She looks the part. Less than two months ago, very few voters expected that we were about to have a change of Prime Ministers. Although David Cameron had not won widespread affection, he had established his authority. He seemed part of the political landscape. Then, he was gone.
Against a background of shock and bewilderment, it was not easy for the new PM to assert herself. She managed, with ease. It helped that she was not Britain’s first female Premier. Margaret Thatcher still looms large in the public consciousness, and most people are used to the fact that there is no glass ceiling in Downing Street. There was a time when the reverse almost held true. In the late Eighties, a friend’s ten-year old son, beginning to take an interest in politics, said, “Dad, could a man ever become Prime Minister?” Everyone now knows that a woman could.
For national pride, it is important that a PM looks the part. A surprising number of Tories claim that it would have been better to have lost the 1992 Election. But this is a serious country – one of the main reasons why Neil Kinnock lost. The same applied to Ed Miliband in 2015. Imagine him representing this country abroad, and thank God that it did not happen. Anyway, there is no such problem with Theresa May. Under her, we remain a serious country. She actually looks like a more convincing and assured PM than Margaret Thatcher did in the summer of 1979.
“Convincing and assured” is also true of the new Chancellor, Philip Hammond. Even if David Cameron had won and stayed in office, there would have been a case for swapping him and George Osborne. Mr Osborne’s share price had fallen, and with it, his ability to seem in control. Mr Hammond is in control. He also has an austere manner, which will be helpful if he decides to loosen fiscal policy. Because he does not sound like a looser by temperament, it should be easier for him to retain the markets’ confidence.
But there have been problems and miscalculations. For six years, Theresa May ran her office in a manner that was the opposite of out-going. She seemed heavily dependent on a pair of special advisors, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. She often appeared to regard other sources of advice with resentment and was never an easy ministerial colleague.
That said, Prime Ministers cannot always be easy colleagues. They have to take tough decisions and issue orders. Sometimes, that means over-ruling colleagues. Mrs Thatcher – and her colleagues – knew all about that. Even so, as Charles Moore’s superb biography makes clear, Mrs T’s inability to recognise that successful leadership also depends on generosity of spirit meant that her government was less successful than it could have been. In her own interests, Mrs May ought to have the confidence to trust her colleagues and also to acknowledge that there are bound to be continuities with the Cameron administration.
The greatest continuity is expressed in a phrase which Nick Timothy will recognise: the condition of England question (he is an historian of the Nineteenth Century). Amending that to the condition of Britain question, David Cameron was determined to rebut any notion that the Tories were only a trade union for the rich. He wanted to insist on an inclusive Toryism: a party whose values everyone could share, a government whose policies were designed for everyone. Mrs May intends to pursue the same goal. It will be interesting to see whether she is prepared to admit that she and her predecessor had similar objectives.
Early on, she has seemed more interested in emphasising the differences. It would be interesting to know who leaked David Cameron’s resignation honours list. There is never any point in leak enquiries: no-one is ever caught. But that list would have been closely guarded. It seems unlikely that a civil servant would have been disloyal. The ones who reach No.10 have the highest ethical standards. At the time, they even concealed the comparison between Gordon Brown’s No.10 and a disorderly lunatic asylum. The leak of the Cameron honours has a political feel to it. That is not a way to run a Prime Minister’s office.
There are also policy questions. Hinkley Point was a problem. There was a strong case to be made that the figures no longer added up. It ought to have been possible to explain that to the Chinese. They might not have enjoyed what they were hearing, but they would have listened. Instead, we appeared to broaden the arguments into China’s human rights record, while also suggesting that if they owned British infrastructure, they might threaten our security. That goes well beyond hard-headed energy economics. Messrs Cameron and Osborne wanted to encourage trade links with China. Mrs May would prefer to insult the Chinese. That will do as little for British trade as it will for Chinese human rights.
Then there was the Northern powerhouse. It was a felicitous phrase, which often caused unease among Northern Labour MPs, who did not like the idea of Tories poaching their preserves. But there was a difficulty. Other regions began to grumble: what about a powerhouse for them? That was especially true in the West country, where the Tories have at least a dozen marginals. Mrs May was right to adjust the rhetoric. Why not go further, and tease George Osborne? “My good friend George was so keen to establish his Northern credentials that other bits of the country were at risk of feeling neglected. I want powerhouses for all.”
Alas, she was more interested in snubbing George Osborne than in teasing him. So she has carefully avoided referring to the Northern powerhouse. That was silly, and it has done damage. From now on, whatever the new government actually does, Labour will accuse Theresa May of junking the Northern powerhouse in favour of a Home Counties’ powerhouse.
That said, the Tories have little reason to be prostrated by anxiety. The current Labour party could hardly generate enough power to run a forty-watt bulb. But it would be foolish to assume that British politics will always be an Opposition-free zone.
With Labour’s assistance, the new PM has enjoyed a honeymoon. It cannot last, which is hardly her fault. Brexit, the economy, the constant threat of terrorism: the difficulties ahead are daunting. She will be tested to the uttermost. But Mrs May does not look as if she will daunt easily. That is fortunate. Strength will be required. Even so, she will find that her government runs more smoothly if her dealings with colleagues are less suspicious and more inclusive.
