Will Mrs May go down as our worst ever PM?
The incumbent rivals history’s biggest stinkers, and faces an extremely humiliating exit as well
Is Theresa May the most disastrous prime minister in British history? Even from living memory there are strong contenders. Sir John Major was so cack-handed on Europe that he split his party and put it out of power for 13 years. Gordon Brown failed to call an election he could have won and called one he lost. Edward Heath allowed the unions to bring Britain to its knees, (but at least made Mrs Thatcher possible). Anthony Eden’s decision to go behind America’s back on Suez brought international humiliation. And in the late 18th century, when time in office was often measured in months rather than years, there were some stinkers.
Still, there is no doubt about it: in her conduct of the Brexit negotiations, and this week’s threatened disaster of a vote (for her), Theresa May rivals the all-time greats of incompetence. She may also be hurtling towards one of the most mortifying political demises in British history. Even more humiliating than the fall from grace of Sir Robert Walpole, who served for 21 years and, like Mrs May, believed he was indispensable; he made a squabble over the legitimacy of a by-election a matter of confidence in his administration, and lost.
Often such a vote has been averted by the resignation of the prime minister whose ineptitude would have forced it. In 1940, even though Neville Chamberlain won the Norway debate, 41 Tories voted against him and 60 abstained. His majority of 81 was deemed so small that he resigned. Ironically Churchill, who succeeded him, was the minister most directly responsible for the disastrous Norway campaign. Chamberlain had learnt from Lord North, who blustered on after losing the American colonies in 1783, and was thrown out on a vote of confidence. For Mrs May, North is the man to beat.
Many MPs say the vote they face on Tuesday is the most significant of their careers. They are right. No division has been so central to Britain’s future since 1972, when the Commons passed by just eight votes the Bill taking us into Europe. Barring an unforeseen development, the Government will lose a vote on which the Prime Minister has staked her credibility. Those forecasting a majority against her of 200 are probably trying to manage expectations, so Mrs May might look somehow triumphant if the majority were but 40 or 50. However, with 105 Tory MPs alleging they will rebel, anything could happen.
Numbers are not, however, the point. This has become the Government’s flagship policy. If Mrs May loses by one or one hundred votes it entirely negates the point of her. It is hard to imagine how a prime minister whose Lord North-ish touch had caused such a defeat could remain in office. It isn’t just that Chamberlain resigned after winning by too few; Gladstone resigned in 1886 when his Home Rule Bill was defeated thanks to his own colleagues; and Peel, having just turbocharged the British economy by repealing the Corn Laws despite opposition from his party, resigned weeks later when defeated on the less significant Irish Coercion Bill.
Mrs May would only further damage herself, her office and the profession of politics if, should she lose this historic vote on Tuesday, she chose to carry on. She is not indispensable. It may take her party some weeks to replace her, but that process can be telescoped: what takes time is the printing and distribution of ballotpapers. But in resigning she could advise the Queen to send for someone to carry on her Government until her party settles its future – someone with the sense to kill this ridiculous “deal”, and to soothe the DUP in case Mr Corbyn tries a vote of confidence. Some colleagues of David Lidington, the de facto deputy prime minister (a position unknown to the British constitution), expect him to be summoned to the Palace to steady the ship, in those circumstances.
If a prime minister does not resign after a humiliation such as may come on Tuesday, when does he or she do so? Happily, we do not need a written constitution because ministers follow precedent and behave accordingly. If we ditch precedent – and Mrs May’s clinging to office after such a defeat would do just that – then there will be little room for further nails in the coffin of our political system.
When Walpole resigned George II reputedly cried for days, and begged his outgoing minister to continue to visit him. Can one envisage our beloved Queen acting in such a fashion, should Mrs May call on her on Wednesday?
No. After such historic incompetence, it would seem a deliverance. at telegraph.co.uk/opinion