So who is Theresa May?
So, somewhat surprisingly the U.K. will have a new Prime Minister by this (Wednesday) evening. The conservative leadership contest had been scheduled to run until September 9th. However, following the decision of Andrea Leadsom to withdraw from the contest, David Cameron will now be travelling to Buckingham Palace following the completion of Wednesday’s Prime Ministers questions to tender his resignation. At which point Theresa May will become only the second woman in U.K. history to take up the office of Prime Minister.
Obviously, most people will know Theresa May, she has been a Conservative front bencher since 1999 and since 2010 has held one of the four great offices of state, that of Home Secretary. In fact, Theresa May leaves her position of home secretary as the longest serving since Henry Matthews, who held the position between 1886 and 1892, had she held out for just 3 weeks and 1 day longer she would have been the longest serving of all time. An interesting caveat to Matthews time in office, and perhaps one which shows how much U.K. politics has changed, is that his original inclusion in the cabinet is rumored to have been demanded by Queen Victoria and against the wishes of the then Prime Minister The Marquess of Salisbury (himself interestingly, the last member of the house of lords to serve as Prime Minister), but I digress. While most will know of Theresa May, the type of government she will run is less clear, with that in mind I aim to offer an objective overview of the past positions occupied by our incoming Prime Minister.
On social issues
Much was made of the stances of both Leadsom and May on social issues, both candidates have extremely questionable voting records on LGBT rights; however, May has apparently reversed her view in recent years and was an open advocate of same-sex marriage.
Theresa May voted -
Against reducing the age of consent for homosexuals to 16
Against equal adoption rights for same-sex couples
Abstained/ Absent for the repeal of section 28
For Same sex Marriage
This is, a mixed bag. It’s worth noting that Theresa seems to have changed her view in recent times; indeed she was an open supporter of Same-Sex marriage. However, this does not change the fact that LGBT+ people have reason to be concerned at the prospect of a Prime Minister who has historically opposed their right to adopt and has expressed some concerning views. That being said, it is very unlikely she would seek to undo any existing legislation, being that it would certainly not be politically expedient to do so.
Theresa May voted-
Against the ban on hunting foxes with dogs
The prime Minister designate has been fairly unequivocal in her opposition to the ban on fox hunting, and the repeal of the ban could easily garner the support of conservative MP’s, indeed the repeal of the ban on fox hunting was part of the conservative party’s 2015 general election manifesto. I would be very surprised if we do not see an attempt to repeal the ban on fox hunting before 2020.
Theresa May voted -
For the removal the duty on the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to work to support the development of a society where people’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination and there is respect for human rights.
Against making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of Caste
For the snoopers Charter
Theresa May has also indicated support for-
The repeal of the Human rights act 1998
A withdraw from the European convention on human rights
Theresa May’s views regarding human rights are, to many progressives, an area of extreme concern. May has been extremely vocal in criticizing the impact human rights have had on her work in her role of Home Secretary. Most concerning has been her suggestion that we should withdraw from the European Convention On Human Rights. Though it is worth noting that during her extremely curtailed leadership campaign Mrs May admitted that she would not be pushing for this. That being said, her reasoning, that there wouldn’t be a parliamentary majority in favor of it is particularly concerning, as it suggests that in a future parliament she may consider such a move. Further, there should be little doubt that Theresa May would carry out the conservative’s 2015 manifesto promise to repeal the human rights act and replace it with a ‘British Bill of Rights’. We should be in little doubt that Theresa May taking the office of Prime Minister does place existing standards of human rights under threat. Further, she has been the biggest proponent and key drafter of the snoopers charter, or as its officially called the investigatory powers bill. This bill will allow mass surveillance of all U.K. citizens and necessitate the creation of massive flaws in digital security. The impact of the snoopers charter cannot be seen as anything less than a massive degradation of civil liberties. Thus, its proponent is not someone we should readily trust with the keys to number 10.
on Foreign Policy and Defense
As Prime Minister Theresa May will have a far greater influence on Foreign Policy and defense than she enjoyed during her time as home secretary. May (I’m going to just refer to her as TM from here) has a history of supporting military intervention. Indeed, in the current post Chilcot world, in which we live, it is worth noting that TM was a staunch supporter of the Iraq war.
Theresa May voted-
Against requiring the support of the UN security council before the commitment of UK forces to military action in Iraq
Against saying the case for war in Iraq had not yet been established
For the government using any means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction
For the continued deployment of U.K. troops in Afghanistan
For the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya
For Air strikes against ISIL Iraq
Against requiring conditions be fulfilled, including a vote of the UN security council before taking action in Syria
For Air strikes in Syria
For the Chilcot report
Theresa May has indicated support for-
Renewing trident
TM’s voting record on intervention is clear, she has an undeniably militaristic approach to international intervention. However, this is nothing new, both Blair and Cameron took the same approach. In reality there is likely to be little material change to the way in which the UK conducts its foreign policy. Although, it is worth noting that TM’s approach towards international cooperation is concerning, she has repeatedly voted in favor of measures which undermine the authority of the UN and more prominently of the security council; taking this in conjunction with her desire to extricate the U.K. from its international human rights obligations and her previous lukewarm support for the EU, questions must be asked about TM’s commitment to international cooperation and also to international law.
