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/commentisfree/2018/oct/03/the-guardian-view-on-theresa-mays-speech-getting-by-on-borrowed-time
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on Theresa May’s speech: getting by on borrowed time | The Guardian view on Theresa May’s speech: getting by on borrowed time |
| (30 days later) | |
| If a leader’s fate could be decided by a single speech, Theresa May’s tenure at the top of the Conservative party might not have survived the calamitous delivery of last year’s keynote conference address. Instead the prime minister made it through another year and, in a vastly improved display, was able even to joke about the mishaps that ruined her attempted relaunch in 2017. But just as one bad day did not destroy Mrs May, a relatively good one does not save her. The structural obstacles to success, in Brexit and other policy areas, are unchanged by her performance in Birmingham. | If a leader’s fate could be decided by a single speech, Theresa May’s tenure at the top of the Conservative party might not have survived the calamitous delivery of last year’s keynote conference address. Instead the prime minister made it through another year and, in a vastly improved display, was able even to joke about the mishaps that ruined her attempted relaunch in 2017. But just as one bad day did not destroy Mrs May, a relatively good one does not save her. The structural obstacles to success, in Brexit and other policy areas, are unchanged by her performance in Birmingham. |
| Mrs May has at least bought herself time. It might be only a few weeks, but she can proceed with Brexit negotiations more confident that her party is willing her to succeed instead of plotting her demise. Yet that advantage is of little value if she doesn’t also have permission to make compromises in Brussels. It looks increasingly certain that any deal will involve UK participation in something very like a customs union for a very long time (but branded as something temporary). That will inflame Tory hardliners and increase the likelihood of Mrs May relying on Labour votes in parliament. That foreseeable necessity partly explains the prime minister’s lavish praise for opposition backbenchers, casting them as noble guardians of a moderate left tradition, tragically traduced by an extremist leader. | Mrs May has at least bought herself time. It might be only a few weeks, but she can proceed with Brexit negotiations more confident that her party is willing her to succeed instead of plotting her demise. Yet that advantage is of little value if she doesn’t also have permission to make compromises in Brussels. It looks increasingly certain that any deal will involve UK participation in something very like a customs union for a very long time (but branded as something temporary). That will inflame Tory hardliners and increase the likelihood of Mrs May relying on Labour votes in parliament. That foreseeable necessity partly explains the prime minister’s lavish praise for opposition backbenchers, casting them as noble guardians of a moderate left tradition, tragically traduced by an extremist leader. |
| Mrs May’s fear of defeat for her deal in the Commons was obvious also in a passage attacking the “People’s Vote” campaign for another referendum. She warned that factional in-fighting among leavers could lead to Brexit being abandoned, which is, of course, what a significant number of voters are hoping for. Mrs May is entitled to reject their prescription, but she is wrong to denigrate and invalidate their views as an affront to democracy. She was eloquent in urging national unity and denouncing divisive politics, yet her definition of “the people” is stubbornly, unthinkingly restricted to those who embrace Brexit with enthusiasm. A substantial minority do not. | Mrs May’s fear of defeat for her deal in the Commons was obvious also in a passage attacking the “People’s Vote” campaign for another referendum. She warned that factional in-fighting among leavers could lead to Brexit being abandoned, which is, of course, what a significant number of voters are hoping for. Mrs May is entitled to reject their prescription, but she is wrong to denigrate and invalidate their views as an affront to democracy. She was eloquent in urging national unity and denouncing divisive politics, yet her definition of “the people” is stubbornly, unthinkingly restricted to those who embrace Brexit with enthusiasm. A substantial minority do not. |
| That doesn’t mean Mrs May has no plan to win back lost support. Her declaration of an end to austerity is significant, not because it will ease the financial pain from cuts still coming or compensate those who have already suffered, but because it acknowledged that the political centre ground has moved leftwards. | That doesn’t mean Mrs May has no plan to win back lost support. Her declaration of an end to austerity is significant, not because it will ease the financial pain from cuts still coming or compensate those who have already suffered, but because it acknowledged that the political centre ground has moved leftwards. |
| The prime minister is right to recognise that public services need investment. She is also right that councils must build homes. Lifting the cap on local authority borrowing for that purpose is an overdue but nonetheless welcome capitulation to the reality of soaring demand for social housing. Whether the Treasury is equally persuaded is a different matter, and Mrs May’s capacity to deliver on promises of social renewal has not, in the past, been equal to her rhetoric. That applies too to her revived commitment to help people who feel “left behind”. The noble words are familiar by now; the record in government invites no confidence in successful enactment. | The prime minister is right to recognise that public services need investment. She is also right that councils must build homes. Lifting the cap on local authority borrowing for that purpose is an overdue but nonetheless welcome capitulation to the reality of soaring demand for social housing. Whether the Treasury is equally persuaded is a different matter, and Mrs May’s capacity to deliver on promises of social renewal has not, in the past, been equal to her rhetoric. That applies too to her revived commitment to help people who feel “left behind”. The noble words are familiar by now; the record in government invites no confidence in successful enactment. |
| In that respect, the prime minister’s insistence on separating Brexit from other policy areas is at the root of her problems. She sees the EU negotiation as a discrete task, a necessary chore that distracts from the business of fixing “burning injustices”, bringing people together and generally achieving the fine things advertised in her speeches. She fails to see that Brexit – and her manner of handling it in particular, rejecting the single market before negotiations had even begun – has been an engine of national disunity and a costly folly that can only feed the flames. | In that respect, the prime minister’s insistence on separating Brexit from other policy areas is at the root of her problems. She sees the EU negotiation as a discrete task, a necessary chore that distracts from the business of fixing “burning injustices”, bringing people together and generally achieving the fine things advertised in her speeches. She fails to see that Brexit – and her manner of handling it in particular, rejecting the single market before negotiations had even begun – has been an engine of national disunity and a costly folly that can only feed the flames. |
| If the prime minister had understood the merits of a much softer Brexit and was able to make the case for it with reference to the narrow margin of the referendum result, she might now be better placed to speak about bringing people together, healing and nurturing future prosperity. Instead she lurched towards an economically illiterate hard Brexit and squandered goodwill that might have been available to her from millions of anxious people, regardless of how they voted in the referendum. One shrewdly crafted, competently delivered speech cannot unmake that original mistake. | If the prime minister had understood the merits of a much softer Brexit and was able to make the case for it with reference to the narrow margin of the referendum result, she might now be better placed to speak about bringing people together, healing and nurturing future prosperity. Instead she lurched towards an economically illiterate hard Brexit and squandered goodwill that might have been available to her from millions of anxious people, regardless of how they voted in the referendum. One shrewdly crafted, competently delivered speech cannot unmake that original mistake. |
| Theresa May | Theresa May |
| Opinion | Opinion |
| Conservative conference 2018 | Conservative conference 2018 |
| Conservative conference | Conservative conference |
| Brexit | Brexit |
| Article 50 | Article 50 |
| European Union | European Union |
| Foreign policy | |
| editorials | editorials |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |