Tory ‘men in grey suits’ tell tearful May her time is up
Prime Minister’s fate is sealed in hour-long meeting with senior MPS who want to elect her replacement before summer recess
THERESA MAY’S backbenchers called time on her administration yesterday, paving the way for a new prime minister to be in place by the end of July.
During an emotionally charged meeting with senior members of the 1922 Committee, Mrs May was forced to agree to stand down within weeks so the Tories could elect a new leader before Parliament’s summer recess.
The Prime Minister agreed to announce the date of her departure after a vote on her Brexit Bill in the first week of June, regardless of whether it was passed by MPS.
With the leadership election taking a minimum of three weeks, it means she must resign by June 30 at the latest.
The race to succeed her is now effectively under way, with Boris Johnson yesterday confirming for the first time that he will “go for it”.
Mrs May’s future was decided during an hour-long meeting with the executive of the 1922 Committee, described by Sir Graham Brady, its chairman, as “a very frank exchange” between the two sides.
Mrs May was said to have had tears in her eyes as her request for more time was turned down by the MPS, who told her the party had finally run out of patience with her.
She will meet Sir Graham and Brandon Lewis, the party chairman, shortly after the Brexit vote, which is expected to be held on June 5. She will then “agree a timetable for the election of a new leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party”, according to a statement that was released by Sir Graham with her blessing.
Britain’s only previous female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was also forced to quit after she was told by colleagues, described at the time as the “men in grey suits”, that she should withdraw from the leadership contest that was eventually won by John Major.
Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, said last night that the 1922 Committee’s agreement was “deeply unsatisfactory” because it was “vague” and lacked clarity.
Downing Street last night stressed that no date had been agreed for Mrs May’s departure and suggested that Sir Graham’s statement had been “overinterpreted”.
It added to fears among some Brexiteers that Mrs May could still try to wriggle out of the agreement.
David Jones, the former Brexit minister, said he was concerned the agreement was not “watertight”, adding: “The fact is I think the parliamentary party were expecting a clear indication today on the timetable. We have not got that and I think a lot of colleagues will be extremely concerned.”
Several members of the 18-strong 1922 Committee executive had pushed for Mrs May to be told she had to resign before next week’s European elections, when Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party is expected to trounce the Tories.
If she reneges on the deal, sources in the executive said she would face a confidence vote among Tory MPS on June 12, which would mean changing party rules on how often such votes can be held.
Grassroots Tories are due to hold their own confidence vote on June 15 at a meeting of the National Conservative Convention. Dinah Glover, one of the vote organisers, said the leadership contest needed to start “straight away”, with Mrs May stepping down before June 15 for the motion to be withdrawn.
The Prime Minister fears that by saying she will resign if her Brexit Bill is defeated, she will give MPS an incentive to vote it down just to get rid of her. She had hoped to buy herself a few extra weeks in office by announcing this week that she would put key Brexit legislation to a vote in the first week of June. She tried to persuade the executive that discussions about her future should be put on hold until then, having already agreed to quit if the Withdrawal Agreement Bill passes. However, they rejected her pleas.
Members of the 1922 executive were in no doubt last night that Mrs May would have to trigger a leadership race by the end of June. She would be expected to stay in office until the new leader was elected.
Mr Johnson last night told an audience in Manchester: “Of course I’m going for it ... I don’t think that is any particular secret to anybody.”
‘The party were expecting a clear indication on the timetable ... I think a lot of colleagues will be extremely concerned’
So, she is going at last. Eventually. Sometime in June – no that’s not right. She won’t actually leave Downing Street in June. Theresa May will announce a “timetable” (as opposed to an actual date?) in June. And this will be agreed with the 1922 Committee regardless of whether her Withdrawal Agreement Bill passes or not. So that’s it. Or is it? Wait a minute. If she has now given her word that she will announce a date (sorry, a timetable) for her resignation whether or not her Bill is passed, then why shouldn’t she announce it (the timetable, date, whatever) right now?
There can be no more doubt about whether she will go: she is to resign either way. So what is the justification for the delay? Somehow, one more definitive meeting – another absolutely last warning – has dissolved into an indefinite projection. This is like a recurrent dream. There will be yet another meeting with the 1922, and yet more ultimatums and warnings and final deadlines. And she will still somehow be there promising to set a timetable for her resignation.
And what about the nightmare possibility that she could decide in the event of her Bill failing that she must stay on to try to salvage the wreck? That, after all, was her original argument: that she would leave only when her deal had been accepted. The sense of this argument had already become unfathomable. Maybe there will be some historical interest in examining how this could possibly have happened. Does she believe she is right about her Withdrawal Agreement being a good deal?
But the more important immediate matter is why the party has been so absurdly incapable of acting to remove her, even as it plunged off a cliff. Would it be different if there was a new leader? Is the paralysis caused not so much by her bizarre personality as by the fatal divisions within party ranks?
We must assume that in early June, she will tell us when she will stand down. Then there will be a leadership contest in which the contenders had damn well better behave like grownups who wish to restore reason to government and genuine respect for the electorate to the public discourse.
Maybe then this surreal chapter in our politics, and all the inchoate rage it engendered, may be brought to an end.
To borrow a sentiment from the lady herself: “It was the Conservatives who got us into this mess; they will have to get us out of it.”