The list of declared and potential candidates to replace May looks like a list of lightweights, chancers and non-entities. The Conservative party is hardly rich with talent at the moment and in truth, hasn't been so for a long time. The selection of candidates is therefore from a very mediocre pool. As usual in the modern world, it is those with the ego and self belief rather than intellect and ability who put themselves forward.
The list of declared candidates so far includes:
Michael Gove
Matt Hancock
Jeremy Hunt
Boris Johnson
Andrea Leadsom
Esther McVey
Dominic Raab
Rory Stewart
Personally, if I was interviewing I wouldn't employ any of them. They are all excellent examples of the Peter principle, people promoted way beyond their extremely limited and in some cases, entirely absent abilities.
Having a leader with little in the way of ability would be OK if we were sailing along nicely with no serious problems facing the nation. But Brexit is probably the greatest peacetime threat to our prosperity, security and even the very existence of the United Kingdom and all we have are political minnows pitching to lead us through.
More are expected to declare in the coming days, presumably on the basis that if you're a fool surrounded by idiots you might as well give it a go. Compared to Mark Francois almost anybody would think themselves a genius. The longer the list becomes the longer it will take to whittle the numbers down to two - and the Article 50 clock is still ticking down.
Most of the contenders know they haven't the slimmest chance of becoming prime minister. But entering the contest puts down a marker for their future ambition with an added bonus. As they are eliminated they fall in behind one of the other candidates and bring some or perhaps most of their supporters with them, hoping to curry favour and land a plum job. This is how Grayling and Leadsom got into cabinet in the first place. They are prime examples of the Peter principle, having been promoted years ago well beyond their capabilities.
A couple of articles on the leadership race struck me as interesting yesterday in The Telegraph. The first by Peter Foster (usually worth reading) suggests the EU might find BoJo more conciliatory than they expect with a chance to reset the talks. Brussels he says, can see every candidate will have to tack towards a hard Brexit in order to win the crown but Johnson is actually far more liberal on immigration and the single market and might be able to create the space for an agreement.
This is perhaps BoJo's strength and weakness. He doesn't believe in anything and both wings of the parliamentary party will be suspicious of him - so I don't expect him to get into the final two anyway. He is a man you can only trust to be untrustworthy. It would also be an irony if the man entrusted with getting us out of the mess is the one responsible for getting us in.
Then we have Charles Moore (HERE £) saying the next Tory leader must learn from Mrs May's mistakes – "beginning with an honest conversation about Brexit". Of course, Mr Moore actually means the opposite. If we had had 'an honest conversation about Brexit' we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. He says:
"The mistake some Brexiteers have made, however, is to spook waverers with their insouciance. The winner of this contest will not be someone who says breezily everything will be fine under a WTO exit and then has no answer to the detailed questions from troubled farmers or 'just in time' manufacturers. It will be someone who 'kitchen-sinks' the question and points out what he thinks will be bad, what won't be, and how to help those hardest hit"
This is rich indeed coming from the man who told us in January 2017 that "Brexit was in that important category of things which are simple but not easy" (HERE). The problem for Moore and the next PM is that the list of 'bad' things will be massively outweighed by the good - if indeed there are any good things at all to flow from Brexit. It would be fascinating to see the reaction of leave voters to a very long list of the bad things that will happen when they were all told in 2016, “The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want” – It would take all Michael Gove's journalistic skills to spin that one. I don't expect any honesty at all.
The Independent (HERE) carries an article by John Rentoul who says BoJo will "find himself on the same treadmill of unrealistic promises as Theresa May. He will try and fail to renegotiate the deal. The DUP will remain opposed. The Tory party will become increasingly wedded to an outcome that cannot be delivered". I think this is true, not only of BoJo but whoever the next leader is. They are all hostages to the membership.
The other night, John Crace, The Guardian's parliamentary sketch writer, who invented the term 'Maybot' to describe the PM, said being a sketch writer gave him the chance to study the body language and the underlying meta-data of politicians and he noticed that Theresa May spent most of her time uttering meaningless nonsense. I have thought for a long time that this is what most politicians do. They seem none too bright to me.
Unlike our politicians and Boris Johnson in particular, the EU are not given to making statements which meaningless or that they later contradict or retract. They consult, adopt a mandate, reach an agreement and then stick rigidly to it. A spokesman for the Commission has said nothing has changed (HERE) simply because Mrs May is stepping down. I don't have the slightest doubt they mean what they say. There is no hope of them reopening talks although the Brexiteers seem to think they will.
We have constantly misread the EU and at some point later this summer there is going to be an almighty collision between us.
Among other reports of Theresa May's end, ITV (HERE) point out she is the third (or fourth if you count Thatcher) to be destroyed by Europe. Sky (HERE) say she was broken by Brexit and it's likely to break her successor too - and I would add it will probably break at least two or three more Tory leaders before the European non-problem is resolved.
Finally, have a look at this article by Liam Fox (HERE No£). It is positively Orwellian. Big Brother needs to know what you are thinking and whether or not you really 'believe' in Brexit. He is calling for "a clearing out of Number 10 to replace any advisers still harbouring doubts over Britain leaving the European Union".
Having advisers in No 10 who cannot even recognise the problems would be an unmitigated disaster but this is seriously what Fox is suggesting.
In the piece, our International Trade Secretary writes: “Britain’s exports currently stand at record levels with the world’s consumers flocking to buy UK goods and services in unprecedented numbers".
The ONS (HERE) provides an accurate picture of the latest trade figures:
- The total trade deficit (goods and services) widened £8.9 billion to £18.3 billion in the three months to March 2019, as the trade in goods deficit widened £6.4 billion to £43.3 billion and the trade in services surplus narrowed £2.5 billion to £25.0 billion.
- Rising imports of unspecified goods (including non-monetary gold), chemicals, and machinery and transport equipment were the main reasons for the widening of the trade in goods deficit in the three months to March 2019.
- Excluding unspecified goods, which includes non-monetary gold, the total trade deficit rose £1.9 billion to £12.2 billion in the three months to March 2019.
- Excluding erratic commodities, such as non-monetary gold, the total trade deficit increased £3.1 billion to £14.5 billion in the three months to March 2019.
- The trade in goods deficit widened £1.7 billion to £25.7 billion with EU countries and £4.7 billion to £17.6 billion with non-EU countries in the three months to March 2019.
- Removing the effect of inflation, the total trade deficit widened £10.6 billion to £17.5 billion in the three months to March 2019.
- The total trade deficit increased £21.6 billion to £44.1 billion in the 12 months to March 2019 as imports of both goods and services grew more than their respective exports.
Exports may well be rising (although in the three months to January they were falling) but imports are rising even faster and therefore the trade deficit more than doubled in the latest quarter.
Honesty from Dr Fox would be welcome but we aren't likely to get it.
