This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/10/nick-timothy-fiona-hill-resigns-prime-minister-theresa-may-election

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
May removed Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill 'under threat of leadership bid' May removed Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill 'under threat of leadership bid'
(35 minutes later)
The prime minister’s closest advisers have resigned in the wake of the general election that resulted in the Conservatives losing their majority and prompted calls for Theresa May to step down. Theresa May has given in to angry pressure from Conservative MPs and ministers to remove her closest advisers from government, amid warnings that failure to do so would trigger an immediate leadership bid.
Nick Timothy, one of May’s two chiefs of staff, announced his resignation on Saturday in a letter posted on ConservativeHome. Fiona Hill has also resigned, a Conservative spokesman confirmed. Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, who had jointly acted as chiefs of staff in Downing Street, offered their resignations after the prime minister’s snap election resulted in the Conservative party losing hold of its majority.
There had been warnings that May could face a leadership challenge as early as Monday unless the two left their jobs. Many politicians have been angry about their closed style of government amid allegations of bullying by Hill, with claims she had screamed and sworn at Cabinet members, and would loudly castigate members of staff in meetings.
MPs said that the removal of Timothy and Hill was the only way for May to stay on, with other figures such as Boris Johnson waiting in the wings. The critics had demanded that the pair must go if May wanted to avoid a quick leadership contest in which Boris Johnson and others would be likely to stand.
In his post confirming his departure, Timothy wrote: “Yesterday, I resigned as the prime minister’s adviser. Clearly, the general election result was a huge disappointment. I take responsibility for my part in this election campaign.” It is thought that Graham Brady, who chairs the 1922 committee of Conservative backbenchers, had raised the concerns of colleagues at a meeting with the prime minister on Friday.
Hill said: “It’s been a pleasure to serve in government, and a pleasure to work with such an excellent prime minister. I have no doubt at all that Theresa May will continue to serve and work hard as prime minister – and do it brilliantly.” In a statement, Timothy admitted that the party had failed to present a positive image, and said that he regretted failing to initially include a cap in the controversial social care plans that forced a mid-campaign U-turn.
Referring to the controversial “dementia tax” policy that blighted May’s campaign, Timothy wrote in his letter: “In particular, I regret the decision not to include in the manifesto a ceiling as well as a floor in our proposal to help meet the increasing cost of social care.” He insisted the policy was not his pet project – as had been depicted – but added: “I take responsibility for the content of the whole manifesto, which I continue to believe is an honest and strong programme for government.”
The policy and May’s subsequent U-turn were considered among the most damaging of a series of missteps during the campaign. But in his letter Timothy said reports that the policy was his brainchild were“bizarre”. The adviser, who is nicknamed Rasputin by some Tories, argued that, while he was disappointed by the result, colleagues ought to consider that the party secured 13.6m votes, higher than Tony Blair won in three successive elections.
He said: “It had been the subject of many months of work within Whitehall, and it was not my personal pet project.” He said he had chosen not to rebut the claims “as to have done so would have been a distraction for the campaign”. “The reason for the disappointing result was not the absence of support for Theresa May and the Conservatives but an unexpected surge in support for Labour,” he said.
The two had faced severe criticism of their role in the campaign and management of May’s office. Senior members of May’s team said that both had to go, with anger at Hill in particular for bullying behaviour. “One can speculate about the reasons for this, but the simple truth is that Britain is a divided country: many are tired of austerity, many remain frustrated or angry about Brexit, and many younger people feel they lack the opportunities enjoyed by their parents’ generation.”
“It’s unacceptable for her to send sweary texts to cabinet ministers,” said another member of the cabinet who described Hill telling a senior government figure to “fuck off”. Hill said it had been a pleasure to serve in government and work for a such an “excellent prime minister”.
Others were angry at Timothy for drafting the social care policy in the manifesto. They said there was no “retail offer” and no attempt to explain why they weren’t including a string of giveaways. “I have no doubt at all that Theresa May will continue to serve and work hard as prime minister – and do it brilliantly.”
