courage (Campbell-Bannerman and Attlee).
-Ability to take calculated risks (Lloyd George and Major).
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 19, 2025
The definition of pop history; informative but lacking detail, fun but rarely shocking. If for nothing else, The Prime Ministers is worth reading for the account of Gladstone’s self-flagellation and the cutting takedown of David Cameron’s premiership.
It must be said that – particularly in recent years – many of the prime ministers have been condemned or praised (mainly the former), as a result of misunderstandings, rumours and, sometimes, downright lies.
Debating each individual’s legacy is a worthy thing to do but assertions must have some degree of evidence supporting them. Iain Dale’s book supplies these and thus should be on the bookshelf of any amateur scholar seeking to comment on post seventeenth century British history (and there are many).
Though each chapter is short and infused with the personality of the writer, they are filled with anecdotes, legislation, figures and quotes that defined the administrations. Rather than relying on political-infused hearsay it is these that should inform modern debate.
The book as a whole is an entertaining romp that can be read quickly, even if some contributions are better than others, just as some premierships are; however, it is not the case to say that this depends on the content at the writer’s disposal.
Steven Conway for instance does a stellar job of analysing the choices of George Grenville, on the surface a drab ‘parliament man’ with a background as a lawyer, underneath he is a minefield of insecurities as George III came to realise. On the other hand, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves doesn’t do Harold Wilson justice at all producing a dry account with several lengthy quotes from historians that undersells the character of the British Pipesmokers’ Council’s one-time pipeman of the decade.
Overall, of the fifty-five essays on these sometimes remarkable, generally fortuitous, occasionally successful individuals, there are a few that stick out.
Gladstone’s is perhaps the most entertaining. Simon Heffer’s account of this ‘unbending religious zealot’ who used to take prostitutes into Downing Street to try to reform them is epic and written in a way that shows the prime minister’s achievements and eccentricities.
Adam Boulton’s chapter about David Cameron is certainly the most cutting (though this was published before Liz Truss). Citing his leadership as casual, the former editor-at-large of Sky News summaries this premiership as leaving the country ‘weaker, poorer and bitterly divided’ (zero punches pulled).
The one that surprised me most was on the Earl of Shelburne, for the good reason that I knew nothing about the 18th century statesman before reading this book. In many ways he seems to have been a good Prime Minister cleaning up the previous lot’s mess in the American Revolutionary Wars, but his weaselly personality halted any sustained political success – I’d have liked to know more about him, which shows a chapter well written by Nigel Aston.
In terms of overall lessons, one might be surprised at the longevity of the original parties – the Tories (now the Conservatives) and the Whigs (now the Liberal Democrats) – which both remain today despite numerous civil wars and eras of political wilderness. Only one other party has joined them at the top table and if it weren’t for Lloyd-George’s supreme egotism that may have not even happened.
Equally, being Prime Minister does seem to be an exercise in expecting the unexpected.
Often I am not a fan of ‘great man’ history books; but when done as this is, as a prism to view wider history – industrialism, democratic reform and decolonisation movements all feature heavily – it can be exciting and informative.
This is a worthy read for any political student.
It must be said that – particularly in recent years – many of the prime ministers have been condemned or praised (mainly the former), as a result of misunderstandings, rumours and, sometimes, downright lies.
Debating each individual’s legacy is a worthy thing to do but assertions must have some degree of evidence supporting them. Iain Dale’s book supplies these and thus should be on the bookshelf of any amateur scholar seeking to comment on post seventeenth century British history (and there are many).
Though each chapter is short and infused with the personality of the writer, they are filled with anecdotes, legislation, figures and quotes that defined the administrations. Rather than relying on political-infused hearsay it is these that should inform modern debate.
The book as a whole is an entertaining romp that can be read quickly, even if some contributions are better than others, just as some premierships are; however, it is not the case to say that this depends on the content at the writer’s disposal.
Steven Conway for instance does a stellar job of analysing the choices of George Grenville, on the surface a drab ‘parliament man’ with a background as a lawyer, underneath he is a minefield of insecurities as George III came to realise. On the other hand, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves doesn’t do Harold Wilson justice at all producing a dry account with several lengthy quotes from historians that undersells the character of the British Pipesmokers’ Council’s one-time pipeman of the decade.
Overall, of the fifty-five essays on these sometimes remarkable, generally fortuitous, occasionally successful individuals, there are a few that stick out.
Gladstone’s is perhaps the most entertaining. Simon Heffer’s account of this ‘unbending religious zealot’ who used to take prostitutes into Downing Street to try to reform them is epic and written in a way that shows the prime minister’s achievements and eccentricities.
Adam Boulton’s chapter about David Cameron is certainly the most cutting (though this was published before Liz Truss). Citing his leadership as casual, the former editor-at-large of Sky News summaries this premiership as leaving the country ‘weaker, poorer and bitterly divided’ (zero punches pulled).
The one that surprised me most was on the Earl of Shelburne, for the good reason that I knew nothing about the 18th century statesman before reading this book. In many ways he seems to have been a good Prime Minister cleaning up the previous lot’s mess in the American Revolutionary Wars, but his weaselly personality halted any sustained political success – I’d have liked to know more about him, which shows a chapter well written by Nigel Aston.
In terms of overall lessons, one might be surprised at the longevity of the original parties – the Tories (now the Conservatives) and the Whigs (now the Liberal Democrats) – which both remain today despite numerous civil wars and eras of political wilderness. Only one other party has joined them at the top table and if it weren’t for Lloyd-George’s supreme egotism that may have not even happened.
Equally, being Prime Minister does seem to be an exercise in expecting the unexpected.
Often I am not a fan of ‘great man’ history books; but when done as this is, as a prism to view wider history – industrialism, democratic reform and decolonisation movements all feature heavily – it can be exciting and informative.
This is a worthy read for any political student.
September 13, 2021
This book was a bit of a mixed bag. Partly that's because with 55 essays by 55 authors, there's bound to be some sections that appeal more than others, but also because it covers such a broad period of time, from history stretching back several hundred years to present, the nature and tone of the book shifts.
The one thing that bothered me throughout is that many of the writers seem to have taken the editors assurance that they're free to an express an opinion as a pass to pursue an agenda. I wouldn't trust someone writing about politics or history if they insisted they were totally neutral and objective, but I would expect researchers to offer views based on the evidence they're presenting to the audience, and at least acknowledge the possibility of alternative takes. Some of the writers did this, but others seemed to bend over backwards to present their favoured leader in the rosiest possible light. This struck me most in the Thatcher essay, where several of her highly controversial policies were described as successes, not because of the affect they had on the country and the people living in it, but just because she managed to get them enacted. Perhaps I have different criteria for the success of a policy, but to me evaluating how well a political action has gone involves looking at what it's done to people, not just whether or not it got through parliament.
On the other hand, a lot of the essays did a good job of getting across the nuances of the opinions and policies of the leaders, rather than offering a simple right/left divide, and slotting each leader neatly into one of the two categories. That was probably the books best quality.
The nature of the book - a collection of essays - did made for a slightly odd reading experience, as writers discussing overlapping time periods sometimes either diverged wildly from each other (so it was hard to see that they were actually talking about the same time period), or were eerily repetitive (so there was a strange sense of de ja vu as you read a phrase close to one you'd come across not long before.
Furthermore, the feel of the book changed a lot over the course of its 500+ pages. The earlier prime ministers got very different treatment to the most recent ones; most of the problems they faced were settled for better of for worse a long time ago, so there isn't the same emotive controversy about them, and there's a lot more space to pass judgement on the long term consequences of what they did (or didn't do). Entries on the more recent leaders were in some ways more judgemental, but also more involved.
I'm glad I read this, even though it wasn't quite what I was expecting (I was hoping for more on the policies pursued by each leader and their cabinet, but the focus tended to be more on leadership style). It brought home the alarming and depressing fact that many of the nations leaders have been extremely self-interested. Nevertheless, it also had the positive effect of reminding me that the political landscape can shift dramatically, and that it is conceivable for a Prime Minister to be a relatively decent person with good intentions, whose flaws might be outweighed by their good qualities. If we're lucky.
The one thing that bothered me throughout is that many of the writers seem to have taken the editors assurance that they're free to an express an opinion as a pass to pursue an agenda. I wouldn't trust someone writing about politics or history if they insisted they were totally neutral and objective, but I would expect researchers to offer views based on the evidence they're presenting to the audience, and at least acknowledge the possibility of alternative takes. Some of the writers did this, but others seemed to bend over backwards to present their favoured leader in the rosiest possible light. This struck me most in the Thatcher essay, where several of her highly controversial policies were described as successes, not because of the affect they had on the country and the people living in it, but just because she managed to get them enacted. Perhaps I have different criteria for the success of a policy, but to me evaluating how well a political action has gone involves looking at what it's done to people, not just whether or not it got through parliament.
