Gloria Gaynor? Some early signs of the strategy that Theresa May might be adopting for survival

The traditional material for a first (wedding) anniversary gift is paper. Unfortunately for Theresa May in that regard, as she marked her first year as Conservative Party leader yesterday and 12 months as Prime Minister tomorrow, is that many of her colleagues would like to offer her a P45. The fact that her ‘relaunch’ event was an address in support of a report into insecure employment was also not perhaps the best of symbolism.
Despite this, assuming, as seems reasonable, that she makes it for another eight days and the parliamentary summer recess, she will have met one important test of her endurance. It will be extremely unlikely that either a ‘top-down’ (Cabinet-led) or a ‘bottom-up’ (MP-driven) coup will be attempted against her this side of the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester in October. Her next critical hurdle after that will be to keep her position through the rest of this year. If she reaches January 2018 in office, with Brexit negotiations starting in earnest and the House of Commons saturated with Brexit-related legislation, then her chances of becoming a political Gloria Gaynor (“I Will Survive”) and reaching 2019 would improve considerably.
So what strategy might Mrs May adopt to this end and are there early signs that she is doing so? A number of changes in approach would assist her cause and there are indications over the past few weeks that she is willing to embrace them. The key question is whether she can do so fast enough and effectively enough to navigate what is an October to December period of maximum danger. The following three elements of a survival programme will be worth watching for by the end of this year.
A more flexible and subtle approach on Brexit
Having asked for a mandate to conduct (implicitly) a harder rather than softer Brexit and failed to secure it, the Prime Minister needs to recognise that circumstances have changed and that she has to be more alert to the concerns of senior ministers and other important interests such as business.
There is evidence of an emerging shift in tone here which by the Autumn may be seen in policy too. It is an area in which she needs to take enormous care, in that while it is true that there is probably a majority for a softer Brexit in the House of Commons as a whole, this is not the case for her party. She needs to be seen as representing a middle ground stance, with the risk that if she were to be removed then the Conservative Party would tear itself apart as the date of leaving the EU arrives.
The PM is thus being urged privately to entertain a mixture of principle and pragmatism. Her ‘red lines’ will remain that the UK has to leave the single market if the vote to leave is to be respected and it has to depart from the customs union if it is to have the capacity to negotiate trade deals of its own, which should be the unambiguous bonus of Brexit, whatever wider views one might have of it. Where Mrs May has, until now, chosen to be more dogmatic is in an absolutist rejection of the role of the European Courts of Justice in UK affairs and a hawkish stance on post-Brexit migration issues. This has been the cause of serious tension in the Cabinet and not only with ‘Remain’ figures in it.
A more flexible and subtle line of thinking, which is apparently doing the rounds, is as follows. First, to make a distinction between whether the ECJ has influence over ordinary individuals in their daily lives (which would be incompatible with a full exit from the EU) and whether the ECJ has oversight over institutions (Euroatom, the European Medicines Agency, the European Investment Bank) with which the UK may decide that it is desirable to retain a relationship of some form after March 2019 (which would be considered acceptable). Second, a compromise on migration might yet emerge in which the UK insisted that all EU nationals who wanted to come and work in the UK after it leaves the EU have an employment offer, and hence a work permit, in advance but beyond that left it to individual employers to decide how they recruited. The outcome would thus emerge from market forces rather than be shaped by a government quota. Almost the whole of the Cabinet (and also a substantial majority of Conservative MPs) could live with a ‘hard principles, soft practice’ ethos. If Mrs May does not move on Brexit and relatively swiftly then she will invite a move against herself.
Enhance the 10 Downing Street operation
One of the main criticisms made of Mrs May from the moment that she became Prime Minister was that she had too small an inner circle, populated by people to whom she was extremely close, but who seemed resistant to outsiders irrespective of the expertise that they might be able to offer. This was corrected in part by the enforced resignations of her top two aides, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, within hours of the general election result being known, and their replacement by Gavin Barwell, a Conservative MP who had been defeated on 8 June.
Numerous other people have since left her No. 10 operation as well, mostly not because she has wanted them to leave but because they have come to the conclusion that they should get out on their own terms rather than be forced out with her. The absence of ‘heavy hitters’ at the heart of 10 Downing Street leaves the wrong impression with the rest of the Whitehall machine. It suggests a caretaker administration without the capacity even to know what is happening throughout the rest of the government, let alone control events inside it.
When she first became Prime Minister, Mrs May, something of a Puritan on this score, told her team that if anyone was taking a position with her in the hope or expectation of securing their entry to the House of Lords then they should forget it. This was a characteristic remark but also a swipe at David Cameron who did rather hand out ermine as if it were confetti to those who worked with him. If she is to attract top talent in her current situation – which is vital in creating a sense of permanence as a Prime Minister and reclaiming authority that has been lost elsewhere – then she might need to be a little more Cavalier and less Roundhead in these regards in future. Patronage is a huge asset even if a Prime Minister is in weakened circumstances. And if they actually fall, there is always a resignation honours list as compensation for those suddenly thrust into unemployment. Would one think about entering No 10 for what may be three months but with the consolation prize of a peerage? Maybe…
Change the media approach entirely
What the election campaign exposed so brutally was Mrs May’s limitations as a media performer. Put bluntly, the more often that she were heard on TV/radio, the worse her polling numbers were. This is not a fatal limitation in a politician, public administration is about a lot more than public relations, but it is important to recognise a flaw and be honest about if it can be corrected. This cannot be.
There are clear indications that the Prime Minister accepts this and has already entertained change. The first is that she is limiting her media appearances and is seeking to be seen doing her job rather than talking about her responsibilities. It is a more visual, less verbal approach to politics. Secondly, her appointment as First Secretary of State and de facto Deputy Prime Minister, Damian Green, has clearly become Minister for the Media and is seen as often in the studios as in the Cabinet Office. As a former broadcast journalist himself, he is much more relaxed on television than Mrs May ever was. Finally, the recent appointment of Robbie Gibb, a long-standing BBC News producer of high repute, as the new Director of Communications is significant not least because he is not a personal intimate. It indicates that a fundamental overhaul in the Downing Street approach to the media is imminent.
Will all of this be enough to allow the Prime Minister to survive until the end of 2017 and beyond it? Events may overwhelm her but her chances of making it are better than they were three weeks ago.
Tim Hames
Director General, BVCA