I wouldn’t say necessarily that we’ve got a new Prime
Minister. I’d say that we’ve been stuck
with one.
It stinks of hypocrisy.
When Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair, both David Cameron and
Theresa May made public statements about how Brown wasn’t elected, and so did
not have a mandate for premiership.
Having read far enough into Blair’s autobiography (unfinished, but I
think I got to a point and exhausted my interest) it is just blindingly obvious
that Brown’s accession was pre-planned.
I too had the same gripe – and this was with a full realisation
(not confined by a political expectation to ignore process when it is in your
favour) that we, the public, do not vote for Prime Ministers. As a parliamentary, partisan democracy we
vote for members to represent our constituency.
They just so happen to belong to a political party. And it just so happens that that political
party may also win other constituencies.
They may even win the majority.
And it just so happens that the leader of that party gets to be Prime
Minister.
So the fact that Gordon Brown became Prime Minister – as Theresa
May has now – was and is perfectly constitutional. My issue was borne out of indignant incredulity:
why wouldn’t Brown call a general
election? Surely it would just make sense? He had just under three years to govern; had
a fairly good reputation as a supposedly successful Chancellor; and David
Cameron had yet to really establish himself as a potential Prime Minister. Labour’s poll numbers had leapt up following
Brown’s appointment above the Conservatives, and calling a general election (serving
democracy) would probably have bolstered those numbers. It’s all conjecture – and perhaps silly
optimism – but I do believe Brown would have commanded an emboldened Labour
Party that wouldn’t make the decision three (now five) years later to elect a
hopeless sap as their leader for the 2012 general election.
When I talked earlier about hypocrisy, unfortunately I must
apologise if some of the stink comes from my own arse. I cannot in a right mind suggest that Theresa
May should definitely call a snap
election. In fact, I am inclined to
agree with a lot of Conservatives who say that it would be irresponsible to do
so when you consider the context in which she has become our head of
government.
Following the vote to leave the European Union (something
else I must make a point to talk about), we have started to see the effects
that the experts talked about: the destabilisation of the economy. Whilst it’s perhaps not disaster territory
just yet, we have seen a definite fall in investment and the pound fall against
the euro. This is something that anybody
should have expected: investment is based on risk, and if you do not see your
investment as secure, then why would you risk your money? The UK out of the European Union just became
a riskier venture, and the longer that the country waits to formulate a
coherent economic plan, the worse it might get.
In some respects, it is fortunate that Andrea Leadsom dropped out of the
race and left it unnecessary to wait any longer for the debates and the vote.
This means that Article 50 can be triggered soon, and an
economic policy can be implemented quicker.
As a former consultant, and no sound of scandal from his previous
affiliations, Philip Hammond could be seen as a “safe”, or “meh” choice. During his time as Minister for Defence, he
cut military spending at the top of the structure to save money, and was the
man who decided to use the army to make up the shortfall in security at the
Olympics in 2012. As far as defining
moments go, these aren’t bad, but they’re not necessarily indicators of his
ability to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
You know what, let’s save commentary on the new cabinet
until the whole thing has been declared.
This is not to say that I endorse Theresa May. I hold certain key principles close to my
heart: secularism, free expression, democracy and human rights. Unfortunately, the first three are not
necessarily inherent to the United Kingdom.
The head of state is not only a queen but also the head of a church, and
there is no legislation that grants us – even de facto – an inalienable right to free speech. Plus, we are a democracy only at the behest
of the monarchy (though they behest, lest they be behead(ed)).
However, we are party to the European Convention on Human Rights. Remember how the EU Leave campaigns were
frustrated at the Remain campaign for conflating the European Union and the
European Convention on Human Rights?
Well, it’s worth remembering that now.
Theresa May’s record on human rights has been troubling, and
she wants to take us out of the ECHR.
She also wants to bring in restrictions on who should receive the rights
lain out in a future British “bill of rights”, undermining the notion that
human rights should be universal. Two
people so far have pointed out to me that human rights are a. a relatively
recent idea, and b. only a social dynamic.
Er, obviously. But on the first
point, relative to what? The Civil
Rights Movement? The Suffragette
Movement? Do we consider these movements
just as minor as to be compromised? And
as a social dynamic, is it any less important as the separation of church and
state? Innocent until proven
guilty? Even the whole notion of
government itself?
I hold the idea of universal human rights in too high a
regard to simply dismiss it so I can be mildly optimistic about May’s
appointment, but considering this is the corner our political infrastructure has
backed us into, I would rather take May’s ladder up into the leaky attic than
the trapdoor down into Leadsom’s damp basement.