On the other hand, a lot of the essays did a good job of getting across the nuances of the opinions and policies of the leaders, rather than offering a simple right/left divide, and slotting each leader neatly into one of the two categories. That was probably the books best quality.
The nature of the book - a collection of essays - did made for a slightly odd reading experience, as writers discussing overlapping time periods sometimes either diverged wildly from each other (so it was hard to see that they were actually talking about the same time period), or were eerily repetitive (so there was a strange sense of de ja vu as you read a phrase close to one you'd come across not long before.
Furthermore, the feel of the book changed a lot over the course of its 500+ pages. The earlier prime ministers got very different treatment to the most recent ones; most of the problems they faced were settled for better of for worse a long time ago, so there isn't the same emotive controversy about them, and there's a lot more space to pass judgement on the long term consequences of what they did (or didn't do). Entries on the more recent leaders were in some ways more judgemental, but also more involved.
I'm glad I read this, even though it wasn't quite what I was expecting (I was hoping for more on the policies pursued by each leader and their cabinet, but the focus tended to be more on leadership style). It brought home the alarming and depressing fact that many of the nations leaders have been extremely self-interested. Nevertheless, it also had the positive effect of reminding me that the political landscape can shift dramatically, and that it is conceivable for a Prime Minister to be a relatively decent person with good intentions, whose flaws might be outweighed by their good qualities. If we're lucky.
February 22, 2022
I'm giving this book four stars, for now, as I'm only about a third of the way in at the time of posting this review. I may return and amend this once I've finished. I'm rating it fairly highly because I'm really enjoying reading it. It's true that the style and quality of these many short biographical essays varies somewhat. But, so far at least, it's all - as it might be expected to be, given the essentially monothematic subject - of a piece with itself.
The book starts with Horace Walpole, who historians view as the first 'first minister' we can sensibly call a 'prime minister' in a way that creates a meaningful link with the modern office. It's a shame there isn't a glossary, to explain some of the titles, ranks, or terms, esp. re the earlier years. If, like me, you've encountered the term Whig countless times, but still don't know quite what it means, this book will only confuse you further.
It's interesting to see how certain routes to power - Eton, Oxford/Cambridge, the Law, for example - crop up time and again, and remain tried and tested pathways to power even to the present. It's also interesting, and comes through despite a somewhat establishment bias in the tone of the writing, to note how often the word Tory is aligned with such terms as 'reactionary', 'illiberal' and suchlike. So whilst the political landscape has evolved, away from hands-on Royal patronage and into 'Party Politics', for example, other aspects remain less changed.
Reading this has me reflecting on how poor my school level education was, regarding domestic history. I think kids in a democracy such as ours should be learning all about their political leaders of the last few centuries (and beyond), and the institutions in which they operate. I'm no expert in this field, merely a person wishing to further educate myself. And I'm finding this interesting and enlightening. As I say, it's a bit fusty, and often assumes a familiarity with the subject I think many readers, or potential readers, will lack.
But all things considered, I'd recommend this as a good read.
The book starts with Horace Walpole, who historians view as the first 'first minister' we can sensibly call a 'prime minister' in a way that creates a meaningful link with the modern office. It's a shame there isn't a glossary, to explain some of the titles, ranks, or terms, esp. re the earlier years. If, like me, you've encountered the term Whig countless times, but still don't know quite what it means, this book will only confuse you further.
It's interesting to see how certain routes to power - Eton, Oxford/Cambridge, the Law, for example - crop up time and again, and remain tried and tested pathways to power even to the present. It's also interesting, and comes through despite a somewhat establishment bias in the tone of the writing, to note how often the word Tory is aligned with such terms as 'reactionary', 'illiberal' and suchlike. So whilst the political landscape has evolved, away from hands-on Royal patronage and into 'Party Politics', for example, other aspects remain less changed.
Reading this has me reflecting on how poor my school level education was, regarding domestic history. I think kids in a democracy such as ours should be learning all about their political leaders of the last few centuries (and beyond), and the institutions in which they operate. I'm no expert in this field, merely a person wishing to further educate myself. And I'm finding this interesting and enlightening. As I say, it's a bit fusty, and often assumes a familiarity with the subject I think many readers, or potential readers, will lack.
But all things considered, I'd recommend this as a good read.
August 31, 2024
This is a comprehensive book comprised of the short but informative biographies of the 55 PM of Britain, from Walpole to Boris Johnson. One interesting aspect is that all 55 chapters are written by different writers, including the present Chancellor, so the style and point of view can be various. Some writers have a historical link or even personal experience with the PM they write.
One interesting feature is that this book tends to erase some stereotypes of the PMs, especially before the 1950s. One prominent example is Lord Bute, whose reputation was always terrible to me before (maybe I have read too much Edmund Burke?). However, the author pointed out that a large part of his infamy came from the prejudice towards Scots at that time and admitted his success in foreign policies. For some relatively less-known figures, the authors tried to defend them and give them due credit. On the other hand, some of the famous PMs are not so favorably treated. The chapter on Palmerston is amusing, for the author sharply commented on him as being languishing around sinecures, hated by clerks, careless about means, and reliant on surprisingly good fortune. Likewise, Disraeli was caught by the author for being too imaginative and literary and even somehow an impostor. In fact, the author gave the credit for many social reforms to Disraeli’s home secretary, Cross, and argued that his achievements were not lasting.
My favorite part of this book might be the period around the First World War. Asquith, Lloyd George, and Bonar Law are all interesting figures. These authors captured that power dynamics and character clash quite precisely. Unfortunately, but I think naturally, PMs of the 18th century do not leave me with a very strong impression, with the exception of Walpole, two Pitts, Rockingham (partly because of Burke), and Bute.
I am a bit ignorant of current politics, but I find the last chapters, mostly Cameron and Theresa May, to be especially sharp and critical.
July 1, 2024
Collection of short biographies written by various politicians and writers.
An appealing idea, diminished by the apparent biases of the authors who saw themselves as champions of the prime ministers they wrote about. Even when the general public view during their time and that of most historians were mainly negative, the authors tended to be contrarians, making me skeptical about the veracity of some of the presentations.
One result is that, while most of the PMs seem to be exceptional in the essays dedicated to them, they appear as flawed in chapters dedicated to others.
The size of each chapter is a constraint – it is difficult to portray in very few words the social and the political context the PMs lived in, to compress the multifaceted private and political lives into few pages while sprinkling the essay with some trivia to make it easier to be digested.
I read it with interest because I did not know anything about many of them and, for some, even their names were new to me and I decided to read more about at least some of them – Gladstone, Disraeli, Altee.
One of the PMs I read before was Harold Wilson. The chapter dedicated to him is very hagiologic.
While he was a successful campaigner and political plotter, his promise of a “white heat revolution” was an economic disaster. Nevertheless, the author is in awe of the idea of the socialist planning economy, and of the “depth of talent and experience” of Wilson’s cabinet members, including Foot and Benn, the former a disaster as a party leader and the later a dedicated Marxist, determined to nationalise all industries and who was too extreme even for his cabinet colleagues.
The person who wrote this panegyric is Ms Rachel Reeves who will be the new Chancellor next week – good luck to us all.
An appealing idea, diminished by the apparent biases of the authors who saw themselves as champions of the prime ministers they wrote about. Even when the general public view during their time and that of most historians were mainly negative, the authors tended to be contrarians, making me skeptical about the veracity of some of the presentations.
One result is that, while most of the PMs seem to be exceptional in the essays dedicated to them, they appear as flawed in chapters dedicated to others.
The size of each chapter is a constraint – it is difficult to portray in very few words the social and the political context the PMs lived in, to compress the multifaceted private and political lives into few pages while sprinkling the essay with some trivia to make it easier to be digested.
I read it with interest because I did not know anything about many of them and, for some, even their names were new to me and I decided to read more about at least some of them – Gladstone, Disraeli, Altee.
One of the PMs I read before was Harold Wilson. The chapter dedicated to him is very hagiologic.
While he was a successful campaigner and political plotter, his promise of a “white heat revolution” was an economic disaster. Nevertheless, the author is in awe of the idea of the socialist planning economy, and of the “depth of talent and experience” of Wilson’s cabinet members, including Foot and Benn, the former a disaster as a party leader and the later a dedicated Marxist, determined to nationalise all industries and who was too extreme even for his cabinet colleagues.
The person who wrote this panegyric is Ms Rachel Reeves who will be the new Chancellor next week – good luck to us all.
April 28, 2021
The Prime Ministers was an good, fun and interesting read that is suited for both British political enthusiasts and novices a like. The book is full of facts and covers the premierships well enough. I learned the most about many of our pre 1945 leaders and the times they governed in.
