Forget the rest, Theresa May hasn't proved herself a worthy Prime Minister

It's annoying when you start out on a task that should be straightforward but ends up being harder than you'd hoped. Maybe you've left plenty of time to get to an all-important meeting but your car decided to pick the worst moment to break down, or perhaps a short and simple DIY task swallowed up days of your life that you'll never get back despite saying '2-3 hours' on the box. Or maybe, if you're like me, you start off a supposedly 'easy' crossword and allow the ruddy thing to take over your life. Anyway, you know the sort of thing.

I can't help thinking that that's the way Theresa May feels about the current General Election. It was supposed to be a walk in the park for the PM - a 'coronation' as the Lib Dems put it. Yet, it's good if she's starting to feel under a bit of pressure. Frankly, it serves her right.

Photo: Unsplash

Let's not kid ourselves, this election was called because she felt she could destroy the Labour party and return to the Commons with a massive majority. It's a vanity election to feed her ego and give her her own 'mandate' - while also helping her to dilute the influence of some critical back benchers and avoid going to the public for the next election too soon after the Brexit negotiations.

None of those reasons are remotely to do with 'democracy' or us, the mere voters. It's all about May. Indeed, it's estimated that the 2010 election cost £113 million to run - if it's anything like that this time then that's a lot of money to feed your ego. And people thought her shoes and trousers were expensive.

The reasons she gave for calling a snap election were laughable. She said she made the decision because the opposition had said they were going to oppose her (shock, horror) and that although the nation was united in favour of Brexit, the Commons wasn't. The latter point ignores the fact that the Commons voted in favour of her when it came to Brexit, without managing to land a single amendment to dent her progress. MPs, I'd argue, looked much more united on the subject than voters. We have to hope that she doesn't really believe that the opposition should be silenced - or the 'saboteurs crushed' as the Mail put it.

Luckily, I don't think she does believe that. In fact, I'm struggling to see what she does believe in, apart from herself. I've read a few articles in the likes of New Statesman in which writers have started to try to understand 'Mayism' and what makes the PM tick. While they've been well-written - and put forward a case for a politician who is more interventionist and in favour of the power of the state than her predecessors - I can't help thinking that hers is an empty agenda. She spouts robotic banalities such as 'Brexit means Brexit', 'strong and stable leadership' and 'coalition of chaos' that demean public debate offering nothing of substance. I think she went into the election thinking she could get away with doing as little as possible - letting Labour 'beat itself'.

Indeed, at the start of the campaign May toured remote village halls, turned up at factories after the real workers had gone home and denied local newspaper reporters the chance to ask proper questions as she executed her 'safety first' strategy which avoided 'real people' at all costs. That might be fine as a tactic, but we should be demanding much more. Theresa May called this election and it's only right that she should tell us more about what she'd do with the power she craves. Bizarre non-priorities such as fox hunting and grammar schools have been thrown out by way of distraction.

The Prime Minister also immediately dismissed all chance of a head-to-head debate with Jeremy Corbyn on TV. While I don't necessarily think a TV debate is the be all and end all, it is laughable that May wants to frame the election as a choice between her 'strong and stable leadership' and Jeremy Corbyn's 'coalition of chaos' while not having the guts to show us why she's stronger and more stable than him. Again, we deserve more. If you want to make this a presidential run-off with your face on every poster and leaflet, at least have the decency to conduct a campaign that reflects this.

Speaking of character, if Theresa May wants to make this election about the personalities of the prospective leaders then it's time to scrutinise her own record. She was the Home Secretary in charge when police numbers were cut back, when the Government failed to meet its own immigration targets and presided over the pitiful 'go home' vans that shamed us all. She campaigned for Remain - half-heartedly and maybe out of loyalty to David Cameron but still in favour of Remain - and now wants a full-on hard Brexit. She repeatedly said she would not have a snap election and here we are, heading to the polls on June 8. The Government she led seemed to achieve very little bar upsetting the people we need to negotiate with for the next two years and, indeed, her administration's only Budget ended in disaster, with a huge U-turn on a tax rise for the self-employed. Clearly, being Prime Minister or Home Secretary isn't easy - but we shouldn't allow May to go around boring us to death with a 'strong and stable' mantra that deserves to be contested.

That's before we even come to the manifesto and the row over the 'dementia tax'. I can't help thinking that she became a victim of the hysteria she's otherwise thrived on over this issue. The policy itself seemed a flawed version of other schemes floated by politicians who have desperately tried to solve the complex issue of the funding of care for an ageing population. Maybe it was flawed because May and her team were so complacent about the election result? Regardless, it quickly drew criticism from opponents (or should that be saboteurs?) such as the Mail on Sunday. The Tories, however, undermined their own wish to avoid this being framed as the 'dementia tax' by buying up ad space on Google to capture searches for 'dementia tax' and legitimising its use in the debate over this issue. The mud stuck and May and co managed the unusual feat of performing a massive U-turn on a manifesto policy before the election had even taken place. It was a poor policy that needed to have been better thought out but, at the first sign of trouble, she panicked. I imagine the EU negotiators must be rubbing their hands with glee at such a mess.

