(Monday) thoughts: Why I am pleased that David Cameron is back in government

I am pleased David Cameron is back in government.

There. I said it. It doesn’t seem to me to be a wholly unsurprising or radical position – indeed, a quarter of so of the population agreed in a snap poll today – but received wisdom in SW1 has it that it’s a horrendous mistake, betraying a lack of options by his successor-but-four.

I disagree, and not just because I personally liked much of the Cameron premiership (again, unfashionable to say in SW1, but worth noting he left office with higher popularity ratings than many of his sucessors).

I disagree because I value service, and I think we as a country significantly underuse our former leaders, and this should change.

"The paradox is that you start at your most popular and least capable and you end at your least popular and most capable”. So said Tony Blair, reflecting on how Prime Ministers take office and leave it.

Gordon Brown says similar in his book, and – pertinently enough – so does David Cameron.

Two things have changed, when we look at recent leaders of this country. The first is that they are getting younger. 5 of the last 8 PMs (including the incumbent) have been under 50 when they assumed office (the exceptions were May, Brown and Johnson). Only 2 of the 18 prior to that were under 50 – and the earlier of those was the 5^th Earl of Roseberry, in 1894.

The second is that they don’t tend to hang around the Commons when they leave office. Theresa May and Liz Truss are the only living PMs who remain as MPs. Before that, it was Heath. But in living memory before that, as Alex Massie sets out, Alec Douglas-Home was foreign secretary in Ted Heath’s government; Arthur Balfour was Lloyd George’s wartime foreign secretary; Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain each held the post of Lord President of the Council after their time as prime minister.

The two are related, of course. If you leave office aged less than 60 – which 6 of the 7 living former PMs were (May again the exception), then in this era of longevity, you may reasonably expect to live healthily for another 30 years or more. And having served at the very top, the thought of sitting on government, or even worse, Opposition, benches, is not appealing. The thought of money, and international travel, and status, by contrast, is. And so the typical modern post-premiership route includes setting up an office, going onto the speaking circuit, writing (or having ghosted for you) a book explaining why you were right all along, and flying around the world. No one sensible expects Sunak to buck that trend; he will almost certainly return to the US to do something in finance and technology.

None of this means you can’t do good. Gordon Brown is perhaps the best example; in a way curiously invisible to most of the UK media and political discourse, he is devoting his post premiership career, with huge dignity, to global education and humanitarian causes. Blair, too, has devoted his time since 2007 to solving international and latterly domestic policy problems, while becoming exceedingly wealthy. Cameron, Major, and May, to date, have sought out predominantly worthy but relatively small domestic causes. Johnson and Truss, as in so many ways, are yet to really trouble the scorers.

In many ways, this is a waste. Outside of the UK, other countries have designed ways of making better use of leaders. Former Presidents in the US, for example, occupy a semi constitutional role as elder statesmen. Internationally, there are a number of groups which try to bring together former leaders in order that their expertise may be shared – appropriately enough, the best one is known as The Elders, set up by Nelson Mandela in 2007. There’s a fascinating book called the Ex Men which details the post leadership lives of more than twenty former heads of government.

It must be possible for us to make better use of our former leaders, given that the likelihood is that a trend for young leaders, and increasing longevity, means we are likely for some time to have a large number of them not just alive, but in a position to make a serious contribution. I am pleased that Blair speaks to Starmer regularly, and seems likely to act in a position of considerable influence, along with his institute. But why does this have to be so ad hoc, and channelled through a slightly opaque organisation? Why does May’s work on domestic slavery, or Cameron’s work on dementia, happen in – frankly – such a small way? Why is Johnson freelancing in his passion for the defence of Ukraine? Why did Thatcher have to take a peerage to remain in the legislature? Even Truss – and I hesitate to say this – has something which she can contribute, and a constituency for whom her economic solution is desirable.

I’m open to how we do this. But it seems to me, at a minimum, that the support we provide as a state for former PMs (around £115,000 a year for office costs, plus lifelong security) could be increased significantly, with the quid pro quo for that being that former leaders can become, in some way, an ongoing part of our polity. This should include, as Cameron has done, a chance to serve back in office without being an MP (or perhaps even a peer).

We should value public service. We should thank all those who do it – from the most junior of public servants, to those who have led our country. We should selfishly not let them leave when they remain close to the peak of their powers, and then have to compete with global boardrooms and oligarchs and oil rich states for their time and attention. And when and if they choose to return to service and give again of their time, plus their almost unique experiences, we should say thank you, rather than mock.