Simon Heffer
on the Prime Minister and her battle with Europe
Despite the hysterics of the politically ignorant teenagers in our financial markets, and the jeremiads of those still outraged that the common people did not do as they were told and vote to stay in the corrupt and dysfunctional European Union, Britain remains a prosperous and strong country with a great future. Indeed, many of us who did not obey orders on June 23 feel more optimistic about the future of our country than we have for decades.
We also have a Government whose strength is not represented by its relatively small majority in the House of Commons, but by the almost complete absence of serious opposition. The Labour Party represents only the extremists who make up most of its grassroots membership. The Liberal Democrats – despite their apparent revival in the Witney by-election, which only suggests that some voters there have not grasped what they actually stand for – are an irrelevance. And Ukip, who until their present in-fighting promised to smash Labour in its industrial heartlands and become a real force, now appear to be on lifesupport. Only after Tony Blair’s landslide in 1997, or Mrs Thatcher’s in 1983, has a recent government had such free rein to implement a strong vision and put its stamp on Britain.
Yet, inexplicably, this is not happening. Mrs May should not be distracted by accusations from opponents that she has no mandate, because neither did Gordon Brown in 2007, and he governed for three more years. Her position is entirely correct, constitutionally speaking. She may feel she should hesitate to pursue policies not in the 2015 Tory manifesto, but a situation exists now that was not foreseen by that document. So long as she can command a majority in the Commons she has a right to stay as Prime Minister until 2020. And, indeed, according to her colleagues, she has no intention of trying to engineer a general election before that. She is right to take this view, because there is no need, and the public would not thank her for the waste of time and money it would represent.
However, she must avoid the old accusation of being in office but not in power. Of course her thoughts, and those of some of her senior colleagues, will be focused on extricating us from the EU, and reasonable people understand why that cannot be done overnight. But it is not the only task before her. She should start to have an eye to history, and consider not just what is possible but, given the clear field ahead of her, what is necessary.
In many respects the Cameron government left a toxic legacy that it is the duty of a proper Conservative administration to clear up. Not the least was its arrogant failure to provide for the possibility that we might vote to leave the EU, which is now causing so much distraction. George Osborne’s command of economic policy was also erratic, as shown by his preposterous claims about meltdown if we chose Brexit – claims formally retracted last week by his successor, Philip Hammond. As the recent and bizarre upsets on the currency markets show, there is a crying need for what was once called the smack of firm government, and a statement of clear economic intentions. The Prime Minister’s vaguely Keynesian mutterings about intervention in her conference speech were not only not enough, they were neither plausible nor sensible.
The Government should use the tax and monetary systems to incentivise workers, employers and savers. A vision of a Britain where enterprise is encouraged and hard work rewarded is widely appealing: and is the natural progression from Mrs May’s ideas on meritocracy and her commendable plan to improve social mobility by opening new grammar schools. It means lifting the thresholds for basic and higher-rate taxpayers; cutting corporation tax; establishing enterprise zones with further specific tax breaks; reforming taxes such as stamp duty that are distorting markets; and looking for areas in which to deregulate. Mr Hammond is an accountant by training and lives down to that profession’s reputation for charisma and inspiration. He must remember he is a politician, and needs to articulate a political vision about how the economy can be used to liberate people from state control and hardship. This will become all the more necessary as inflation takes off and interest rates have to rise, which will put severe pressure on disposable income unless ways are found for that to rise, too.
Even above that, though, the Government must do something about Britain’s place in the world. It was depressing and humiliating to see the show of Russian force that cruised through the Straits of Dover on Friday on its way to the Mediterranean, so Russia can continue its new role as powerbroker in the Middle East. It was a reminder of one of the worst failures of the Cameron years, the grotesque diminution of our defences while money was squandered on fatuous overseas aid projects, or £1 billion wasted on “problem families”. Such grandstanding has to stop in the name of national security.
A vision of a strong Britain starts with economics but does not end there. There is little point in being a strong trading nation unless you can defend yourself, and not be mocked by tyrannies such as Putin’s. Mrs May must announce a defence review that will increase the strength of all three armed services. Putin’s sabre-rattling is not the only reason, but it is a compelling one.
An old Tory slogan, and a refreshingly simple one, was “Britain strong and free”. There is no reason why we cannot be both: and no reason why the Government, if it applies will and intelligence, cannot bring about that happy result. There has never been a better time to put such a stamp on the country. It is an opportunity history would not forgive Mrs May and her colleagues for passing up.