Product Description

Personal rivalry is the very stuff of politics. The causes and controversies, the parties and the technology have changed, but political conflict is still dramatised by the competition of ambitious individuals for the highest offices. Over the past two hundred years, the size of the electorate has grown enormously and the means of reaching it transformed out of all recognition; the chamber of the House of Commons has been usurped as the forum for national debate first by public meetings, press and television and now by the Internet. But human nature does not change. The lure of power still attracts men, and now women, keen to cross swords and bandy arguments, scheme and manoeuvre for advancement, clothing ambition in a cloak of high principle and public service. In almost every period, outstanding champions arise to embody the dominating movements and ideas of the time, defining themselves against each other and shaping the political argument of the day in their own image. Peace or war; protection or free trade; capitalism or socialism - in every case ideology is inextricably entwined with personality. John Campbell's new book finds a fresh angle on these battles by considering eight pairs of rivals and showing how their antagonism, often evolving into outright loathing, has determined the course of political conflict over two centuries. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the greatest duels were between the leaders of opposing parties; in the twentieth they have tended to be fought between members of the same party - though it is worth recalling that both Pitt and Fox and Gladstone and Disraeli started as competitors within the same parties before rivalry drove them apart. In each of his seven case studies - Fox and Pitt, Castlereagh and Canning, Gladstone and Disraeli, Asquith and Lloyd George, Bevan and Gaitskell, Macmillan and Butler, Brown and Blair - Campbell combines a vivid narrative with an authoritative assessment of the historical legacy.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #26357 in Books
• Published on: 2009-06-04
• Original language: English
• Binding: Hardcover
• 480 pages

Review
‘This is a most engaging and rewarding book…stylish, scholarly and notably perceptive’ - BBC History Magazine, David Brooks

About the Author
John Campbell is recognised as one of Britain's leading political biographers. In addition to Edward Heath, which won the NCR Award in 1994, and his highly praised two-volume biography of Margaret Thatcher (2000 and 2003), his subjects have included Lloyd George (1977), F.E. Smith, Lord Birkenhead (1983), Roy Jenkins (1983) and Aneurin Bevan (1986). His most recent book, If Love Were All: The Story of Frances Stevenson and David Lloyd George, was published in 2006. He is currently writing the authorised biography of Roy Jenkins.

Customer Reviews

In the hands of a master
Master political biographer John Campbell traces some well known elements of British political history but also offers new and important insights on the subject areas he knows best: Asquith/Lloyd George, Bevan/Gaitskell and Heath/Thatcher. He also provides what is probably the first assessment by a professional historian of the Blair/Brown relationship which he sees as a kind of Faustian bargain that got them into power for a good long time but which ultimately blew up in their faces.

The Rivals


Pistols At Dawn is a description of personal rivalries in British politics over the past two hundred years. In practical terms only one the conflicts actually led to pistols at dawn when George Canning and Viscount Castlereagh swapped shots at Putney Heath in September 1809. Both were hit but neither were seriously injured. The other seven conflicts were characterised more by silent back stabbing rather than upfront gunfire.

The most recent example, that of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, at various times paralysed New Labour in government as conflicting ambitions produced open hostility. In September 2005 a frustrated Brown allegedly demanded of Blair, "When are you going to F off and give me a date (for your resignation)? I want the job now." Blair had already tried to undermine Brown by promoting Blairites such as Alan Milburn, Steven Byers, David Blunkett and Estelle Morris, all of whom failed, although only Morris was honest enough to admit she wasn't up to the job. Ultimately, Blair's presentation without substance and his ill-fated support for the Iraq war provided Brown with a poisoned chalice which the Scot promptly filled with more poison.

The conflict echoed the dispute between Aneurin Bevan and Hugh Gaitskell. Like Brown, Bevan grew up in the Labour Movement, Gaitksell, like Blair, chose it. There were differences. Gaitksell had some beliefs, Blair had none. Bevan, like Brown, had clear ideas of the kind of society he wanted but unlike the latter was unwilling to always remain within the fold to achieve his objectives. In this regard Bevan's conflict with Gaitskell was conducted mainly in opposition, although it started in government. Brown's conflict with Blair started in opposition and was conducted in government. Both Bevan and Brown were upstaged by public school educated people in a society in which image was more important than achievement.

Ironically, the conflict between Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher (both of whom were upwardly mobile) was based on a conflict of ideas. Heath represented consensus politics, Thatcher the politics of conviction. Whereas Heath and his main colleagues were determined never to return to pre-war levels of unemployment, Thatcher, prompted by Sir Keith Joseph and others, latched on to monetarist theory. Heath made things difficult for himself by being unwilling to admit he ever made mistakes, losing the chance of returning to office under his unexpected successor by a mixture of pride and egotism. By failing to adapt to changing circumstances Heath allowed himself to become marginalised. Thatcher eventually followed him.

Probably the most tragic of the battles was the one between Harold Macmillan and R A (Rab) Butler. On two occasions the former prevented Butler from becoming Prime Minister. Macmillan, a sad and lonely man, was an astute and calculating politician, who never regarded Butler as Prime Ministerial material. Although Macmillan was a "One Nation" Tory he took pleasure at the widespread criticism of "Butskellism" - a term used to describe the apparent lack of differences between Conservative and Labour economic policies in the 1950's. Butler contributed to his own downfall with several poor decisions and a lack of political backbone. Whereas Macmillan knew he had no friends at the top Butler mistakenly thought he did. Instead of challenging the "Magic Circle" which brought Macmillan to power in 1957 by refusing to serve he quietly acquiesced. He did the same when Home was chosen to succeed Macmillan in 1963 where a refusal to serve could have brought the highest prize.

Vacillation also accounted for Asquith, allowing the untrustworthy Lloyd George to supplant him as Prime Minster in 1916. The result probably facilitated the subsequent military victory over Germany but it split the Liberal Party and condemned it to future oblivion. Like Heath, Asquith could not grasp the fact that his time had gone and - egged on by his mentally unstable wife - allowed personal considerations to overcome political advantage. Of course, this did not mean Lloyd George was any less underhand, untrustworthy, or disloyal, than he was later described.

The one constant feature of all eight political duels described in the book is the unchanging state of human nature. William Pitt brought down Charles James Fox by "skulduggery and downright lies", Canning relentlessly schemed against Castlereagh, while Disraeli and Gladstone openly loathed each other. Gladstone referred to the policies of Disraeli (by then Lord Beaconsfield) as Beaconfieldism while Disraeli regarded Gladstone as an "unprincipled maniac."

The recent expenses scandal may have highlighted the fundamental hypocrisy of politics but this book shows that such hypocrisy is not new. It also shows how integral personality is to politics and how ambition repeatedly undermines any concept of serving the common good. Castlereagh and Canning both proved to be outstanding Foreign Secretaries. The administrative skills of Bevan and Butler are widely acknowledged while Macmillan and Blair courted the media to the exclusion of the national interest. A solid and interesting read rather than an outstanding one. Five stars for historians only, others may have settled for less.

Political rivalry brilliantly illustrated
Pistols at Dawn is a fascinating book partly because of the outstanding characters from English history that are portrayed but also because of the author's illustration of the development from 18th century Statesmen of Herculean stature towards the seemingly inevitable descent towards smaller minds with a less altruistic philosophy. Not that even the great Pitt is shown to be above economy with the truth when it was most needed. It is a book that throws a new light on the history of each period and a useful reminder of the crises of the past such as the Napoleonic and Great Wars for those of us who left school several decades ago. An original approach on fascinating subjects and a thoroughly good read.