Morning might break over Brexit on Tuesday

Wasn’t the Christmas break invigorating? 

With Theresa May pulling the meaningful vote on her Brexit deal in December, every MP was able to scuttle back to their constituencies and have a well deserved rest. And, so the plan went, with a fresher mind, they would be able to consider calmly the merits of the Prime Minister's withdrawal deal safely away from the sturm und drang swirling through the corridors of Westminster.

Peace.

And thus, as the dawn of 2019 broke, we find... any such hopes have come to a shuddering halt; MPs are as firmly entrenched as they were before the festive season if not more so. The sherry, port and turkey have stiffened the sinews, ready for fresh battle.

As we look now, the Prime Minister could be defeated on a huge scale when the vote takes place on Tuesday night. According to BBC analysis she is as many as 114 MPs short from securing a deal. Translated, that would give her opponents a victory by more than 200 votes; it is scarcely possible to imagine a political humiliation of greater magnitude.

Today (Thursday) we hear that the Prime Minister held calls with a couple of union leaders trying to get them to put pressure on likely Labour MPs to switch their support to her. Having not even contacted Labour’s eminently reasonable shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer during the entire Brexit process to ask for his assistance, a last minute call to Sir Len McCluskey - to whom she has never spoken before - seems to be an act of desperation and unlikely to be the thing to turn the tide.

Having seen off a leadership challenge at the end of last year, and possessing the ability and determination to cling to power with a tenacity that would make a barnacle jealous, however huge the defeat, it is unlikely to spell the end of Mrs May's premiership.

It could finally, however, provide a moment of clarity in the whole Brexit drama.

After protesting loudly against Speaker John Bercow’s sleight of hand when he allowed an amendment to what everyone had hitherto understood to be a non-amendable motion, Brexiteer and Remainer MPs alike now know the Prime Minister must return to the House of Commons within three sitting days and present what she plans to do next.

Bercow’s ruling may well have been unprecedented, hasty and done without fully considering what the consequences may prove to be, but, he has consistently, since ascending to the office, said he would stand up for the voice of parliament. That is what he has done. 

At a time when the government has no-majority and both of the major parties have self-evidently failed to convince a sufficient number of MPs to coalesce around their own particular Brexit vision, that parliament can still drive the agenda forward in the hope a solution might be found is something of a relief.

After all, had Bercow not taken such a stance the government theoretically could have waited 21 days before indicating to Parliament its next intentions. With fewer than 80 days left before Article 50 comes into force and the U.K. leaves the EU, that would surely have been intolerable.

Theresa May, who is no stranger to twisting parliamentary procedure when it suits her government (see the FT's legal and Brexit blogger @davidallengreen's excellent thread here), she was, admittedly, always unlikely to wait so long before outlining her next strategy. Mrs May must know time is too precious. Heaven's above! Would the government stoop to playing low politics on such a crucial issue?

It seems likely, therefore, that after the defeat on Tuesday the prime minister will rise to the despatch box, or stand before a lectern in Downing Street later that night or on Wednesday morning, and tell the nation what’s going to happen next. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if another referendum was her answer with her deal and no Deal, later to be joined by Remain - following another bitterly contested amendment - appearing on the ballot paper. An extension of Article 50 to make time for fresh negotiations also seems to be gaining in likelihood.

There will be no easy resolution next week but fog may finally lift and some much-needed clarity should be visible. After the shadow boxing in of the last two years, that can only be a good thing.

The mood music of Salzburg

The make-up, under the lights of the press conference in Salzburg, didn’t do Theresa May any favours. Her face ghostly pale, the foundation seemed to have been heavily caked-on in a vain attempt to hide layers of tiredness, frustration and anger.

But her disappointment and exasperation towards the leaders of the EU and the other 27 member states was vivid and unmistakable.

The Chequers deal, unveiled earlier this summer with the fanfares of apparent cabinet unity, was a considered attempt to bounce not only her government but backbenchers into what the prime minister considered a compromise plan. It was hoped that, while the EU might not approve of every aspect of the package, they would see it as a template to work with and, eager not to see Britain fall out of the European Union without a deal, would find a way to make it work. That there had been encouraging signals from the likes of EU negotiator Michel Barnier and European Council president Donald Tusk, makes the humiliation of the Salzburg summit – where the package has been dismissed as ‘unworkable’ – so painful.

