May’s agenda was transformational... but her party was just not ready for it
Theresa May’s premiership began and ended with two very different speeches from Downing Street. The first, full of determination and promise. The second, sad, poignant, but dignified.
Three years ago, she promised to make Britain “a country that works for everyone”. Recognising that “if you’re from an ordinary working class family, life is much harder than many people in Westminster realise”, she struck a chord with millions of Britons. Her pledge was to lead a government driven “not by the interests of a privileged few, but by yours”.
Her short premiership failed to bring about the transformation she desired. Yesterday she did her best to describe her legacy – the race disparity audit, domestic violence legislation and action to eliminate the gender pay gap – but it falls far short of her first statement of intent.
Some actions she listed – such as the end of austerity or the NHS spending plan – are yet to happen. Some – such as house building and the industrial strategy – were never bold enough. In particular, the decision to end austerity – often discussed but repeatedly avoided – came far too late.
The contrast with those early intentions was uncomfortably stark. Back then, there were plans to change the Government’s spending rules, increase infrastructure spending and improve investment in research and development. There was a promise to
make company bosses more accountable, clamp down on excessive corporate pay and ensure workers were represented on company boards.
A new industrial strategy would strive to rebalance the economy, making Britain less dependent on financial services and less dominated by London. There would be a plan to revitalise our great regional cities. Far more houses would be built.
There would be new rights and protections for workers in the gig economy, a better balance between the bloated higher education system and neglected technical and vocational education, action to get ahead of technological change through ambitious training and reskilling.
The Government would intervene in failing markets to stop companies ripping off customers. Energy costs would be cut for industry and households. Profits from controversial infrastructure decisions – like new housing, roads, or oil and gas exploration – would be shared not just with local councils but local people.
The agenda was a clear break with modern perceptions of conservatism. It required a more active government role. It moved a little to the left on economic matters but was more culturally conservative. It rejected the unthinking liberalism pursued by both major parties for decades.
Some described it as an attempt to make the Conservatives more like the European Christian Democrats. To the extent that it emphasised solidarity over individualism, duty and obligations over rights, and the nation above identity politics, this comparison had some validity. But in truth, that early agenda was a fusion of forgotten conservative intellectual traditions. It drew from Burke, Disraeli, Joseph Chamberlain, Macmillan and Thatcher.
The reasons Mrs May’s failed to live up to it are many. The manner in which she won the leadership and became Prime Minister meant her plans lacked a mandate. The party – mainly among ministers as opposed to MPS, members and voters – found renewal difficult. Six years into government, a change of direction felt to some like a repudiation of the party’s record in government.
It was no such thing, but the contrast between the Cameron and May governments was drawn too heavy-handedly. Other mistakes had consequences down the line. She quickly made Philip Hammond her Chancellor, yet their relationship was poor and he repeatedly blocked or watered down her reforms.
Six years into government, a change of direction felt to some like a repudiation of the party’s record
The early election of 2017 went terribly wrong. The steady-as-she-goes campaign strategy clashed with the PM’S desire to change the country. The popular change-maker – and she was tremendously popular at this point – became a stale spokesman for stability. Her campaign performance was poor. The manifesto blew up. And Jeremy Corbyn, pretending to be both Leaver and Remainer, managed to unite the Left-wing vote. The Conservatives, despite winning 2.3million more votes than in 2015, lost their majority.
From then on, Mrs May’s authority was shot, and her approach to Brexit weakened. Her pre-election Lancaster House speech proposed a clean break from the EU’S laws and institutions but a close economic and security relationship. After the election, she caved in to pressure from Brussels and pro-europeans in Parliament.
She accepted the EU’S sequencing of the talks – agreeing to fix the Northern Irish border before resolving the future EU/UK relationship – which led her to agree the hated backstop. She proposed the Chequers Plan and negotiated the Withdrawal Agreement knowing it was opposed by her Party and by Parliament.
In the end, Brexit did for her. As she said yesterday, she will always regret failing to take Britain out of the EU. But even as she said that, she could not say Britain will be better off after Brexit. She merely said politicians must do what the people decide.
Her successor will need to learn many lessons from her premiership, but this is vital. The next prime minister must be more confident about Brexit and more assertive with Brussels. We need hope and optimism – and a positive, realisable vision for Britain beyond Brexit.