Theresa May. Good at politics

The main complaint of Sir Craig Oliver in the recently published extract from his new memoir seems to be that he and his former boss David Cameron were outplayed at politics by Theresa May. This is a strange criticism, as it turns out that being good at politics and coming out on top in tricky circumstances are a big part of politics. If the Remain campaign, of which Sir Craig was a key part, had been better at politics then Sir Craig would still have a job in Number 10 and Cameron would be triumphantly heading this weekend to Tory conference in Birmingham as the acclaimed winner of the 2015 election, the man who won two referendums, keeping Scotland in the Union and the UK in the EU. It was not to be. Instead, it is Mrs May (celebrating her 60th birthday on Saturday) who makes the journey after the most mind-boggling period in British affairs since 1940.

It is not very surprising that May played games while Remain blew itself up. She was the highly ambitious Home Secretary who hoped to become Prime Minister. What did the Cameroons think she was going to do if their hero got himself entangled in a botched renegotiation with the European Union and a doomed referendum campaign? Fling herself in front of the electorate to provide cover? Offer to resign when it went the wrong way, out of sympathy for Cameron?

No, as is widely agreed, May played a blinder in the campaign and its aftermath. When the country was in a state of confusion and transfixed by the sight of those Tory boys rolling around in Downing Street, squabbling over the keys to the front door of Number 10, she determinedly picked her way around the corpses and into power. The brilliance and brio of that performance in the mad days of July (now a blur, did it happen?) may have blinded observers to her shortcomings, such as her and her team’s tendency to paranoia, which have since become quite obvious again. The circumstances of her accession certainly meant that her ideas were never tested in open competition with other contenders. She is an enigma.

Ousted Cameroons are already trolling Theresa May repeatedly on the basis that she lacks a mandate and must, they say, explain what she is about, demands which will only intensify next week in Birmingham. Nicky Morgan, the former Education Secretary, is voicing criticism of the new Tory leader’s plans to introduce more selective grammar schools. One of the most stylish pieces of trolling comes from Julian Glover, a former Tory adviser and journalist. Writing for the Financial Times this weekend he says that May must define herself.

This is really quite funny. Throughout his tenure as Tory leader, certainly after the abandonment of the pre-financial crisis “phase 1” hug-a-husky Cameron, people (sometimes me) wrote pieces saying that he must define himself more effectively. Who was he? What did Cameron really believe in if anything other than power? Now they ask similar questions of May and demand an answer.

In the case of Cameron, eventually it became apparent that the answer was quite straightforward and always had been. He was a Tory of the Shires fit for the modern era, comfortable at play with Notting Hill hedge fund types and the modernised end of the aristocracy. A decent, good and non-ideological man, he believed in public service and social reform and did not go mad in office. But only his most fervent supporters would say that he successfully defined himself and fixed in the public imagination a strong impression. In time, I suspect that his record will be reassessed on the basis that he was what was needed after the almost insane millenarian intensity of the Blair Brown era.

Incidentally, grieving Remainers blame Cameron for their current misfortune, which is a bit harsh. Voters outside London had been telling pollsters about the worries on the EU and migration for many years. Cameron simply found himself trapped in a tricky position by history and the Tory party, and misplayed it.

Thanks to what happened in the referendum I have even heard Cameron described by the unforgiving as the worst PM ever, which is utterly ludicrous. Worse than Anthony Eden, who with the Suez disaster was really the father of Britain becoming embroiled in what became the EU experiment? That is because Eden’s failure and humiliation by the Americans convinced the British governing elite that the days of national independence were over and the country should just cut a deal with other Europeans. Harold Macmillan as Prime Minister tried to do this with Ted Heath’s help, and then in power in his own right Heath succeeded. We know what happened next.

Now, the spotlight is on Theresa May to explain what manner of Prime Minister she will be. Who is she? A Thatcher? What does she really believe in? What’s her vision?

There, the standard demands for definition are no use. Not this time. After the surreal events of the Summer it is perhaps understandable that there is a desire to return to the stability of politics as normal, to go back to the recognisable tropes and conceits of the usual conference performance.

These are not normal times, however. In terms of a message to the nation, more is required than a sprint by May through the main policy areas – leavened by a personal motivational section – all pulled together with a peroration that includes a defining phrase (usually forgotten within 24 hours) such as “the age of giving” (Blair, October 1st 1997).

There is no way round it. May’s tenure will be defined by the tricky business of leaving the EU. For all that she will want to make changes on education, or infrastructure, or issue noises about tackling inequality and being tough on terror, in the end it’s likely to be all about Brexit.

After the low comedy of Jeremy Corbyn’s speech to Labour party conference this week, in which he barely mentioned Brexit, which is the biggest British development since the Second World War, May should attempt to have a grown up conversation with the country about leaving the EU and the story of the UK’s relationship with the continent of Europe, which Britain cannot leave. The continent of which we are a part is a geographic, culinary and cultural fact. Leaving the EU, a relatively new construct, is not the same thing. So, what is the positive relationship we seek to forge with our neighbours?

In her speech, space must be left for flexibility on the precise terms, accounting for the decay and potential disintegration of the EU amidst the migration crisis which may make a full negotiation easier after next autumn’s German elections. But May needs to be frank this week about the timetable and about her ideal deal. Much greater guidance than May’s holding position – “Brexit means Brexit” – is needed.