We now know the outcome of the June 8 election.
What were the factors that determined the unexpected outcome, unexpected not only by Mrs May, by the experienced bookmaker Paddy Power, and by me?
I write what follows with some diffidence because my prediction of the result was an echo of that of Paddy Power – an overall Tory majority of around 80.
(Note – I accept that, like Mrs May, I got the result badly wrong but that, unlike Mrs May, I was delighted by it.)
The factors quoted by the commentariat to explain the downfall of Mrs May included the following:
- The abysmal campaigning performance of Mrs May.
- The unfortunate cock ups over the various arrangements to be made for the elderly infirm.
- The alleged preference of young voters for the policies tabled by the Labour Party in its manifesto.
- The evaporation of the UKIP vote coupled with the return of UKIP voters to Labour rather than to the Tories.
- The much better than expected campaigning performance of Mr Corbyn.
A notable campaign issue for Mrs May – the Dementia Tax
Grotesque “Dementia Tax“ label that led to U-Turn
Headline in The Daily Mail, May 23rd, 2017
Mrs May was subjected to some fairly robust criticism for her handing of what came to be known as the “Dementia Tax” affair. What made matters worse – for her – was that some of the criticism came from two of her warmest admirers in the Brexit General Election campaign, namely The Times and The Daily Mail.
The saga went through the following phases.
(i) The Tory manifesto was published. It contained a clear commitment by a future Tory Government to financial support for old timers as they make their way towards a rendezvous at some uncertain date with the Grim Reaper.
So far, so very good with enthusiastic endorsement by those likely to gain.
(ii) A brief interval as the small print of the manifesto was read carefully by the usual suspects.
(iii) An outbreak of peevishness from those old timers who grasped with admirable clarity just what the manifesto policy might mean for them.
(iv) The Tory leadership team – prop Mrs T May – sensed that they had goofed and beat a hasty retreat first into vagueness and then into vacuity.
(v) Sadly for the Tory leadership, this about turn triggered significant opposition in the ranks. There was a raucous rejection from the usually reliable aged Tory voters as they did the sums, and assessed their prospects in their particular circumstances.
(vi) There followed recriminations all round, with hints, tinged with schadenfreude in some circles, that this volte face was the fall for which their leader had been heading.
(vii) It has since been reported that the two cabinet ministers most closely involved in the policies covered by the dementia tax, Mr Hunt and Mr Javid, received only 24 hours’ notice about the commitments to be made in the Tory manifesto. The new policy was said to be the work of Mr Ben Gummer, son of John Selwyn Gummer. BG has evidently inherited the sure political touch for which his father, the burger king, was noted.
The departure of Ben Gummer from Westminster on June 8 would not have been universally mourned by his colleagues.
A Little Flesh on the Bones of the “Dementia Tax”
“And so, from hour to hour, we ripe and ripe,
And then, from hour to hour, we rot and rot,
And thereby hangs a tale.”
Shakespeare – “As You Like It.”
“Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness, and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything”
More gloom from “As You Like It”
There, we found, sitting by a fire, a very old man in a flannel coat: clean, cheerful, comfortable, and well cared for, but intensely deaf.
“Well, aged parent,” said Wemick shaking hands with him in a cordial and jocose way, “how are you?”
Charles Dickens- Great Expectations
Humans wear out with age, some more rapidly than others. This aging process has a wholly predictable consequence: maintenance costs rise with the passing years followed by a funeral, expensive or economical according to taste.
Inevitably these maintenance costs vary with minimal costs at the healthy end to the very expensive costs incurred by those requiring intensive care over protracted periods.
This poses the question which is of steadily rising significance as our average longevity steadily rises. Who should foot the bill for these steadily rising costs?
There has been a raucous thumbs-down from the usually reliable aged Tory voters as they did the sums, and assessed their prospects.
Sadly, there was also a raucous raspberry from those senior citizens who want to pass on their estates to the next generation rather than to HMG. This group want HMG to foot the bill and, given that HMG has no money of its own, they want the tax payer to foot the bills.
On a personal note – at the age of 77 – the dementia tax issue was and remains of considerable interest to me, and I was frustrated by my inability to grasp the details of the policy as per the manifesto and as per the various subsequent clarifications to the policy.
The position is now much clearer: if Messrs Hunt and Javid were confused – what chance did I and do I have?
The May U-turn or rethink or retreat – delete according to taste – triggered a most useful debate on the key question of who pays for the care of the fragile old folk, and we owe Mrs M our thanks for raising this contentious issue.
The roots of the issue go back many years and the difficulty is to strike a socially fair balance between those who argue that they have striven all their lives in order to be able to give their heirs a start in the struggles to come, and those, at the other extreme who argue that each generation should fight its own battles and do its own striving with no haves and have nots lining up on the starting blocks in the great race of life.
Is there a sensible felt fair balance between the two extremes? The debate will doubtless continue.
“In the thirties he ( Ernest Bevin) thought of Atlee as a second rate leader. But that was what he wanted. He had had enough of those who thought they were first rate with MacDonald”
Roy Jenkins on Ernest Bevin
It would appear that not all UK voters were impressed by the Theresa May slogan of “strong and stable leadership” repeated ad nauseam during the interminably protracted campaign. Effective leadership is not easy to define in good times and we are not living in good times. The appeal of strong leadership is not universal – not all of us wish to be ordered about.
Mrs May was convinced that Mrs May was a first-rate leader, but there are times when we should try to see ourselves as others see us. Had she done this Mrs May might have noticed that not everyone shared her opinion of Mrs May.
A shaky slogan and a shaky call, Mrs M.
“He (Lord Roseberry) knew what was wise and fair and true. He would not go through the laborious, vexatious and at times humiliating processes necessary under modern conditions to bring about these great ends.
Winston Churchill on Lord Roseberry
Mrs May incurred a lot of criticism on account of her reluctance to mingle with – how shall we put it – the great unwashed. By contrast Mr Corbyn displayed an unexpected talent in this area and his readiness to engage with the electorate at close quarters was by no means the least of his political gifts.
Mrs M also displayed an unfortunate lack of judgement when she boycotted a televised gathering of the other party leaders, a gathering where each leader had to respond to questions from the floor.
Mr Corbyn showed sound judgement in accepting the challenge and performed well under pressure.
Hostages to Fortune, and U-Turns:-
Problems encountered by Mrs May during the campaign because of her alleged propensity to duck and weave included:
- Her perceived readiness not only to abandon her pro remain stance before June 23, 2016 but, even more damaging, her eagerness to lead the Brexit team.
- Her decision to opt for an election despite her previous repeated assertions that this would not happen. The lure of the prospect of an easy victory proved too strong.
- Her retreat first into confusion and then into chaos over the dementia issue.
- Her lapses into the tedious repetition of slogans when under pressure rather than engaging with the issues under discussion.
A Word on Political Advisors
Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill – to me, very shadowy figures – were said to have acquired significant influence with and over Mrs M. Sadly in the fierce in fighting within Tory ranks that followed the announcement of the result this pair quickly acquired the notoriety that is associated with the names of Alastair Campbell, Grigori Rasputin and Harry Bennett.
(For those not familiar with the last name – Harry Bennett provided the same sort of support for Henry Ford that Campbell provided for Tony Blair – muscular, aggressive and intimidating.)
Both Timothy – the advisor who bore more than a passing resemblance to Rasputin – and Hill were speedily jettisoned once their role in the debacle became apparent. It is not clear whether the plank-walking was voluntary or was at the insistence of Tory managers – were they handed P45s or did they resign? It depends which newspaper you read.
What Might the Future Hold?
As I write behind the scenes discussions are taking place as to the scale of bribes required by the DUP in order to prop up Mrs May.
Sadly not much strength and zero stability are in prospect to those of us on the outside.
Mrs M argued that – given that she was fully responsible for the debacle (we can all agree on that) – she should be allowed to stay in post in order to solve the formidable catalogue of problems in the in-tray of HMG. I cannot understand her logic on this latter point.
BOJO remains as Foreign Secretary in this wounded administration. How much time and energy will he be devoting to tackling the problems of the UK and how much time and energy will he be devoting to the far more serious problem of securing pole position for himself in the coming struggle for power?
For Mr Gove – read the entry for BOJO. Mr Gove has returned to the inner circle in order, so it has been reported, to shore up its credibility – a very dubious piece of logic.
Might Mrs May still be in post in 5 years’ time? I doubt it.
How soon will the men in suits – the Tory managers – utter the dreaded words – Come in Number 1 – Your time is up?
My guess is that she will be leaving No 10 in 2017 – probably sometime around the annual party conference – a favoured time to speed the journeys of Tory politicians deemed to have outstayed their welcomes.