What of Brexit? The biggest issue of our times and the matter that was so serious that it, apparently, caused the election in the first place? Very little of substance has been said about this. Theresa May wants permission to do whatever she wants with the negotiations. She is basically asking for a blank cheque from the electorate (maybe literally given the possible size of the divorce bill). It'd be nice to know why some options have already been ruled out. Why couldn't we try to stay in the Single Market? Will we end up like Norway, opting 'out' over immigration as they do with fishing? We seem to have spent longer talking about threatening to walk out of the negotiations than anything else so far - a prospect that would surely be economically devastating. A badly-handled Brexit has the potential to render anyone's manifesto pledges impossible and wreck the public finances. I have a horrible feeling that David Davis, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and Theresa May just aren't up to the task, frankly.

Now it seems as though Theresa May's campaign has returned to its back-up plan. The 'bore them to tears' stuff allowed Labour to present some policies and grab the agenda and the manifesto back-fired massively. With that in mind, it's now going to be a case of attacking Jeremy Corbyn as loudly as possible. Again, this might be effective but it's a pretty pathetic sight for a Prime Minister who started the race under zero pressure. It's especially embarrassing when some of the attacks fall flat. If Boris Johnson - the Foreign Secretary - has said similar things on terrorism to Jeremy Corbyn then it's harder to portray the Labour leader as some sort of madman. Mind you, it was surely always clear that putting Boris in a position such as that would back fire - she really ought to have known better.

It's almost certain that Theresa May will still win this election. Even the most favourable polls for Labour put her five or six points ahead. Yet, she's going to win having had an abysmal campaign, with a discredited manifesto and maybe even with an eventual majority that isn't as thumping as she'd hoped for. Regardless of what you think of the other leaders - and they undoubtedly have their flaws but they didn't call this election after all - I really don't feel she's shown herself up to the task ahead. Her interview with Andrew Neill on the BBC last week only served to cement that view.

I can't help but feel gloomy for our prospects under her continued leadership. We just have to hope that the campaign might teach her a well-deserved lesson or two before she goes straight into the most important talks a Prime Minister has conducted for decades. We should also hope that her ego gets a dent from this election proving a little harder than she expected although I'm not holding my breath.

Sturgeon emerging...but Cameron will consider himself TV debate winner

I wasn't able to see the much-hyped seven-way TV political showstopper live. I was out at the time but as I supped a pint in a pub I looked over and saw that the one proper 'leader's debate' was on the screen. The sound was off and the subtitles were on. Nigel Farage's face was on the screen and the text simply read 'controlled immigration'. Not at all predictable then. 

I caught up on ITVPlayer later (how modern) and sadly that one glimpsed shot across a Wetherspoons bar probably summed the whole event up - a little bit predictable. It felt slow, 'safe' and didn't really offer up much of a free flow debate outside of the odd fleeting moment.

That's not to say the whole thing was insignificant. We've come a long way in quite a short space of time since the last election. In 2010 it felt novel that Nick was there alongside Gordon and 'Dave' but now here we were with seven leaders, five years of coalition seemingly proving that the old Red v Blue, Labour v Tory battle is over. Or at least it seems to be for now.

In 2010, 'Cleggmania' was the result of a strong showing by a man smartly able to portray himself an outsider - a fresh face to give us 'new' politics that the expenses and recession hit Westminster bubble badly needed. Buoyed by that, the ITV face-off saw all four new arrivals on the debate podiums try to paint themselves as outsiders offering change. It sometimes seems the race to be the best 'none of the above' candidate is the most hotly contested one these days.

Farage says he offers 'real change' by being anti-EU but I felt he was a little subdued on the night. At last year's European elections he took on Nick Clegg but now, surrounded by a bigger crowd, he offered less gusto and passion. He tried to tell us the others were all the same but they clearly weren't. In fact he seemed more like 'one of the blokes' next to a fresh trio of female contenders. 

I thought maybe he was trying to temper his performance but then came the slightly bizarre 'HIV' line. You fear that there was more than just an 'NHS cost' motive when talking about foreigners with HIV. People from overseas with diabetes, for example, will also cost the health service but that's a condition his supporters might have. This seemed a murkier brand of dog whistle politics.

Leanne Wood flew the flag for Plaid Cymru but her Scottish counterpart proved the most formidable of the new recruits. Nicola Sturgeon managed to speak to voters beyond Scotland and put the anti-austerity case better than Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood or, indeed, Ed Miliband. 

But while the post-debate spotlight has been on Sturgeon - thanks in part to a hotly contested leaked memo - I can't help thinking David Cameron will be the happiest of the lot.

The format meant Ed Miliband got little time to face off with the Prime Minister and, as a result, the Labour leader's efforts to land blows on Cameron felt too forced and fell flat. The odd line resonated but more people probably came away from this feeling Ed still looks a little awkward in the way he uses his hands when he speaks and his tone of voice. It's sad that image counts but in these 'beauty contests' viewers will make their minds up, at least sub consciously, on image and not many people will changed their view on Ed from this.

