Fixed-term parliaments still create a lot of unknowns in British politics. The royal prerogative, exercised by the sitting prime minister to abolish the legislature and go to the country, was always a double-edged sword for the occupant of No 10. The longer the parliament, the worse the result. Labour governments – not that there have been many – have always done very badly when serving the full five years. Clement Attlee lost 78 members of parliament in 1950 and was out of office 20 months later. James Callaghan crashed to defeat in 1979, losing 50 colleagues, while Gordon Brown was ejected from Downing Street as 91 of his MPs fell. How different history might have been had the country gone to the polls in 1978 and 2007. The party’s serial election-winners – Harold Wilson and Tony Blair – never saw out the term to their five-year conclusion. Successful Conservative party leaders seem to follow a similar success rate. Margaret Thatcher only did four-year terms while John Major managed to complete a five-year term – one, though, that became pretty catastrophic for his party and precipitated its long period in opposition.

The 2010-15 five-year term was disastrous for the Liberal Democrat end of the coalition, and good for the Conservative one. Had the election taken place before the Scottish independence referendum the Tories would have been denied the ‘Vote Miliband, get Salmond’ line of attack. This time, the full term seems to give David Cameron and his party options.

What is most remarkable about the current leadership of the Tory party is its utter confidence amid the chaos. Only Cameron and George Osborne saw the 2015 election with real clarity. Before the election one political reporter said to us that ‘the only thing Labour and Conservative MPs agree on is that their side is going to lose’. But in his chapter in this pamphlet on the chancellor of the exchequer, Conor Pope argues that the ‘national living wage’ and inheritance tax cut were ‘years in the planning’ by the pair. The latter would never get the backing of the Liberal Democrats in coalition, but the former was seen as a prize of such magnitude for the Tories that they were prepared to lose the 2015 general election rather than share the praise for an enhanced minimum wage with their coalition partners.

This confidence won them one election, but is a doubled-edged sword going forward. For Osborne the risk is that the public sense arrogance in him. This achilles heel could allow Labour to paint him as the ‘smarmier, less likeable’ occupant of a Downing Street flat. His image is changing but not fast enough. The truth in Labour’s charge might mean it sticks, and denies him the flat next door.

Pope reports that chancellor is careful to avoid ‘being the clear next in line’ but Tory insiders think that might be all about to change. ‘Unstoppable’, was how one described it to us.

So will it be Osborne? Home secretary Theresa May and mayor of London Boris Johnson were the other two figures suggested by Cameron in his kitchen back in April. Both may have missed their opportunity. Despite the tenacity and flashes of steel she has shown in the roles she has occupied, May might not get one last chance to prove those who underestimate her wrong. As for Johnson, Sally Gimson argues that Cameron’s 2015 win may have stymied any rapid rise he had been contemplating. He remains a Tory Corbyn in his anti-politics appeal, though, without any extremist baggage to weigh him down. But if the public finally takes a long hard look at him they may yet conclude him to be unsuitable to be First Lord of the Treasury.

Secretary of state for business Sajid Javid is one of the names in this frame. He could, as Felicity Slater remarks, ‘force people to think again’ about the Conservative party. The same could be said of Amber Rudd. Both have strong public attachment to Thatcher – still the hero of the Tory membership – and clear footing with the modernising wing. But leader of that modernising wing is Osborne himself and both are loyal, and owe their current positions as much to him as to the prime minister. They will only be candidates if the chancellor wants a legacy and not a promotion.

But all this might just be academic. On 8 August this year the Sun led with calls from MPs for the prime minister to ‘go on and on’ beyond 2020. Jonathan Todd’s longstanding scepticism over Cameron’s eventual intentions lead him to note that occupants of No 10 always ‘want to keep making the news for as long as possible’. Crucially Cameron’s party, which has never been in love with its leader, might not be ready to hand over to a new generation. In fact, Osborne might not want him to depart if he ‘recognises the limitations that make him less suited’ than Cameron, Todd argues.

Those inside the Tories find some of the ‘Keep Cameron’ campaign implausible. Running the ‘No’ campaign here is none other than Samantha Cameron. A decade at the top of public life as wife to both leader of the opposition and prime minister has taken its toll. ‘She tried to move the Euro referendum forward and his departure date soon after’, said someone with close connection with No 10. Had politics stayed on a four-year cycle things could be very different. A general election in 2009 would have seen Cameron finish off Nick Clegg’s party as early as 2013. Re-election and a quick exit post-2017 would on the cards. It clearly is still for Samantha Cameron.

Either way, Ben Dilks is right when he identifies on these pages that, ‘Labour now faces the tactical disadvantage of having to reveal its leadership hand long before the Conservatives need seriously consider their own’. If and when Labour gets back on its feet it should plan the rest of the time up until 2020 very carefully. Knowing the date of the next election ought still to be an advantage. What will remain unknown is when the date of Cameron’s departure might fall – and therefore when it might disrupt Labour’s own best-laid plans.

———————————

Richard Angell is director of Progress. Adam Harrison is deputy editor of Progress

———————————

See the full pamphlet with all the potential leaders profiled here

———————————