{"text":[[{"start":8.05,"text":"The writer is a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London"}],[{"start":12.200000000000001,"text":"Everyone my age can remember where they were on November 22 1990, when Margaret Thatcher announced she would resign. I was a student, beavering away on an essay, when someone stuck their head around the door and shouted, “She’s gone!” before running off to spread the news more widely. Five days later, John Major topped the ballot of Conservative MPs. He became prime minister the following day, November 28."}],[{"start":38.2,"text":"Six days. By the standards of 20th century Britain, that was relatively long. In the preceding 90 years, the median length of time it took to change prime ministers midterm — from the announcement of the resignation of the incumbent to the new prime minister kissing hands at Buckingham Palace — was a single day. We don’t traditionally do long transitions. A defining image of British electoral politics is the removal van, parked up in Downing Street the day after a general election, ready to cart off the defeated prime minister’s belongings."}],[{"start":69.80000000000001,"text":"The longest midterm transition of the 20th century came in 1976, when James Callaghan replaced Harold Wilson; that took 20 days, although it involved three rounds of balloting Labour MPs. In general, the shift from candidates “emerging” from internal party discussions to actual elections by MPs lengthened the process — involving the wider membership has caused them to become even more drawn out (61 days in the case of both Boris Johnson and Liz Truss). Even Gordon Brown’s unopposed election took 48 days as it ran concurrently with a deputy leadership contest."}],[{"start":107.45000000000002,"text":"But when things are confined just to MPs of the governing party, they can still be done quickly. Theresa May replaced David Cameron in 19 days, in a contest involving five candidates. "}],[{"start":119.10000000000002,"text":"Sir Keir Starmer’s resignation may not loom quite so large in the memory 30 years hence, but still, a week has passed since he announced he was off, and you can’t have failed to notice that he’s still there. Labour’s national executive, its ruling body, has set out what can only be described as a relatively relaxed schedule for the transition to a new premier."}],[{"start":139.90000000000003,"text":"Formal nominations don’t even open until July 9 — more than two weeks after Starmer’s resignation. The nomination process then takes another week. If there is just one candidate, and thus no requirement for a party ballot, the result will be announced on July 17. That’s 25 days for what almost everyone assumes will be an unopposed election. Rishi Sunak replaced Liz Truss in five."}],[{"start":163.55000000000004,"text":"Perhaps this lack of urgency is because everything is hunky-dory in the country and the wider world? The more cynical, though, might note that the Commons goes into recess on July 16, not returning until September. The result of dragging things out like this is that the new prime minister won’t face parliament for months."}],[{"start":182.30000000000004,"text":"It’s widely reported that the Burnham camp wanted a long transition period: more time to plan for government, like some political St Augustine. “Lord, make me prime minister, but not yet.” No one should underestimate the challenge involved in becoming PM; given some of the recent incumbents, perhaps it might be better if more thought went into what they wanted to do with the office. That famous final scene in The Candidate, where Robert Redford’s character asks his adviser, “What do we do now?” is not a model to follow."}],[{"start":211.20000000000005,"text":"Yet equally you might notice that there is no obvious correlation between the length of time recent UK prime ministers have had to prepare and their eventual success in office. Truss and Johnson had the longest of any midterm handover — even before you add in all the time they had spent plotting prior to the contest. Others had plenty of time to contemplate what they wanted to do with the office before the incumbent resigned. Anthony Eden had known for more than a decade that he was Winston Churchill’s chosen successor; it didn’t stop his premiership being a disaster."}],[{"start":245.10000000000005,"text":"On the other hand, Harold Macmillan learnt that Eden was going to resign on January 9 1957; he became PM the next day, having spent the morning reading Pride and Prejudice — “very soothing”, he noted."}],[{"start":258.50000000000006,"text":"It’s not as if Andy Burnham has been an unwilling candidate. He has hardly been dragged, unwillingly, like Cincinnatus away from his plough. When Earl Grey resigned in July 1834, it took a week before he was replaced, partly because Lord Melbourne wasn’t sure he really wanted the top job, describing it as “a damned bore”."}],[{"start":280.80000000000007,"text":"“Why, damn it all,” his secretary replied, “such a position was never held by any Greek or Roman: and if it only lasts three months, it will be worthwhile to have been prime minister of England.” One doesn’t quite get the sense Burnham has had to overcome the same reluctance — let’s get on with it."}],[{"start":303.95000000000005,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1782693716_4643.mp3"}