Children killed with chemicals ...that was f inal straw for PM

SUMMONED hastily to No 10 at 3.30pm last Thursday, Ministers were greeted by a sombre Theresa May. They listened in hushed respect as she opened the meeting in the Cabinet Room – and explained why she wanted their support for imminent British military action in Syria.

This was the biggest decision she had taken as Prime Minister, and it was clear she knew it.

She was emotional, but steely: ‘We’ve held the line on chemical weapons since the end of the First World War, and we cannot let Assad get away with using them now,’ I’m told she said.

The intellectual groundwork had been done. In the course of previous days, she had interrogated her intelligence and defence staff to ascertain answers to the four questions preoccupying her: Had chemicals been used? Was Assad himself responsible? Would military action be effective in degrading his ability to launch another chemical attack?

Had all other avenues, including those at the UN, been explored?

And satisfied with the answers she received, she was now ready for action.

‘Assad has been guilty of determined and persistent behaviour in his use of chemical weapons in Syria since his first use in August 2013,’ I understand she said.

‘ Chemical weapons have now been used on the streets of the United Kingdom and we can’t allow the convention outlawing their use to be further eroded.’

Committing British troops to action troubles Prime Ministers more than any other decision they ever take. Never is the job more lonely.

She had even spoken t o her predecessor, David Cameron, who had himself agonised over the same question but failed to get Parliament’s support for a strike on Syria.

This for Mrs May was a profoundly moral decision.

What particularly got to her was that chemical weapons had been used to kill women and children s helt eri ng underground f r om barrel bombs.

From that moment on, she felt a line had been crossed and it was a strong and confident Prime Minister that addressed the nation yesterday, empathetic in stating her case.

Yet in calling for military action without first seeking Parliament’s support, Mrs May has taken a significant gamble. If it backfires, it could spell the end of her premiership, and she knows it.

One year ago on Tuesday, she took the other big gamble of her premiership, which was to call an early General Election – and the result was a catastrophe for her confidence and standing. She became the subject of widespread derision, with her inept handling of the Grenfell fire and the series of mishaps at the party conference adding to her plight.

But out of the ashes, this yo-yo Prime Minister is bouncing back up. Her would- be assassins are retreating to the shadows, realising that the chances of replacing her this side of Brexit are slim.

Her handling of Europe did more than anything to restore her standing. And her handling of the poisoning of the Russians in Salisbury saw her lobby to bring all 27 EU nations behind her common line of condemnation of Russia in a way that confounded her critics.

If the attacks on Syria play well, her popularity and confidence will rise. No Prime Minister in modern times has endured so much derision. Across the political spectrum, many people, including those in her own party, thought six months ago that she just didn’t have what it took to be Prime Minister. A nice woman, perhaps, but hopeless.

To endure such sustained humiliation requires special strengths. Some Prime Ministers in history would have crumbled.

But her strong marriage to Philip lies at the heart of her identity and so too does her Christian faith.

Her sense of service is deeply wired into her. It’s what keeps her in politics more than any particular set of beliefs.

She’s always been self contained, which arouses scorn in some because she’s no good at small talk. She refuses to be knocked down, and whatever the punishment, she keeps bouncing back.

There’s a lot of pride at her heart. She hates failing, or being beaten.

The overwhelming requirement for a Prime Minister of Britain today is to keep a deeply divided country and Conservative Party together to secure the best deal possible for Britain on Brexit.

The ideological certainty of a Thatcher would be disastrous, as would the showmanship of a Harold Wilson or David Cameron.

What is needed is unshowy graft, a willingness to compromise, and a talent for not making enemies of people.

There’s a lot o of pride at her heart – she hates failing