Terror must not blur the crucial Election issues
ters who dared to say she had been forced to ‘recover’ from a blunder would have been sacked. There is no danger of Mrs May doing that to Ms Rudd, one of her most trusted allies.
Aside from her hectic Home Office workload, she was deeply upset by the death of her ex-husband, writer AA Gill, from cancer, last year.
The couple, who had two children, married and divorced in the 1990s when he fell for ex-model Nicola Formby, by whom he had two more children. Ms Rudd’s tone softened as she described staying in touch with Gill during his illness.
‘We had lunch a few times. He was lovely and it was a great tragedy for me, but mostly for his children, my two and the younger two. It was really hard for them to have lost him. A lovely man.’
There’s no evidence he can keep people safe. I spend two hours a day signing security warrants. The only thing he would sign is our security away AMBER RUDD
THIS is proving to be one of the strangest Election campaigns in modern history. It began amid claims that it was a foregone conclusion. Now there are suggestions that it might not be such a foregone conclusion after all.
In its opening weeks, it was mainly about Brexit, and then about taxation and inheritance. Suddenly, after the heartbreaking events in Manchester, it has turned into an unexpected and intense discussion about national security.
Of course, the atrocity compelled the Prime Minister and the Labour leader to explain their positions on terror and how to fight it. It also compelled Theresa May to take action – no Premier could possibly ignore an event so distressing.
Under the circumstances, Jeremy Corbyn cannot really be condemned for adding his voice. But his unpleasant past associations with Sinn Fein greatly weaken anything he says on the subject.
Many Britons would agree with him that our mistaken interventions in the Middle East may have increased the terror threat here. But Mr Corbyn, alas, gains little from this. He opposes practically any war this country ever undertakes, so his opposition to the Iraq invasion, though justified by events, does not really win him much credit.
No harm has been done by this discussion. But the high-octane combination of General Election and national mourning may have made it more intense and less reasonable than it ought to have been.
And in any case it has distracted us from the huge, profound, constant issues over which the Election was called, and which it must resolve.
Above all there is the need to negotiate a successful and prosperous new relationship with the EU. Hardly anyone even knows what Labour’s position is on this issue, whereas Mrs May has been very clear on hers.
Then there is the revival of the economy in general, the reduction of our deficit and some serious problems if we are to continue to fund the services on which we depend.
It was this problem of funding which caused Mrs May to wobble over the ‘dementia tax’, a mistake she has now wisely put right. But at least this measure was an attempt to get to grips with the huge costs of care for the elderly.
Last week’s report on the party manifestos by the Institute for Fiscal Studies gave poor marks to both big parties. But it was significantly harder on Labour, whose published tax plans may not raise anything like the £48.6 billion claimed.
This is the sort of ground on which the Election should really be decided.
Let there be no doubt that the real, fundamental choice lies between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn. And that is a choice between a Labour Party whose shambolic economics, absurd promises and fumbling arithmetic will lead us to national bankruptcy, and a Prime Minister who has a serious plan to control the deficit while still maintaining a civilised level of public service, on the basis of a strong economy.
If the Tories are wise, they will redouble their attack on these fronts, energised rather than scared by the fact that the polls are showing a narrowing gap. There must be no complacency between now and June 8.