Theresa May will always put party before country

Theresa May is, to rather misuse a phrase, a died-in-the-wool conservative, small c and little c. She was brought up in the quaint world of vicarage tea parties and the world-renowned and state-endorsed indoctrination of religion and tradition into young people in her Middle England school education. She became a member of the Tory Party as teenager, with her mother also a keen supporter, and her unwavering devotion to One-Nation Conservatism has been as dogmatic as it is damaging ever since, especially as we enter the high noon of the Brexit debacle.

Theresa May has never questioned what motivates her. She may not be inspired by much, and she does not exactly return the favour very often, but she holds to entrenched views that have not changed since her days as a grammar school girl in the early ’70s. In her pitch to Tory grandees in July 2016, she never set out a grand list of her heroes, merely stating that she thought she was the best person to lead the Conservative Party. She was used to leaving much of the policy work and political strategy to Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, who both left after the disastrous 2017 election campaign. If she does have particular causes that spur her into action, they would include her anti-slavery campaign her desire for justice and social mobility, to a suitably Conservative extent. Those causes have been left deserted in the midst of the Brexit mess she has presided over in the last two years. Her ‘burning injustices’, spoken of in her inception speech on the steps of No10 in 2016, have been left to dry as ashes in the wake of an unquenchable and equally forlorn desire to unite the Tory Party and ultimately the country around a position. Neither is ever possible, especially on an issue such as Europe, and the Maybot has not yet realised it. She refuses to wake up to this simple fact at her own, and her precious party’s, electoral peril.

In the 2017 election campaign, which she called for the sole purpose of gaining complete support for her non-existent Brexit strategy, the Prime Minister proclaimed that there was no such thing as Maysim as a doctrine. By doing so she assured the electorate that she really had no viable ideas for how to rule one of the world’s largest economies and that she abused her political decisions on a scrap of aluminium, dressed up as clear and central, ‘reasonable’ conservatism. The British people realised this, and voted to give authority over approximately zog.

Nevertheless, May has continued stubbornly along her way, still assured in the desire that because what she wants is done dutifully, it must be in the ‘national interest.’ Mrs May has made herself the political equivalent of a check-list, forever ticking off the appropriate boxes in the vain of hope of appeasing those who swarm around her. Her colossal intransigence is irrepressible, she will never be moved from her iron fortress. This will mean that the issues of the country, which could be solved by a Tory-splitting election or second referendum, will never take place under her leadership. She could not bare to go down in the history books as the woman who let down her own party by failing to get through her flagship policy, whether the nation desires or needs it or not.

May’s devotion to the cause of conservatism, which has not alluded to much either than political arrogance over the last two years, is kept up despite the wind battering its dishevelled flag. It will always stay up, but whether she can stay on as its barer remains to be seen.

In one’s weaker moments, you can almost come to see the attraction of a political style that has never changed, or ever will. It gives some a sense of security, even inevitability, whether the concept or result is any good or not. The current government has an exceptional record for either confusing, delaying or manipulating whatever decision is made or proposal rejected. Ultimately, this come from the woman at the top, who has never showed the public her cards, or offered a chance of being revealed her inner motives. They only rest in a cherry-picked conservatism, which she holds to like a child to its beloved toy. Her ability to stick to it to the end is not helping the cause of the country’s interest in any way.