The prime minister and her allies would not have expected Jacob Rees-Mogg’s European Research Group (ERG) to swing behind the deal.  They remain sizeable in number and the group has considered dethroning Theresa May.  But fractures are clearly visible in that movement, widening as they find themselves unable to forge an alternative plan that could be supported even amongst themselves, let alone by parliament. And, while it is undoubtedly true a no-deal would not, in fact, be ‘the end of the world’, the brighter members realise it could inflict chaos upon the country for which they may never be forgiven.

Downing Street did hope more pragmatic remainers would have reinforced her position. Instead, Mrs May has been under fire.  Justine Greening, for example, called the Chequers plan an ‘unpopular, undeliverable mess’, ‘less popular with the public than the poll tax’ and a ‘dead horse’. The prime minster, however, has continued to flog it. Even May loyalist Sir Mike Penning, who helped run Ms May’s leadership campaign, has performed the last rites on Chequers, calling it ‘dead as a dodo’.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party seem unhealthily obsessed with internal party democracy and functions and their position on Brexit remains vague, though Emily Thornberry did helpfully say the party would vote against any plan presented by the government.

Poor Theresa May, who has clung to her job with the tenacity of a limpet on a wave-lashed rock, looks as though she has been taken hostage by several intransigent gangs simultaneously, yet each cannot decide what ransom demands to issue.

Where does the prime minister go now? It’s hard to see a passage through which Brexit can be navigated with any semblance of control. In her Salzburg press conference, Ms May has a deadline of October to present a new solution to the Irish border question, a date, she confided to Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, which appeared impossible to hit. According to Donald Tusk, this remains ‘the moment of truth’, with the threat Brexit talks could collapse completely.

Theresa May is sticking with the Chequers deal for now, despite Rees-Mogg, David Davis, Iain Duncan Smith, urging her to dump it, repeating her line – which is true – that it remains the ‘only deal on the table’.

It is worth noting the actions of EU leaders in Salzburg would not have done them any favours among the British public. Despite the suggestion that warm words would be ushered forth as part of a ‘Save Theresa’ campaign, and regardless of the few scattered comments of comfort from those who declared that they remained ‘hopeful of a deal’, the likes of Donald Tusk and Emmanuel Macron publicly humiliated the British prime minister today. Many die-hard remainers have made clear their disapproval of these methods. And leavers will point to today as evidence the EU cannot be negotiated with and we’re better off escaping the whole structure, regardless of the consequences.

In Peter Shaffer’s play ‘Amadeus’, the writer imagines Salzburg’s most famous son Mozart working himself to death, trying to finish his Requiem. With her authority draining away, it could prove that Theresa May is forced from office and the responsibility of delivering Brexit is handed on. But, May’s singular determination has been unappreciated before; it would be a bold prediction to write her off again.

Untouchable Javid set for the top

How many members of Theresa May’s cabinet are unsackable?

In normal times Boris Johnson, for all of his breaches of cabinet collective responsibility, freewheeling policy-making and gaffes,  would have done enough to warrant dismissal several times over.

By refusing to take another cabinet position, indeed enhancing his current role, in the midst of a reshuffle, Jeremy Hunt also showed the power of his position and, conversely, the weakness of the Prime Minister.

Now Sajid Javid is showing he is untouchable as he brings a fresh approach to the Home Office; he may not make it ‘fit for purpose’ but he is examining things from a new perspective and appears set to try and sweep away much of the stagnant thinking that has dominated it for so long, dating long before Cameron and the coalition cane to power.

It is possible Theresa May thought she was appointing someone of a similar mould when she was forced to replace Amber Rudd following the exposure of the Windrush scandal but, cautious though she is, even the Prime Minister must have realised the home office needed a drastic intervention, giving it distance and distinctiveness from her time in the job. After all, the blame for the Windrush mess could largely be placed at the door of Number 10; there were loud calls for the Prime Minister herself to resign. Demonstrating that she had listened was crucial. Javid, therefore, cannot be moved. Regardless of how much he might rile his boss in the months, and perhaps years, to come, May knows that she cannot afford to get rid of him. 

Regardless of the May's intentions, in the short space of time Javid has held the position he has signalled a policy break from May,  simultaneously creating for himself an identifiable powerful platform in common with liberal Toryism from which he could be perfectly placed to launch a leadership bid.

Apart from his repudiation of the phrase ‘hostile environment’, Javid has, in recent days signalled students from abroad will be removed from net migration figures - an act that has long had broad cabinet support - and seems set to reform the Tier 2 visa cap which has prevented much needed medical, and other, professionals getting jobs here. Even the longstanding, unachieved and likely to be unachievable, pledge to cut net migration to the tens of thousands could be on the way out.

