Sunday, 24 March 2019

The Week Ahead

Theresa May in her zig-zagging wants to put her deal forward again, but is advised to hold back, see other options fail and then put hers in again.

A Prime Minister by virtue of the office holds cards, and plays them, and most Prime Ministers look at the values on the cards and realises weaknesses as well as strengths. Theresa May could be doing two things this weekend at Chequers:

1) Saying goodbye to the staff, before announcing her end.
2) Still trying to force her way through.

However, everyone is fed up with this bunker mentality. She placates one side and then the other. By having two extensions, the EU has boxed clever. Both sides have their chances, both sides see their losses ahead. In this, there needs to be movement, and we cannot be having Theresa May imposing herself.

She said next to nothing in supporting remain in the referendum campaign, where her strategy was to pick up the leadership if Cameron won - the Tory right would have turned against him and he would have had to resign anyway - and she received the leadership after he lost, partly through the attack of Gove on Johnson and the incompetence of Andrea Leadsom's mouth - a quality she is now demonstrating against the Speaker of the House of Commons.

But the signs were there with Theresa May in the Home Office. She took ages to make a decision and then became utterly rigid. Windrush and the Hostile Environment were both her legacies, and disasters they were. It was Tory Party politicking then, and populism. She really does not believe in anything much. That flexibility was a charade for the rigid loyalty to the football team. The Tory Party had brought her up and now she owed it for giving her pole position.

But as it was for the British West Indians' human rights, so she became for us - a disaster. Both David Cameron and Theresa May have been the most disastrous Prime Ministers ever in recent times. Both have gambled the country for the sake of their Party.

The British Constitution does not say that party leaders should be chosen to then command the House of Commons. It says someone comes forward to be chosen by the Monarch who can command the House of Commons. This is why a Cabinet coup is entirely legitimate.

One can see David Lidington taking over, and he will do so without a personal agenda. Other people will effectively run his show. But it has to be highly likely that the Cabinet will split, and many exit of the EU types will resign. The sensible thing then would be to appoint people from around the House of Commons. This is because the Tory Party will be at war with itself. Stability will come if people like Liz Kendal, Chuka Umunna, Jo Swinson, Justine Greening, Dominic Grieve, or variations like them get appointed to Cabinet positions with the task of sorting out the Brexit mess. But even without this, the main players will be the likes of Amber Rudd, David Gauke and Philip Hammond.

There are at least two, maybe three Tory Parties. There is the hard right (leavers), the compromisers, and the left (remainers). The election of a leader from any wing but the compromisers will itself be enough for formally split the party, but the war in the party should be enough to divide it regardless. It may go three ways or two, forcing compromisers to choose. Why? Because the party is incapable of presenting itself for a General Election.

As for Labour, it isn't in much better shape. Its leader has shown sectarian party first attitudes recently, and has shown his own 'tin ear' and not a little incompetence in running his party. Unless there are wide-scale deselections, and there are not, the right wing elected will prevent the socialist wonderland Corbyn and close would like to pursue. Despite the fact that the Tory government is a shambles beyond all expectation, Labour have been behind in the polls. It's incredible.

Vince Cable is solid but not an inspiring leader; it is good that he is going but a new leader must relaunch the party, and do so with The Independent Group (by whatever name they choose suitable for elections).  I can only think that The Reform Party makes sense. Dominic Grieve calls them Social Democrats. Heidi Allen is, but I'm not sure about Anna Soubrey or Sarah Wollaston. It does not follow that the Tory left split will join this group: it is more likely that they will form their own. Each new Tory group will try to become the replacement Tory Party.

There may be a Norway plus result to the May-free search, but in the end that arrangement is EU without having a vote: there is a place for EEA and EFTA membership and not all of its institutions and policies are those of the EU. But it is a grouping that is for countries that may join sometime, not those who left - or not until up to now. It may be all that the UK can manage.

I do not underestimate a revoke happening: because a revoke allows a full stop, a pause and the political spill-out (painful as it will be) to debate without pressure where we want to be, and allow political parties - like a right wing Tory party, to make the case for exiting, to win parliamentary seats, form a majority, and enact its policies. Parliament makes the decisions, managed by the executive branch, not referenda. Referenda should be reserved only for the people to support or reject a major decision already taken by government and parliament, not to pass the buck on a gamble like Cameron did.

No comments: