Policies, Personalities and Parliament: why May’s government is faltering

Volatility is not just a matter of algorithms getting above themselves. It is endemic in global politics. In the UK, albeit disguised by Jeremy Corbyn’s absolute, walking-dead, pathetic, laughable, glorious – uselessness, it is still a crucial factor. Consider: from Theresa May’s perspective, last week’s Tory conference went as well as it could have done. Although David Cameron always commanded respect, there was never much affection. He led the party from the front, without really enthusing the troops in the way that Mrs T did. With Mrs May, it is different. She is one of them as well as their leader. Her speech conveyed authority and confidence.

Then everything started to fall apart. There are three weaknesses: policies, personalities and Parliament.

Initially, everyone was impressed by the PM’s firmness on Brexit. About twenty-four hours later, it began to sink in that nothing had been solved. Theresa May and her ministers are now facing much the most complex problems that have ever confronted any peace-time government in such a short time-scale. Hard Brexit, soft Brexit, middle of the road Brexit; what do those terms men? Once, confronted by the charge that he wanted to have his cake and eat it, Boris Johnson enthusiastically agreed. Have cake, eat cake summarised his entire approach to politics in particular and life in general. It would also be an appealing slogan. Most British voters would be happy to follow Boris to the sunlit cake-lands. There is only one difficulty. It is not practical: the foreigners would never agree.

Faced with such daunting challenges, any wise government would ensure that it sounded as united as possible, at least in public. On Wednesday, Mrs May appeared to recognise this by warning about the risks of a running commentary. Her warning was heeded, for less than 48 hours. Then some hard Brexiteers started to attack the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is foolish and dangerous. The history of post-war British politics leads to an obvious conclusion. A modern government requires the motive power of two enormous locomotives, the prime minister and the chancellor. But they have to work well together. Thatcher and Lawson, Blair and Brown, Brown and Darling: when the relationship breaks down, the quality of government suffers. The converse is also true. For six years, Messrs Cameron and Osborne had at least as harmonious a partnership as any holders of their two great offices in the whole of modern British history, which is why their government survived adversity, slogged its way through the great recession and delivered important reforms.

Although it would be hard for Theresa May to form a similar bond with Philip Hammond, she must keep him on side, for it would be impossible for her to do without him. But there have already been rumours of border disputes. It is said that some of her special advisors took it upon themselves to give him instructions. He did not prove amenable. Terse exchanges followed between No 10 and No 11.

Mr Hammond is quietly-spoken. He never flaunts his ego. But he is tough. Theresa May in no way resembles Gordon Brown. No-one has ever questioned her sanity. Yet if she were to try to treat Philip Hammond in the way that Gordon Brown treated Alistair Darling, that would change. If she lost her Chancellor, the pound would suffer even more than it did at the hands of the algorithms, and recovery would be much harder.

Some of the Brexiteer ultras are now so buoyed up with triumph that they have lost control of political reality. That is even true of two or three ministers. Mrs May, who is a realist, should put a stop to such shenanigans. She should make it clear that any ministers who question the Chancellor’s fitness for office will be proving their own unfitness.

The Chancellor is not to be slighted. Nor is Parliament. Over the next two years, Parliamentary management could prove as troublesome for her as it was for John Major after 1992. It must be remembered that the Brexiteers do not have a majority in the Commons, let alone the Lords – let alone a secure one in the Tory party. The opposition parties’ travails are a rich source of comedy. Labour: the lunatics have taken over the asylum; the Liberals are a wittering irrelevance; Ukip, a brawling irrelevance. All in all, tears of mirth, but we should not allow the pantomime to distract us from cold-eyed analyisis. We should not underestimate the deep potential divisions among Tories.

To counter this, Mrs May will need to ensure that the No. 10 machine resolves disputes and never creates them. She will need to deploy leadership, plus a collegiate generosity of spirit, plus a hint of ruthlessness. There should be peace in the party to all men of goodwill; to those of ill-will, not peace but a sword. She will also need luck, especially on the economy. Her life now seems a bit more complicated than it did during last Wednesday’s standing ovation.