This book is essentially a series of essays on the 55 men and women who have held the office by 55 different authors. The strength of this is that the writers vary and so do the chapters in style, substance and it remains fresh. But this strength is also its greatest weakness with many chapters being noticeably weaker than others. The weakest ones tend to be politicians with the notable exception of David Laws on Asquith. Whilst the academics chapters tend to be the best written and the journalists somewhere in the middle, with the exception of David Cameron by Adam Boulton which was particularly bad and was not covered well. The other weakness is that these chapters only really scratch the surface of each leader and there is so much more that could be written. Of course, this book is not meant to be a detailed account of each but an overview so this can be forgiven.
The book really gets good once you get to Robert Peel and onwards it remains very strong but it can be a slog to get to there. This may be a good book for a reader to jump into individual chapters of the prime ministers that interest them or want to learn more about. Compared to how this reviewer read it - front to back.
Overall this is a solid book that covers our countries leaders well and I would recommend this to others but would also suggest further reading should follow it up.
This book is essentially a series of essays on the 55 men and women who have held the office by 55 different authors. The strength of this is that the writers vary and so do the chapters in style, substance and it remains fresh. But this strength is also its greatest weakness with many chapters being noticeably weaker than others. The weakest ones tend to be politicians with the notable exception of David Laws on Asquith. Whilst the academics chapters tend to be the best written and the journalists somewhere in the middle, with the exception of David Cameron by Adam Boulton which was particularly bad and was not covered well. The other weakness is that these chapters only really scratch the surface of each leader and there is so much more that could be written. Of course, this book is not meant to be a detailed account of each but an overview so this can be forgiven.
The book really gets good once you get to Robert Peel and onwards it remains very strong but it can be a slog to get to there. This may be a good book for a reader to jump into individual chapters of the prime ministers that interest them or want to learn more about. Compared to how this reviewer read it - front to back.
Overall this is a solid book that covers our countries leaders well and I would recommend this to others but would also suggest further reading should follow it up.
November 20, 2021
The 55 essays provide an outstanding insight into the personalities, challenges, successes and – all too often – failures in grabbing that top job in politics. Guidelines for the authors included not being afraid to give an opinion, which the best of the profiles certainly fulfil.
As Iain Dale summarises, a huge dollop of luck and timing dictates who reaches No 10. Without John Smith’s heart attack, there may have been no New Labour. Had Callaghan taken an earlier opportunity to call an election, Thatcherism may not have got off the ground.
The twisting, chameleon-like monolith that is the Conservative Party really did stand for no change – or the minimum possible – during much of the 19th century. It’s interesting to speculate if the current version of the Party would be as electorally successful if the manifesto was filled with blank pages and a do nothing attitude. All parties – and leaders – are now expected to exist in a swirl of action and self-trumpeted achievement. Adam Boulton’s rather damning conclusion of Cameron – wasted years that enhanced division – could equally have been charged at many from the Victorian era. To be fair, fear of revolution being imported across the Channel appears to have dominated much of the political agenda here until at least midway through that century.
Recipes for success? Be lucky certainly but also possess a sense of vision that fits the times, depend - or rather be able to rely - on heavy weight Cabinet members; have the strength of character to see the vision through. And a big enough Parliamentary majority to act, for that matter.
Best name? Marquess of Rockingham, surely straight out of Blackadder.
As Iain Dale summarises, a huge dollop of luck and timing dictates who reaches No 10. Without John Smith’s heart attack, there may have been no New Labour. Had Callaghan taken an earlier opportunity to call an election, Thatcherism may not have got off the ground.
The twisting, chameleon-like monolith that is the Conservative Party really did stand for no change – or the minimum possible – during much of the 19th century. It’s interesting to speculate if the current version of the Party would be as electorally successful if the manifesto was filled with blank pages and a do nothing attitude. All parties – and leaders – are now expected to exist in a swirl of action and self-trumpeted achievement. Adam Boulton’s rather damning conclusion of Cameron – wasted years that enhanced division – could equally have been charged at many from the Victorian era. To be fair, fear of revolution being imported across the Channel appears to have dominated much of the political agenda here until at least midway through that century.
Recipes for success? Be lucky certainly but also possess a sense of vision that fits the times, depend - or rather be able to rely - on heavy weight Cabinet members; have the strength of character to see the vision through. And a big enough Parliamentary majority to act, for that matter.
Best name? Marquess of Rockingham, surely straight out of Blackadder.
June 10, 2021
The benchmark for success as a Socialist Political Leader is evident in the Chapter 42 on Clement Attlee (1945 - 1951) by Sir Anthony Seldon.
According to the author:
“Clement Attlee was the most successful prime minister domestically of all fifty-five discussed in this volume”
“Specifically, no other Labour prime minister in history comes close to his achievement”.
“he oversaw the most socialist government in British History”.
“A shy and retiring man without personal charisma and intellectual curiosity, he possessed no detailed grasp of foreign or economic policy”
“Attlee’s personal qualities lay at the heart of the success of the government”.
“More than any other Labour leader, he had an instinctive trust in his civil servants”
“Despite being no orator, he was surprisingly effective in the House of Commons”
“ the media saw him at his worst, where his flat voice, lacking any animation, and his absence of small talk counted against him”.
“ Attlee created modern Britain. His unique qualities coupled with other factors discussed in this chapter, explain why he was so successful.
So in summary, to be a successful Socialist political leader, you should be dull intellectually and lack personality, poor public speaker but outsourced government administration to unelected civil servants and other politicians and will considered historically as an outstanding success.
Now that is something to aim for in any budding politically left politican.
According to the author:
“Clement Attlee was the most successful prime minister domestically of all fifty-five discussed in this volume”
“Specifically, no other Labour prime minister in history comes close to his achievement”.
“he oversaw the most socialist government in British History”.
“A shy and retiring man without personal charisma and intellectual curiosity, he possessed no detailed grasp of foreign or economic policy”
“Attlee’s personal qualities lay at the heart of the success of the government”.
“More than any other Labour leader, he had an instinctive trust in his civil servants”
“Despite being no orator, he was surprisingly effective in the House of Commons”
“ the media saw him at his worst, where his flat voice, lacking any animation, and his absence of small talk counted against him”.
“ Attlee created modern Britain. His unique qualities coupled with other factors discussed in this chapter, explain why he was so successful.
So in summary, to be a successful Socialist political leader, you should be dull intellectually and lack personality, poor public speaker but outsourced government administration to unelected civil servants and other politicians and will considered historically as an outstanding success.
Now that is something to aim for in any budding politically left politican.
September 4, 2024
William Waldegrave in his autobiography noted that he decided to dispense with his ambitions for the "highest office" having seen the incumbent (Margaret Thatcher) in action at close hand, and concluding he "didn't have it in him". I can understand why, given the impact that the job has had on the health, marriages, reputations and sanity of all of the holders of the job of Britain's "first among equals" most senior politician. Iain Dale's book summarising the career and impact of the fifty five people to have held the office of Prime Minister from Sir Robert Walpole in 1721 to Boris Johnson is fascinating. The book concludes before Johnson's ignominious eviction from office, but his calamitous impact on both our nation's history and the future of the Conservative Party is otherwise well described and foretold. Each PM gets a chapter, written by a different author - academics, politicians, journalists, and in latter cases former colleagues. In most I learnt something, and whilst the way in which the impact of each subject varies, you get a very good appreciation of each. I found the chapters on 18th and 19th century PMs harder going, as the historical background was less familiar, but very much enjoyed the later sections. Rachel Reeve's summary of Harold Wilson's career was especially good, and Sky journalist Adam Boulton's forensic destruction of the legacy of David Cameron was both fair and rather tragic. Very much glad to have read this.
May 18, 2021
A series of essays about the 55 Prime Ministers from Walpole to the current day. As each PM is covered by a different author, the style changes and so does the quality. I think that it is fair to say that the majority of the essays are written by people with a positive view of the relevant incumbent, and so the positive is emphasised. Boris Johnson (essay written by Iain Dale himself) is described as "the most intellectually capable Prime Minister Britain has seen", with well-documented missteps in the Covid response being dismissed as the "Government's" rather than Johnson's. It is safe to say that there are some heavily rose-tinted spectacles in use here.
This positivity is not one-sided, Blair is described as a "Genius" by Andrew Adonis, and it is not ubiquitous - Rachel Sylvester's essay on May is not glowing, so I don't think that the overall book is biased. Each essay should, however, be read with some scepticism.
The book is, however, a really good first reference point and tells us something about people who have held the highest political office in the land, even if we haven't heard of them.
This positivity is not one-sided, Blair is described as a "Genius" by Andrew Adonis, and it is not ubiquitous - Rachel Sylvester's essay on May is not glowing, so I don't think that the overall book is biased. Each essay should, however, be read with some scepticism.
The book is, however, a really good first reference point and tells us something about people who have held the highest political office in the land, even if we haven't heard of them.
November 29, 2021
A very well written collection of essays on each of the 53 Men and 2 Women who became Prime Minister. Each essay is written by a different author, ranging from historians, to politicians, to academics, to journalists - because who could actually be an expert on all of them?
The first chapter cautiously explains the role of PM, it’s history and number 10, before explaining the two major themes that connect all PMs- how they got there, and how they survived… and mostly, it’s down to luck!