These have all been shibboleths of Theresa May’s time in government, as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister but no longer.  Even though all Javid has so far offered is words, it seems that these already are able to strip some of the totemic power from May's catchphrases.

Jacob Rees-Mogg remains favourite to succeed May as Tory leader, but for all the Victorian pizzazz he might bring to the position, wiser heads in the party will know he lacks the broad appeal that could win a general election, especially against the Jeremy Corbyn who has shown himself to be a consummate campaigner.

Possessing the ability to attract a wider voting base, while draining much of the bile from within the Home Office, in coming months, Sajid Javid is likely to assume the slot as May's natural successor. The son of a Pakistani bus driver - like Sadiq Khan - and rising, through hard work, from a penurious background to great success and wealth, Javid possesses a rich hinterland that fits perfectly with the Conservative Party's self-image. He would be wise, though, not to blithely dismiss allegations of Islamophobia within the Tory Party by relying on his own success as proof and dismissing the organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain, not least because he, as Home Secretary, is very likely to need their support and assistance in the future. And he certainly doesn't want to challenge the Labour Party in the 'who can handle allegations of racism worse' competition.

Nevertheless, for all those who claim few Home Secretaries rise to the highest office of state, Sajid Javid is putting himself in the possible position of proving them wrong, for the second time in a row.

The only road to Brexit

Brexit still means Brexit. Or possibly harder Brexit. This is the message from the government after Theresa May finally outlined the framework on which it intends to negotiate the country’s withdrawal from the European Union. While the government is clearly still searching for the details of its plan, at least it has the twelve chapter headings now.

Briefly, when the Prime Minister said both houses of Parliament would get a vote on the final deal, there were gasps of relief, particularly from Remainers, that it might be subject to proper scrutiny, be open to amendment and a settlement which satisfies the vast majority might be found. But, the government has been swift to knock such notions on the head. If MPs feel that the deal on offer isn't adequate, the only alternative would be no deal; better than a bad deal, as the Prime Minister said.

It renders any vote somewhat superfluous. A debate on the terms of exit is not what the government wants; instead, as David Davis told parliament after the Prime Minister had stopped speaking:

‘What we want to have is a vote so the House can be behind and support the policy, which we are quite sure they will approve of when we get there.’

A united parliament, a united country, pulling the same way. No longer little Britain, shackled by Europe, but a Britain looking outward to the world, trading freely with whomever it chooses. This is the vision of the government. With so much rhetorical bombast on display, one half expects Sir Francis Drake to set sail on the high seas once more and plunder the Spanish Main just to show we can.

Parliament, though, isn’t of one mind and neither is the country. No matter how much Theresa May and others might implore ‘Remoaners’ to join this national independence crusade, many are equally determined to hold their position, much like Brexiters would have done had the EU referendum result gone the opposite way.

The 48% then - those who opposed Britain leaving the EU - can they rely upon the official Opposition to champion their cause? Er, no. As far as the two major parties are concerned, their cause is lost and is best ignored. Only Tim Farron, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, makes any effort in this respect and argues that any final deal should be put in a referendum.

Instead, Jeremy Corbyn came out with this:

‘She [Theresa May] has said “leave the single market” then at the same time “we want access to the single market”. I’m not quite sure how that’s going to go down in Europe.... she seems to be wanting to have her cake and eat it.'

Before adding: ‘I think we need to have a deal that ensures we have access to the single market.’

Please excuse me for failing to see the enormous gulf in these two positions.

It is this type of leadership that has frustrated so many long time Labour supporters with Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn is currently the subject of a ‘populist’ relaunch. 'Let Jeremy be Jeremy' is, apparently, the plan. Aware that he and the Labour Party are somewhat lagging behind Theresa May and her government, it is understandable why Mr Corbyn’s team thought the New Year provided an opportunity to repackage the Labour leader in the hope he might appear to lead a more dynamic opposition.

As part of this relaunch, just a week ago, Jeremy Corbyn delivered his own speech on Brexit which was supposed to provide clarity on Labour’s position. By the end of the day, Corbyn was insisting immigration from the EU wasn’t too high but Labour wasn’t wedded to freedom of movement.

