John Humphrys - May Takes Over; Corbyn Fights On

July 15, 2016, 8:26 AM GMT+0

Extraordinary weeks have become almost commonplace in British politics. First, Britain voted unexpectedly to leave the European Union and David Cameron blew the whistle on himself.

That was followed, a week later, by the political assassination of Boris Johnson as his would-be successor. And this week we have had the abrupt cessation of the Tory leadership campaign, the swift arrival of Theresa May in Downing Street and the resurrection of Mr Johnson as foreign secretary. Meanwhile, Labour continues to fight a battle for its soul and its future. What are we to make of this rapid turn of events? And will the new government deliver what Mrs May says she wants it to?

As recently as Monday morning it seemed as if we were in for a long summer of leadership elections in our two major parties. Then it all changed. Andrea Leadsom, one of the two candidates left in the race for the Tory grassroots to choose between, suddenly pulled out. Theresa May was home and dry and so instead of having to wait until early September to discover who our new prime minister would be, we had one by Wednesday evening.

Already the political world looks very different. Government for the last six years, and Conservative politics for the last eleven, have been dominated by the leadership duo of David Cameron and George Osborne. Both are now on the backbenches. Leading Brexiteers, previously out of government, have been brought into the Cabinet to try to make work a policy the new prime minister opposed during the referendum campaign, albeit rather half-heartedly. ‘Brexit means Brexit’, she insists but we have yet to know what that means, or whether her Brexit ministers, Mr Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox will be able to devise a policy that will not only satisfy their old supporters but which they can negotiate with our partners in the EU.

But the arrival of Brexiteer cabinet ministers in prominent positions is not the only mark of the new world. Mrs May has let it be known she wants more women in her government and has started off by replacing herself at the Home Office with Amber Rudd. More women in senior positions are expected.

The new prime minister has also announced that she wants a change in economic priorities, even a new form of capitalism. The writing was on the wall for George Osborne when she said on Monday, in a speech delivered when she was still running for the leadership, that it was ‘apparent to anybody who is in touch with the real world’ that the public does not feel that the economy is working ‘for everyone’. She spoke enthusiastically about policies such as curbs on executive pay, having workers on company boards and intervening in rapacious takeovers. Some commentators said her speech sounded more like Ed Miliband or Vince Cable than that of a Conservative prime minister.

She reiterated some of the themes of what she explicitly called her ‘One Nation’ approach in her speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street before entering it for the first time as Prime Minister. She said: ‘If you’re from an ordinary working-class family, life is much harder than many people in Westminster realise. You have a job, but you don’t always have job security. You have your own home, but you worry about paying the mortgage. You can just about manage, but you worry about the cost of living and getting your kids into a good school. If you are one of those families, if you’re just managing, I want to address you directly. I know you are working round the clock, I know you are doing your best and I know that sometimes life can be a struggle. The government I lead will be driven not by the interests of the privileged few but by yours. We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives.’

Critics of the Tory Party will say we have heard all this before from Conservative leaders and will cite Margaret Thatcher quoting St Francis of Assisi from the very same steps in 1979. She didn’t exactly bring the ‘harmony’ she promised, they will say. But there is a One Nation tradition in Mrs May’s party, going back to Disraeli, and in these few remarks she has very clearly set herself a test by which she will ultimately be judged.

But there may also be political calculation in her remarks: she seems to be pitching for traditional Labour votes at a time when the principle opposition party is on the verge of civil war. Angela Eagle’s decision to challenge the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, for his job has potentially set the party’s MPs on a battle to the death with its grassroots members and is likely (in the view of many commentators) to lead to a split in the party.

Mr Corbyn was elected less than a years ago with the support of 60% of party members and supporters. But last month sixty-three of his shadow ministers resigned and around 80% of Labour MPs backed a motion of no confidence in him. Attempts to keep him off the ballot in the new election failed, so the new leadership election is likely to be, in effect, a battle between the MPs and the grassroots.

Only if Ms Eagle (or Owen Smith, another candidate) can persuade the grassroots to dump Mr Corbyn can any semblance of unity be recreated. But most observers think he is very likely to win again, in which event Labour MPs will have to decide whether to buckle down, back a leader they have very recently so publicly repudiated and (as they fear) see Labour go down to massive defeat at the next election. Or the Parliamentary Labour Party could simply go its own way, elect its own leader (who would become the leader of the opposition) and, in effect, break away from the Labour Party in the country. Neither prospect much appeals to any of them.

There is a link, however, between the problem Labour MPs face and the emergence of Theresa May as the new Tory leader. It’s the issue of who should elect a party’s leader. Andrea Leadsom pulled out of the Tory leadership election in part because she said that even if the party in the country had backed her over Mrs May she would have found herself leading a parliamentary party that had overwhelming supported her rival and that the position would have been, at the very least, difficult. That is exactly the predicament Mr Corbyn finds himself in.

The obvious solution is for MPs to revert to the system in which they alone had the right to elect their parties’ leaders. To do so would also be constitutionally appropriate since the Queen appoints as prime minister someone who can command a majority in the House of Commons. Giving MPs the sole right of election means the process is also quicker, as the Tories have demonstrated this week. But whether ordinary members of either party would be prepared to give up their say over who their leader should be, is another matter.

It has been an extraordinary few weeks and we now have a new government. What do you make of Mrs May’s initial decisions as prime minister? Was she right to bring back Boris Johnson? Do you think the Brexiteers she has brought back into government will be able to extricate Britain from the EU in a way that does minimal harm to our economy and our relations with our European neighbours? Do you think she means what she says in being a One Nation prime minister and putting the interests of ‘ordinary working-class families’ at the centre of her concerns? Who should be Labour’s leader? And who should elect party leaders, party members or MPs?

There is a lot to discuss in politics at the moment. Let us know what you think.