Each chapter begins with a breakdown of the personal history of each PM, including their length of service, alongside a personal favourite quote of each PM: among them the renowned “the lady’s not for turning” or “Brexit means Brexit!”; but also “Bobs your uncle” and “I’ve climbed the greasy pole”!
Each author is naturally a tad biased to their chosen PM, but often delve into the negative traits of each candidate- whether it’s Thatcher’s forcefulness, May’s incompetence, or Eden’s weakness… so in the end you get a pretty balanced picture.
On hindsight, it’s obvious why this book was named Parliamentary Book of the Year!
The first chapter cautiously explains the role of PM, it’s history and number 10, before explaining the two major themes that connect all PMs- how they got there, and how they survived… and mostly, it’s down to luck!
Each chapter begins with a breakdown of the personal history of each PM, including their length of service, alongside a personal favourite quote of each PM: among them the renowned “the lady’s not for turning” or “Brexit means Brexit!”; but also “Bobs your uncle” and “I’ve climbed the greasy pole”!
Each author is naturally a tad biased to their chosen PM, but often delve into the negative traits of each candidate- whether it’s Thatcher’s forcefulness, May’s incompetence, or Eden’s weakness… so in the end you get a pretty balanced picture.
On hindsight, it’s obvious why this book was named Parliamentary Book of the Year!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 7, 2023
An account of each British prime minister in turn, from the earliest until Boris Johnson who, at the time the book was finished, was wobbling inelegantly on his tightrope of fibs and carelessness but had yet to topple. Not a light read, but well repaying the effort for those with a genuine interest in British Government and Politics.
The early essays are harder going: authoritative and well-written but feeling academic and dry. By the time we reach the giants of the nineteenth century - Peel, Disraeli and Gladstone - and start to overlap with A level history it feels more vivid. Where it really comes to life, for this reader at least, is when the chapters start to match personal memories; I remember, albeit dimly, some of the events of Harold Wilson's time at Number 10, and in progressively more detail with each successive premier.
The judgements are crisp and occasionally provocative: a positive reappraisal of John Major's time in office; a well-balanced take on Gordon Brown, who had higher highs and lower lows than most; damning verdicts on David Cameron's sloppy leadership, Theresa May's wooden follow-up, and Boris's self-centred chaos.
The early essays are harder going: authoritative and well-written but feeling academic and dry. By the time we reach the giants of the nineteenth century - Peel, Disraeli and Gladstone - and start to overlap with A level history it feels more vivid. Where it really comes to life, for this reader at least, is when the chapters start to match personal memories; I remember, albeit dimly, some of the events of Harold Wilson's time at Number 10, and in progressively more detail with each successive premier.
The judgements are crisp and occasionally provocative: a positive reappraisal of John Major's time in office; a well-balanced take on Gordon Brown, who had higher highs and lower lows than most; damning verdicts on David Cameron's sloppy leadership, Theresa May's wooden follow-up, and Boris's self-centred chaos.
May 11, 2021
I thought this was a pretty decent overall biography of the Prime Ministers of the UK. There was a short biography of each Prime Minister, giving an overview of each one in turn.
As each chapter was written by a different author (with a note given to say even if the chapters are written by relatives, it by no means lessens the contribution. After being told that, I found myself wanting to know how many of the authors were actually related to their topics, but the one that I recognised the most was that the author who wrote the chapter on Spencer Perceval was related to the man who assassinated him) the quality was not as consistent as I’d have liked. For instance, the author of Gladstone’s chapter clearly detested Queen Victoria, and continually called her stupid and beneath Gladstone’s level whereas she was not as hated by the author of Disraeli’s chapter.
I did really appreciate the length of the chapters, as it allowed for the perfect walk length for my dog.
As each chapter was written by a different author (with a note given to say even if the chapters are written by relatives, it by no means lessens the contribution. After being told that, I found myself wanting to know how many of the authors were actually related to their topics, but the one that I recognised the most was that the author who wrote the chapter on Spencer Perceval was related to the man who assassinated him) the quality was not as consistent as I’d have liked. For instance, the author of Gladstone’s chapter clearly detested Queen Victoria, and continually called her stupid and beneath Gladstone’s level whereas she was not as hated by the author of Disraeli’s chapter.
I did really appreciate the length of the chapters, as it allowed for the perfect walk length for my dog.