Labour has a huge opportunity to tackle the government on a host of major issues, not just Brexit; the NHS lurches from one crisis to another, delayed decisions on Heathrow, complete inactivity on the Southern rail shambles. But, it seems that for many, on too many occasions, Labour has gone missing from the battlefield, its major figures just not up to the task, save for a few notable exceptions such as Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner and Sir Keir Starmer, the last of whom cannot be expected competently to tackle the government over its Brexit spasms while Labour lacks a coherent policy itself.

Of huge concern should be the Fabian Society report, published earlier in the month, which said it was virtually impossible for a ‘too weak’ Labour Party to win a general election. Support could shrink to as low as 20 per cent and at the next election it could be left with fewer seats than since the 1930s. Its only viable return to power would be to seek alliances with the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party. They show no inclination to forge such a partnership with Mr Corbyn's Labour Party.

This underlines a continual agonising, gnawing fear felt by those Labour supporters who aren’t convinced by the Jeremy Corbyn project and by many who believe it is a vital for all governments to have a decent opposition; the fear that not only is this Labour opposition failing to challenge the government sufficiently, but also that for many years to come no viable opposition is likely to emerge. 

The government, for many understandable reasons, is struggling to make sense of a vote to leave the European Union; a vote that was never meant to be lost and was intended, by David Cameron, to salve the running sores within the Conservative Party. But, as it tries to formulate the most important policy package this country will face in many generations, there is hardly a time in recent history when a government needed a robust opposition more.

No need to be fearful to be Christian

Fiona Bruce MP arose in #PMQs today saying that Christians were 'fearful' of mentioning their religion or talking about Christmas in  public in these tumultuous days in case they receive a backlash.

I hope she was comforted by Theresa May's words who, being the daughter of a vicar, said:

'Of course we are now into the season of Advent, and we have a very strong tradition in this country of religious tolerance and freedom of speech and our Christian heritage is something we can be be proud of.

'I'm sure that we would all want to ensure that people at work do feel able to speak about their faith and also be able to speak quite freely about Christmas.'

When I hear such fears raised, my mind wanders to a wonderful sketch by John Finnemore which appeared on The Now Show several years ago, and I feel confident that our country's Christian heritage is still secure and mentioning Christmas in the workplace might just about be ok.

Farage loves a vacuum

It really shouldn’t be any surprise that we are in such uncertain territory over Brexit. It’s a pretty big issue after all. But, the longer the two majority parties vacillate over their positions, the bigger the vacuum being created for those who know exactly what they want to get from the June 23^rd vote.

For all the cast-iron guarantees from David Cameron, the referendum was a never a vote the former Prime Minister wanted to hold. The offer was to placate his troublesome backbenchers. When, to considerable surprise, Mr Cameron led the Conservative Party to a House of Commons majority and the referendum became inevitable, it was still a vote that, for the most part, the former Prime Minister expected to win with ease. So, what preparation was done in case of defeat? Remarkably little, from all appearances. 

Theresa May’s favourite phrase these days is a commitment to get the ‘best deal for the UK as we leave the EU’, which one would hope is the basic requirement of any British government. But it says little about the relationship the government actually wants with the EU. From the prime minister down, government ministers and officials have been insistent that there will be no running commentary on Brexit negotiations and that by revealing the government’s ambitions they would be undermining their position before talks have even begun.

This is what the prime minister seems to fear after last week’s High Court ruling on the process by which Article 50 is triggered. Just what will the House of Commons want for their vote. Suddenly, the government risks losing control. Even though the overwhelming likelihood is that MPs will give their backing for Article 50 to be invoked, only this morning (Sunday) health secretary Jeremy Hunt repeated their concerns, telling the Andrew Marr Programme the ‘impact on the economy will be far worse if through some parliamentary mechanisms Theresa May is forced to lay out her entire negotiating strategy’.

This strategy does, however, rely on the discretion of EU countries; it would hardly be a surprise if the moment they receive the UK’s demands these find their way into the newspapers.

Simultaneously, we are left with a Labour Party which also hasn’t decided what it wants from Brexit negotiations. Jeremy Corbyn made an appearance in the Sunday Mirror in which he indicated he was willing to block Article 50 if the government breached his four ‘bottom lines’ including ‘access to 500 million customers in Europe’s single market’.

The only hiccup with this strategy is that it appears he hadn’t discussed it with his deputy leader first. With the ink still almost wet, Tom Watson was on the radio saying the Labour Party wouldn’t try and block Article 50:

‘We are not going to hold this up. The British people have spoken and Article 50 will be triggered when it comes to Westminster. Ultimately, when the vote comes Labour will support Theresa May to trigger Article 50.’

And, in reference to the apparent contradiction between himself and his leader, Mr Watson added: ‘We missed each other on the phone today.’

In many ways, it’s perfectly reasonable for the government and the opposition to be struggling to formulate exactly what their strategies are. Theresa May’s government received the ultimate hospital pass from David Cameron’s administration; it shouldn’t be much of a surprise they are taking a little time trying to establish what they can create from the mess.

And Labour’s problems must surely stem from a leader who has long been lukewarm towards the European project if not downright hostile. Mr Corbyn, after all, voted against membership in 1975, against the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 and against the Lisbon Treaty in 2009

But, the failure of both to settle upon a position leaves the field wide open for those who do have agreed strategy and know exactly what they want from the Brexit vote.

The interim Ukip leader, still completely dominant within his own party, is the consummate campaigner of our age. In a time when mainstream politicians can be so fearful of the consequences of their words and deeds, Mr Farage benefits from being not highly electorally encumbered, letting him be nimble, proactive and impassioned. That many people can’t bear what he represents only fuels his enthusiasm for the fight.

In The Daily Telegraph last week, Nigel Farage wrote:

‘The British people voted to leave the single market, for full border controls and to take back control of things such as our territorial fishing waters. They expect to see all of this delivered.’

The British people, of course, voted for none of these things as they didn't appear on the ballot paper. Instead, voters were persuaded by a myriad of reasons to vote the way they did - principled, solipsistic and altruistic, and Brexit emerged the winner. But Mr Farage knows what he wants and, with a certainty of mind of which other politicians would rightly be jealous, can fill the airwaves and newspaper columns with his precise demands.

Theresa May; the red and purple Tory PM

Has a prime minister ever had such an opportunity to seize and control the political narrative as Theresa May does currently?

Sure, Margaret Thatcher dominated the political weather of her era but she came pre-loaded with a free market ideology which she applied, with more pragmatism than is remembered, during her time in office. And, of course, Blair swept all aside in his climb to power but, despite the country crying out for a change after 18 years of Conservative rule, he was timid in ambition, still fearful of electoral defeat.

Theresa May, though, is an accidental prime minister and already a lucky one. She is unencumbered by the baggage gathered by David Cameron after a decade of leading his party, emboldened by a Labour Party which seems content for now to wallow in protest populism, meanwhile Ukip seems to be permanently locked in petty, internecine battles. May - who was something of a Teflon-coated Home Secretary - is left clutching a broad, blank, canvas upon which she can paint her own vision for the Conservative Party and the country.

And so, we have her first major keynote speech at a Conservative Party conference as prime minister. Broadly speaking, it was a very successful, clever, speech. Much of it could have been written and said by Ed Miliband, bulked up with a few additions from Nigel Farage, though most of his script had been left with Home Secretary Amber Rudd a day previously. Delivered without fuss from a lectern, Ms May didn't feel the need to display any flashy skills. She didn't take a suit jacket off to show she means business, or memorise the whole speech in an attempt to display her oratorical prowess. Down to earth, unfussy and practical, getting on with the job; that was the message.

While many still struggle to come to terms with the result of the Brexit referendum on June 23rd, Ms May described it as being a symptom of wider issues within society. The vote to leave was about a broader vote for change, 'about a sense - deep, profound and let's face it often justified - that many people have today that the world works well for a privileged few, but not for them'. She went on:

'Our society should work for everyone, but if you can't afford to get on to the property ladder, or your child is stuck in a bad school, it doesn't feel like it's working for you. Our economy should work for everyone, but if your pay has stagnated for several years in a row and fixed items of spending keep going up, it doesn't feel like it's working for you. Our democracy should work for everyone, but if you've been trying to say things need to change for years and your complaints fall on deaf ears, it doesn't feel like it's working for you. And the roots of the revolution run deep. because it wasn't the wealthy who made the biggest sacrifices after the financial crash. but ordinary, working class families.'

Compare and contrast with what Ed Miliband had to say in his conference speech in 2014.

'You see, for all the sound and fury in England, Scotland, Wales, across the United Kingdom, what people are actually saying to us is this country doesn't care about me. Our politics doesn't listen. our economy doesn't work and they're not wrong, they're right....

'Prosperity in one part of Britain, amongst a small elite. A circle that is closed to most, blind to the concerns of people. Sending the message to everyone but a few: you're on your own. See, think about it for a minute. In our economy, it's working people who are made to bear the burden of anxiety, precariousness and insecurity.'

All three paragraphs could easily have come from the same speech. But, while Ed Miliband suffered a humiliating defeat at the last general election, Theresa May is Prime Minister and received a standing ovation. She is busy taking Labour's clothes.

Corbyn himself recognises this. In his own conference speech, he acknowledged that Ms May knew there was a need for change:

The problem Labour and Corbyn faces, though, is that it currently isn't seen as a viable alternative for government. With that in mind, Corbyn is fortunate that Theresa May has ended speculation that she might call an early election for if she did, it seems fairly certain she would be rewarded with an enlarged parliamentary majority. 

Ms May currently faces bigger challenges from within her own party than the official opposition. Many Tory MPs object to the expansion of grammar schools.  There is a cohort of disgruntled Remainers. And the balance of the House of Lords is also still stacked against the Conservative Party. But all this could change. 

The Prime Minister acknowledges that the whole Brexit process will be a 'bumpy' road, the Conservative Party is still split over what Brexit actually means, and if the economy does indeed struggle as many experts fear, it will be this government that is blamed. Moreover, if her fine words remain just fine words and little effort is made to actually seize the centre ground, this will be noticed and Labour could still return there.

The Labour leader has been dismissed many times but he has weathered an almighty battering. It may be hard to imagine now, but, there is no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn has galvanised a movement behind him. Many may not recognise it as the Labour Party they have known for decades, but it is huge in number, over half a million in strength, and could still prove a formidable election fighting machine. The next election, however, remains Theresa May's to lose.

While Labour shouts, the real battle is in the Tory Party

Somewhat unfortunately I found myself in an argument with an ‘ultra-leftie’ Corbyn fan the other night, one who clearly hadn’t got the memo about a kinder politics from his Dear Leader. He thought it was reasonable to illustrate a graphic explaining ‘How Tory Welfare Reforms Work’ with an image of a Swastika, claiming it was merely ‘a diagram’. When I suggested this was a fairly offensive comparison to make, I was taken to task. The implication was that if anyone implied that this 'diagram' might be unfairly tainting the Conservative Party with Nazism, then it was the viewer's - in this case, my - fault. Clearly, he had not managed to grasp the power of semiotics. 

For merely questioning his taste I was accused of being a Tory. And this is where the Labour Party now find themselves; unreasonable people railing against the world, convinced their own view is the one true view, accusing those who might question them of apostasy. The vast majority on the left, the thoughtful, kind, principled but pragmatic, have been rendered dumb by the earthquake that has occurred beneath their feet. Until Corbyn and his shadow cabinet emerge with a package of coherent policies, the official Labour Party is something of an irrelevance, failing to provide a decent opposition.

Meanwhile, in the real world, George Osborne has been busy donning a cloak of moderate sensibilities and set about stealing some of Labour’s best policies and there is barely a whimper of protest – or indeed claims of ownership – from Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow cabinet. Lord Adonis, whose talent for ideas and getting things done was such that he was close to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, has been left flailing in the wind and, given the opportunity to resurrect his idea of an infrastructure commission, leads it with George Osborne’s blessing. For a party serious about forming the next government, losing the talents of Lord Adonis is little short of criminal.

Other ideas Osborne has pinched or developed include the devolution of business rates, grand-parental leave, the abolition of non-dom status and the national ‘living wage’. And remember the city academies idea – chaotically attacked by the last shadow Labour cabinet – was the brainchild of a certain chap called Andrew Adonis when he was a part of a Labour government.

George Osborne’s pitch is part of the real battle currently going on in British politics; who will succeed David Cameron. The PM has reiterated this week his intention to last the full five years of his second term, but, as I have written before, this simply isn’t practical or honest. If Cameron isn’t to stand for election again – and there is time for him to find a way to renege on this pledge – he has to leave office giving his successor sufficient time to outline his or her vision for the country before the 2020 general election.

The Shadow Chancellor, who, inevitably as he is the one ordering ‘austerity’ across the country, has a reputation of being the hard man of the government, the hatchet man. To counter this, he has, without any shame, turned into a magpie and is happily stealing good ideas from wherever he can find them, trying to present himself as the possesor of the common ground, a man not attached to a particular political dogma and above the day-to-day political fray. For now, until when or if there is an economic downturn, he remains the Tory Party’s lucky chancellor and a supreme tactician.

Theresa May, on the other hand, has, with one speech, jeopardised her chances of succeeding in her campaign to become next leader. Ignoring the government’s own statistics (see this excellent James Kirkup piece here), she painted a fearful picture of a Britain being held back and divided by immigration, warning about how we must protect our borders from the hordes outside and, by doing this, remain strong, a ‘beacon of hope’. It’s not a million miles away from the vision created in the film of Children of Men. 

The motives for her speech are curious. This vision might appeal to some grass roots Tories, timid and fretful of the outside world, comfortable in their shires, but it's a weak pitch for leadership. The government has failed to hit its own targets at reducing immigration. Logically, the only way to get net migration to the tens of thousands is to bar European Union migrants and the only way of achieving this is to pull out of the EU to end the freedom of movement. (Her refusal to even acknowledge the migration crisis affecting Europe is a discussion for another day).

Unsurprisingly, this has prompted a ferocious backlash from business groups who find themselves on the same side as refugee groups. Simon Walker, the Director General of the Institute of Directors, said:

‘We are astonished by the irresponsible rhetoric and pandering to anti-immigration sentiment from the Home Secretary. It is yet another example of the Home Secretary turning away the world’s best and brightest, putting internal party politics ahead of the country and helping our competitor economies instead of our own.

‘The myth of the job stealing immigrant is nonsense. Immigrants do not steal jobs, they help fill vital skill shortages and, in doing so, create demand and more jobs. If they did steal jobs we wouldn’t have the record levels of employment we currently do.’

With such a response from what is supposed to be part of their core constituency, May’s speech and stance is very hard for any other minister to defend though some will foolishly try. A rattled Prime Minister later gave it a go on the BBC.

I have never much rated Theresa May’s chances to succeed Cameron; a long-serving Home Secretary yes, but she gives the impression of being too hard and too unsympathetic. She first warned of the Tories being seen by too many as the 'nasty' party and yet, here she is the one reviving the image. Combined with simply being factually wrong on the impact of immigration and annoying large swathes of business, I think her chances of becoming leader have slumped further.

The other much-touted contender, Boris Johnson, didn’t hurt his chances at the Conservative Party conference. He is the conference darling, his speech was packed with jokes and he presented a vividly more humane Tory alternative. But he is way behind Osborne at the moment, to such an extent the Chancellor can happily say he would be ‘very surprised’ if Boris didn’t make it to the top team under Cameron. He didn’t add ‘if he’s a good little boy’ but was probably thinking it.

The Med's refugee crisis shames the country

Theresa May has been attending the latest meeting in Europe where ministers from across the region are trying to come up with a solution for the dreadful problem of thousands of people fleeing north Africa hoping for sanctuary in the relative safety of Europe.

This is what the Home Secretary had to say as she arrived:

‘Of course, the crisis in terms of migrants who cross the Mediterranean is a problem in two ways. First of all, obviously, lives are being put at risk but secondly, as we see in Calais and elsewhere, it’s putting great pressure on European towns and cities which is even reaching to our borders, although we are not part of the borderless Schengen area.

‘To deal with this issue in the long term we need to go after the criminal gangs who are plying a terrible, callous trade in human lives.

‘We also need to break the link between people getting into the boats and reaching Europe. That means returning people to North Africa or elsewhere, or to their homes countries; so that they see that there is no merit in this journey.’

The desperate people so frequently rescued from shabby boats in the Mediterranean Sea are routinely referred to as migrants; this almost suggests their decision to try and escape to Europe is a lifestyle choice. They are rarely called refugees, yet, such is the turmoil in that part of the world, it is almost inevitable than the majority have fled conflicts in Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Central African Republic and Libya itself. And, according to aid agencies, increasing numbers of people from Syria, where nine million people are displaced and more than four million people have fled abroad, are arriving to seek passage.

Libya, despite facing immense post-Gaddafi violence, is an obvious place for a migrant/refugee to target such is the coast's proximity with the southern reaches of several European countries. And there is no doubt that many who ultimately get there are victims of people trafficking gangs. Theresa May is right to say they are 'plying a terrible, callous trade in human lives'. But, while, Western nations may have the best of intentions to pursue these gangs, there is no realistic means to do such a thing. No troops are going to be put on the ground in Libya, drones cannot be used; the gangs will continue their trade unmolested for the foreseeable future.

My primary concern, however, with Ms May's statement is the last paragraph which demonstrates that the Home Secretary entered into these negotiations with not only utterly unachievable, but also the wrong, ambitions. Earlier this week Amnesty International released a report on the 'global refugee crisis' highlighting the dangers of the Mediterranean crossing, describing it as the 'most dangerous in the world' and attacking Western governments for their consistent failure to acknowledge and even start addressing the world's largest refugee crisis in Syria.

But even this crisis has competition. Steve Symonds, Amnesty's Refugee Programme director, said: 

'In South East Asia we've seen boats full of desperate and starving people literally pushed back by Indonesia and Malaysia before they were shamed into taking them in.

'This compassion deficit seems to be a global fatigue.'

And the UK could be described as being amongst the most fatigued countires of all.According to Amnesty, out of the four million who have escaped the Syrian civil war, Britain has resettled a pathetic 187.

Theresa May talks of returning people to North Africa, to their home countries, apparently with the intent of proving that 'they see there is no merit in this journey'. This actually means that the British government would rather actively seek to return people to war zones, under the most wretched circumstances, than contemplate the possibility of offering sanctuary. It is reassuring that HMS Bulwark is to continue doing its sterling work rescuing hundreds of people from the sea's waters, but simply trying to return them to their places of origin does nothing to solve the problem. And it's hard to imagine how any Western government could demonstrate to someone fleeing for their lives that there is no 'merit in this journey'. Those undertaking the perilous journey are doing so, not because they fancied a quick jaunt across the Med, but in the hope that they and their families might actually live. Argue with the 'merit' of their journeys as the barrel bombs are falling.

Britain once had a proud heritage of offering sanctuary to the oppressed and desperate, a record governments are eager to invoke. But we do not any longer. Like the Clinton government before, which refused to use the word 'genocide' in reference to the killings in Rwanda just to avoid being obliged to intervene, this government and the coalition before it, refuse to recognise the reality of the situation for parochial, political reasons, which necessitates a refusal to adopt a functional immigration system. Until we do so, the boats will keep coming, will continue sinking & people will try ever more dangerous ways to try find a place they can survive. Britain is shirking its responsibilities and it's a state of affairs which should shame us all.

The clock is now ticking

When David Cameron pours himself a glass of wine this evening, kicks off his shoes and sits back to relax, he may feel content that not far in the too distant future, he will be a former prime minister and able to spend decent, quality time with his family. But he may also have a nagging feeling that, by announcing his intention to stand down after a full second term - should he be elected of course - he has unleashed instability and chaos upon an already troubled Conservative Party.

A ten-year tenure as prime minister is enough, as Cameron rightly observed. Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair had evidently lost touch with reality, to put it politely, by the time they had been in office so long. Cameron, already prone to hubris, is wise to want to escape.

There is, however, no chance that he will be able to serve a full second term. He isn't a president; the Tories will need a new leader for the next general election, currently scheduled to be held in 2020. Instead of quashing speculation that he might stand down after a 2017 in or out referendum on the EU, it seems likely to only intensify such talk. He will constantly be asked when he intends on standing down by any reporter lucky enough to be granted an interview.

And the timing is extraordinary. To announce his intention to stand down just weeks before a general election seems an utterly unnecessary distraction and might actually damage his electoral chances; do the general public want to vote for someone who already has his eyes on retirement?

In true football manager style, Cameron spoke of 'the Theresa Mays, and the George Osbornes, and the Boris Johnsons' who could succeed him. All likely candidates at this stage, certainly, but any successor would need a decent run-in time to stamp their mark on the party before a 2020 poll. And it's worth noting, both May and Osborne hold positions which are vulnerable to political weather and their stars could wane.  As for Boris, whatever his personal popularity may be, he remains a liability.

Other potential successors will inevitably emerge. Liam Fox and Owen Paterson still seem keen to be champions of the Tory right wing but it's hard to imagine either could mount a serious challenge. And the trouble for these two - and for those mentioned above - is that they would have been at the top of their party for a decade or longer. Fresh faces may be required. And, as yet, it's hard to identify likely candidates from the modernising wing of the party. A shift to the right looks likely and potentially dangerous for a party that would have been in power for ten years by 2020.

In the event that the Tories find themselves in government after May, every speech or move made by any likely successor will be scrutinised for any hint of leadership ambitions. Inevitably, these moments will be over-read and misinterpreted. All this turmoil will only destabilise and fracture the party further.

So Mr Cameron should enjoy that glass of wine while he can: he may have just unleashed years of trouble for his party.