“The British prime minister must tell the squabbling ministers in her Cabinet to either back her or go.”

The British prime minister must tell the squabbling ministers in her Conservative cabinet to back her or go

There is an interesting contrast in the successive premierships of David Cameron and Theresa May. The former, chilled out to a fault, nevertheless managing to keep ministers in line; the other a nervous micromanager fearful even of small talk with hacks, putting up with jaw-dropping disloyalty on a near-daily basis.

When stories filtered out from Cameron’s office his team used to joke that there was no point running inquiries into who had leaked them — it was probably the prime minister himself.

May, meanwhile, prefers to work in a state of media clampdown, loyal enforcers keeping everyone under control. Now ministers openly oppose her policies, and brief against her to the papers. None have lost their jobs.

There are few precedents for what is happening at the moment in the Tory party, which seems to be operating in its own strange era of postconsequence politics.

It is true that May has, under pressure, sacked or forced resignations from several cabinet ministers since she came to power — but this has been for moral matters: Michael Fallon for lunging at a female journalist, Priti Patel for breaking ministerial rules, Amber Rudd and Damian Green for misleading statements. Disloyalty, on the other hand, does not get punished.

No minister is more emblematic of this odd time than Boris Johnson. When May first came to power, she seemed to enjoy his rebellious flourishes — they were opportunities to slap him down. No longer. In the past year he has made her life a nightmare, and she is completely exhausted. In September, just days before May set out her blueprint for Britain’s exit from the EU in a speech in Florence, he published his own 4,000word plan for a “glorious” Brexit.

After the speech he set out his “four red lines” for Brexit, bulldozing May’s careful phrasing, which had been painstakingly agreed on in cabinet. Whenever he felt inclined to back May, he tempered it with some public advice on how she could be doing her job better. Things peaked last month when he actually called May’s proposal for a customs partnership with Europe “crazy.”

Recently the cabinet agreed the issue of another Heathrow runway. Again, Boris is expected to rebel against the position of his leader. But then, in this case he can. May is inclined, as predecessors have been, to accept cabinet ministers going their own way on constituency issues. For a PM battling to establish authority it’s not a good look. Especially as the refuseniks become more numerous.

Last month Sajid Javid was promoted to one of the biggest jobs in cabinet. The UK home secretary sat on Andrew Marr’s couch at the BBC and criticised one of May’s key policies, the immigration cap, promising he would review it. Never mind that the prime minister has repeatedly refused to budge on the issue and shows no wish to do so.

“I know a number of my colleagues certainly want me to take a look at this, and that’s exactly what I’m doing,” Javid said. Or, in other words, his colleagues’ opinions matter, and his boss’s do not.

No fear of reprisals

Gavin Williamson, who for supposed loyalty has been promoted well beyond his abilities — and, some say, beyond all reason — has turned on her too. In a crunch meeting last month of the Brexit inner cabinet, ministers rejected May’s preferred negotiating stance.

Williamson joined the opposing side, as did Javid. Meanwhile, Jeremy Hunt makes public his department’s battles for more money, and Williamson and Michael Gove brief the media on cabinet meetings whenever possible, without fear of reprisal.

The disloyal have not been punished because power no longer flows through the party in the usual way. Lines of accountability have been cut, and ministers and MPs are unsure of the pecking order, which makes them volatile.

But the situation is not beyond the prime minister’s control. The narrative has been that May is fatally wounded but will not be killed as her job is so unattractive at present that no one wishes to replace her. She is weak but strong, wobbly but stable, in danger but safe.

But this is nonsense: you cannot be in both these states at once. If no one can bring themselves to topple May, that means that she is strong. She is doing a job no one else will. That means that she is safe, for now, and she should use that to her advantage.

This time last year, the backbench 1922 committee gave May the go-ahead to sack disloyal cabinet ministers. “If the prime minister has to start removing secretaries of state because they are not focusing on their job, they are focusing on their own personal ambitions, so be it,” it said.

May’s spokesman said she would crack down on those briefing against her and get a little tougher on rebels. Time now for some more of that confidence.

Martha Gill is a columnist and political journalist.