January 21, 2025
Must like politics to have any interest in this book. Must also have an interest in British politics but that goes without saying. The first 55 British PMs are given short biographies, each written by different people. Most of the bios are no more than 10-12 pages and therefore they are more like snapshots of the PM's life. Understandably of course since they needed to cover 55 of them. It is a pity the volume stops at Boris Johnson who was the PM at the time of publication. I would loved to have read Liz Truss' entry (she broke Bonar Law's record of shortest tenure as British PM) and would have wanted to know what the biographer thought of Britain's first Indian PM, Rishi Sunak, who announced the General Election in front of No. 10 soaking wet in the pouring rain to journalists who were fully equipped with umbrellas.
Despite its role as a good reference book, it is quite dry and hence the two star rating.
Despite its role as a good reference book, it is quite dry and hence the two star rating.
February 12, 2023
General Overview
An interesting collection of essays, I found this slightly dry read very informative.
Style
A collection of styles, all the 55 authors in this book have written compelling and introductory essays on each of the 55 Prime Ministers. All of mostly the same length, and covering similar content, they are clearly well curated and managed by the editor of this piece.
Substance
Covering all the varied and different leaders of the UK, since before the phrase Prime Minister was even commonly accepted, this book acts as a great springboard to learn about key leaders and parts of its history.
Final Thoughts
A fine read, but one I would say is better for reference then reading front to cover as I did.
An interesting collection of essays, I found this slightly dry read very informative.
Style
A collection of styles, all the 55 authors in this book have written compelling and introductory essays on each of the 55 Prime Ministers. All of mostly the same length, and covering similar content, they are clearly well curated and managed by the editor of this piece.
Substance
Covering all the varied and different leaders of the UK, since before the phrase Prime Minister was even commonly accepted, this book acts as a great springboard to learn about key leaders and parts of its history.
Final Thoughts
A fine read, but one I would say is better for reference then reading front to cover as I did.
January 1, 2022
Really enjoyed this. Most chapters are fairly sympathetic to each PM, even ones who are considered poor (Douglas - Home, Callaghan, Heath). The turn of the century liberal reformers shed the most light for me. From Gladstone ( surely the best PM) to Campbell - Bannerman and Asquith. The seeds of good we all enjoy today were sown mostly by these three.
It says a lot that the the most critical chapters are of Cameron and May. Adam Boultons final paragraph on Cameron is very damming.
Completed to early for a full assessment of Johnson but surely complete the worst trio this country has ever seen.
It says a lot that the the most critical chapters are of Cameron and May. Adam Boultons final paragraph on Cameron is very damming.
Completed to early for a full assessment of Johnson but surely complete the worst trio this country has ever seen.
January 5, 2021
More of a reference book, although I read it sequentially. The mini-biographies vary in quality and depend on the author. Nevertheless it puts some colour and definition on the many 18th century prime ministers you may have heard of but know nothing about.
It was striking to see which issues dominated politics in past centuries. The top issues which made and broke governments were electoral reform, free trade, catholic rights and home rule. Of these, only free trade (in the form of Brexit) would get a showing today.
It was striking to see which issues dominated politics in past centuries. The top issues which made and broke governments were electoral reform, free trade, catholic rights and home rule. Of these, only free trade (in the form of Brexit) would get a showing today.
February 5, 2024
A good concept, 55 essays by 55 different authors about the 55 (at the time the book was published in 2020) British Prime Ministers. Chapters are written by historians, journalists or politicians and therefore the style and political biases of the essays do vary somewhat. I did feel that the quality of the essays was up and down at times (more up than down) and if this had been more consistent I would have given this a higher rating.
Still, this is not a bad place to begin learning about any of these 55 people and I’ll be keeping this one on the shelf.
Still, this is not a bad place to begin learning about any of these 55 people and I’ll be keeping this one on the shelf.
June 1, 2025
Enjoyable top level account of the 55 (at time of publication) PMs from Walpole onwards.
The essays prior to (roughly) Major all suffer a little from the fact that as they were clearly written by someone interested in the period and the PM they tend to be unrelentingly positive. The more recent ones are probably more balanced!
Iain Dale's own assessment of BoJo is rather prescient, written before his fall, and also somewhat damning...
On balance, worth a read but is just a starting point if interested in the history and politics of a period.
The essays prior to (roughly) Major all suffer a little from the fact that as they were clearly written by someone interested in the period and the PM they tend to be unrelentingly positive. The more recent ones are probably more balanced!
Iain Dale's own assessment of BoJo is rather prescient, written before his fall, and also somewhat damning...
On balance, worth a read but is just a starting point if interested in the history and politics of a period.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews