Foreword
During my active political career I used to believe, adapting the words of a nineteenth-century presidential candidate in the United States, that I would rather people wondered why I was not Prime Minister than why I was.
At that time I therefore believed it was better to be Foreign Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer than Prime Minister – to do something rather than be something. Now, however, I feel it is better to be Prime Minister because you can then ensure that all the other ministers do the right thing.
So I believe that not only the Labour Party but also Britain lost a great deal by not having John Smith as Prime Minister – he was a man of great intellectual strength and pragmatism, a good deal more than Hugh Gaitskell who was another personality with the characteristics for the job.
I very much welcome this series of counterfactual essays, because we can learn a good deal from informed speculation about what might have been.
Denis Healey
February 2011