Katie Perrior, the former director of communications at No 10, said on Saturday morning that the operation was “pretty dysfunctional”. The pair had been the source of huge anger across the party after a stuttering campaign, up against a positive and vibrant effort from Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, resulted in May losing a 20-point lead in the polls and delivered a hung parliament.
Writing in the Times, she said: “What I could never work out was whether Mrs May condoned their behaviour and turned a blind eye or didn’t understand how destructive they both were. For all the love of a hierarchy, the chiefs treated cabinet members exactly the same – rude, abusive, childish behaviour. There was particular anger at Timothy for the inclusion of the social care policy, and for the failure to address anti-austerity demands by making the case for fiscal discipline.
“For two people who have never achieved elected office, I was staggered at the disrespect they showed on a daily basis. I never hated them. I felt sorry for them and how they measured success by how many enemies they had clocked up.” In an immediate response to the news, one Tory MP sent a message claiming: “Rasputin had gone! There is a God. :).”
Ben Howlett, who lost his Bath constituency in the election and who has previously spoken out about bullying and harassment in the youth wing of the Tory party, said: “In the national interest, the prime minister has put the country first and given the scale of the task ahead she has made the right choice to remove her two key advisers.”
A MP from northern England, where the party had expected to make significant gains, added: “The sacking of Theresa May’s two advisers is much welcomed by Tory MPs. Those two have been instrumental in delivering the worst Conservative election campaign in living memory. Hopefully the PM will now begin to listen to her colleagues who are more in touch with the electorate than rely on a small group of out-of-touch advisers.”
One minister claimed that colleagues had never wanted an early election, and had made that a condition of supporting May’s initial leadership bid. The Guardian has been told that the prime minister did not want to push ahead with it, but was persuaded to do so by aides, including Hill and Timothy, and by cabinet members.
However, Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, told the Guardian that the buck ought to stop with May herself.
“Even with these resignations, Theresa May cannot avoid responsibility for her own defeat. She is the one who asked the people for a vote of confidence in her leadership. She was rejected at a general election. Without a mandate and with no authority she will remain a lame duck prime minister until she resigns,” he said.
Supporters of the pair told the Guardian that they had been unfairly targeted following the election campaign. They pointed the finger at Australian strategist Sir Lynton Crosby instead, claiming he had insisted on relentless negative attacks and a heavy focus on May, despite it making her feel uncomfortable.
They also accused him of telling colleagues that a manifesto was a “sideshow” in campaigns, and that the only aim should be to stick to a single message.
Crosby is also damaged from the election result, and could face questions about his style after the negative focus of both the 2012 mayoral contest between Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone and the 2015 general election. His company was also linked to the Tory effort against the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, which many felt had descended to dog-whistle politics that focused on the Labour politician’s race and religion.
However, both Timothy and Hill were personally criticised during the campaign. Timothy was accused of failing to consider the political fallout of a social care policy, which targeted elderly voters who are considered core Tory voters, and failing to include any retail offers for MPs to sell on the doorstep.
Hill, who was in charge of communications, was accused of failing to allow other cabinet members to carry out interviews and of treating journalists badly. She also initially blocked Sky News from joining the prime minister on her battle bus and refused to give the channel cabinet interviews, allegedly because she wasn’t happy with their political reporting.
The result fallout triggered a string of accusations about Timothy and Hill being made public. One cabinet minister called on the prime minister to sack the “monsters who propped her up and sunk our party”.
By Saturday, Katie Perrior, the former director of communications in Downing street, broke cover to accuse the pair of treating cabinet members in a “rude, abusive, childish” way.
She described them as “great street fighters but poor political leaders,” saying: “What I could never work out was whether Mrs May condoned their behaviour and turned a blind eye or didn’t understand how destructive both were.”
She said the prime minister now desperately needed people with “charm and diplomacy” around her.
Joey Jones, a former spokesperson for May when she was home secretary, echoed that assessment in a piece for PoliticsHome in which he said that they were good at their jobs but could be “unacceptably aggressive”.
He added that they exhibited a “desire for total control” and said that “under pressure, it looks like a model that is intolerant of reality”.