Cameron must have been standing on the end smiling at the fact that while Ed tried to strike a tone that said 'sensible, prime ministerial, fair', the three ladies all wooed Miliband's core voters with a pitch to the anti-austerity vote. A strong Sturgeon showing is good news for the PM as it reaffirms the belief that the SNP will grab many of Labour's seats in May. Meanwhile, there was less time for Cameron's right-wing to be wooed by Farage. If anything, the most aggressive attacks on the Prime Minister came from Nick Clegg, who set on his coalition partner straight away in a bid to distance himself ahead of the vote.

The other way Cameron wins here is that, through engineering just one debate, he created a situation where all seven leaders played it safe. They knew this was their only chance to wheel out the soundbites and state their case so no-one really took a risk. It all felt a little too stage managed - with very few, if any, stand out lines or moments. Instead I grew tired at the number of time 'balance the books' etc were wheeled out by more than one of the panel.

If anyone emerges as 2015's Clegg it might well be Sturgeon. Many of the papers are now gunning for her and she seems keen to try to get Ed to agree to an anti-Cameron alliance. Miliband must worry that many of his voters might prefer Sturgeon at the helm of their party. In fact, if Sturgeon's anti-austerity pitch does go down well with English voters then Natalie Bennett's Greens are probably better placed to capitalise, even if Bennett does lack a little of the leadership strength of her predecessor Caroline Lucas.

While Cameron will be happy to have diluted Ed Miliband's chances and fended off a potentially difficult situation, he won't have done much to have boosted his own party's appeal. Still, that probably sums up the defensive outlook the Prime Minister has had, from the start of the negotiations on the format of the debate right through to the night itself.

David Cameron's end game. Why now?

With the election coverage now well and truly in full swing, David Cameron wrong-footed the hack pack this evening with an interview with the BBC that raises the question of his departure at the end of the next parliament. He says terms of office are like Shredded Wheat - two are 'wonderful', while three are too many.

It's a great bit of product placement for Shredded Wheat - and probably cheaper than wheeling out Ian Botham again. It also got me wondering what other breakfast items can be compared to terms of office. Ed Miliband's buggered if his are like bacon sarnies - struggling to manage one.

Still, on a serious note, commentators have rushed to debate whether the PM was right to be so loose lipped in his kitchen (is the the kitchen election??) or whether he should've side-stepped a discussion his own future since barely anyone was debating that anyway.

The suggestion goes that Cameron, having raised his own departure, risks making himself a lame duck (that pillock from Sleaford would claim his house on expenses, presumably) and opens up a leadership debate that they could do without during an election campaign.

As a pretty slick PR man I doubt the PM was wrong-footed. Certainly not in a cosy kitchen interview. He too shrewd for that. So, assuming he meant to say it, why now? Aren't the commentators right? Doesn't this threaten to disrupt his whole campaign?

Here's why I reckon he took the plunge:

*From the very start, the Conservatives have been keen to make this election a question of leadership. The TV debates have blurred this issue a little bit, making Cameron look scared to take on Miliband in a head-to-head challenge, a decision calculated so not to let his rival get exposure. I think, in part, he wanted to get back the leadership agenda and what better way to do so than by making the story about himself? Seem daft? Well, don't forget that Cameron polls as well if not better than most of his rivals when it comes to approval ratings. If we're all focusing on the leaders as personalities, the Tories think they're in safe electoral territory.

*By openly mentioning three possible successors he's probably also trying to show that the Tories have 'bigger beasts' waiting in the wings than Labour has on its front line. The likes of Theresa May, George Osborne and, in particular, Boris Johnson will be much more well-known to the wider public than Labour's front bench. It's all part of the 'long term plan' and 'safe pair of hands' message.

*He's also potentially dampening the enthusiasm of any potential plotters and openly discussing what everyone has known for a long time - that Boris is being lined up for a tilt at the top job after he walks into a safe seat. There's no need for any furtive talk on that score any more - and the potential for BoJo to attract a headline for doing something divisive may have been diluted too.

*By starting to talk about a third term, he's getting it in voters' heads that he could be around for another five years, getting them to consider him to be Prime Ministerial and looking beyond this election. possibly also deflecting short term embarrasment over the TV debates or the Afzal Amin story. It might also be a way of telling more hardline members of the party that he wont 'go on and on'.

I know it's not a foolproof case, but it maybe goes some way to explaining why Cameron spoke so openly about his future. Of course, the questions don't stop there. What if he doesn't win an outright majority? Will that, presumably, be the end of him in frontline politics since he doesn't wish to fight for another term in 2020? Does he favour any of that trio in particular? Would he not have to go if he lost the EU referendum anyway? These are questions, of course, that keep the spotlight firmly on him and the Tories and less on Labour and his rivals. It was once said of the Blair/Brown era that the talk of their rivalry was tolerated because it meant no-one was focussed on the Tories.

It's odd that, when it comes to politics, we spend so long asking politicians questions and hammering them for not answering and yet when they do we spend ages debating whether or not it was the right move to answer the question in the first place. I guess that's largely because why someone says something is probably as important as what they've said. This was certainly a headline grabbing move by Cameron - but maybe that was his intention after all.

On Thursday he's away from the cozy kitchen and into Jeremy Paxman's bear pit. It'll be interesting to see what he says there...