Delivering Brexit?
It’s indicative of the current political climate that this has been deserving of its own category, but one of the biggest questions that was asked of all candidates for the conservative leadership was their suitability to carry out Brexit. TM was what can only be described as a reluctant remainer, though she voted remain and openly so, she did very little in terms of actively promoting the remain cause, making very limited campaign appearances. One of the key questions facing the incoming Prime minister will be what type of Brexit they will seek, and how they will look to cover the economic losses resulting from Brexit, an idea of this can be discerned from TM’s voting record.
Theresa May voted-
Against enshrining the Lisbon treaty into U.K. law (second reading)
Abstained on enshrining the Lisbon treaty into U.K. law
Against increasing the powers of the European Parliament via the Lisbon treaty
Against U.K. contributions to the European stability mechanism
For the creation of the European stability mechanism
For EU data sharing for criminal justice purposes
For supporting the view that promoting jobs and growth in the EU, including by completing the EU Single Market, is the top priority.
For continued close working between the UK and other European Union states on criminal justice
So, much as her support for remaining in the EU, TM’s voting record on this area is very much a mixed bag. She has voted largely against further integration on all matters other than security and law enforcement. This fits with her reluctant remainer stance, TM clearly sees that being a member of the single market and pooled sovereignty in terms of criminal justice are positive things. However, she has shown a desire to avoid further integration and a reluctance to increase U.K. financial contributions. Subsequent to the referendum TM has clearly said ‘Brexit means Brexit’, while this is largely a meaningless epithet, it makes clear that TM will carry out Brexit her absolute refusal to consider a general election and further her clear refusal to consider a second referendum makes clear that she will follow through with Brexit. TM’s previous stances on immigration makes it clear that she would support the notion that U.K. immigration is currently too high, indeed at the 2015 conservative party conference TM stated that ‘mass immigration brings no benefit to the U.K.’ With this in mind, it may be worth considering TM may actually deliver a more thorough Brexit than even Andrea Leadsom would, the European commission have made clear that if the U.K. wish to remain a member of the single market, we must accept each of the four freedoms, including the freedom of movement. Therefore, the key question is whether or not TM would be willing to sacrifice access to the single market in order to curtail freedom of movement; judging by her comments regarding the rights of EU markets already residing within the U.K. I would humbly suggest she may well be. Thus, it is not unthinkable that TM taking up the office of Prime Minister may in fact mean that the U.K’s future lies outside of the single market.
welfare and Economy
During her opening, and surprisingly only, public leadership campaign appearance TM set out that she intended to run an economy for all people, making positively very left wing suggestions such as lower pay multipliers for CEOs or creating a space for workers on company boards (both are fantastic ideas if you ask me). Further, she has hinted at a change to a move investment driven economy, which hints that we may potentially see an end to austerity. These statements however run directly contrary to her existing voting record.
Theresa May Voted-
For the introduction of the ‘bedroom tax’
For a below inflation cap (1%) on in working age benefits and tax credits.
Against those who have been ill or disabled since their youth receiving Employment and Support Allowance on the same basis as if they had made sufficient National Insurance contributions to qualify for a contribution based allowance.
Against increase the time people can receive contribution based ESA from one year to at least 730 days.
Against making an exception for those with a cancer diagnosis or undergoing cancer treatment from the 365 day limit on receiving contribution based Employment and Support Allowance.
For reducing the Household benefit cap
Against introducing a childcare element to universal credit
Against excluding child benefit from the benefit cap
For reducing tax credit entitlements
Against investment aimed at growing a productive economy focused on science, technology and green jobs.
Against reducing VAT
Against bringing forward long term infrastructure investment
Against building 100,000 affordable homes
Against guaranteeing jobs for long term unemployed
Essentially, everything TM has said she will do, in that very brief campaign speech, is directly contradicted by her voting record. However, it is of course worth noting that due to collective ministerial responsibility there is no way that TM could have objected to any of the economic changes proposed by George Osborne and David Cameron, at least not without giving up her position in the cabinet. So, giving her the benefit of the doubt, it’s not inconceivable that TM could represent a change of direction in terms of economic policy. Certainly attempts to prevent a recession caused by the economic fallout of Brexit may necessitate a more Keynesian economic policy, involving targeted public spending. Therefore, while I highly doubt that TMs leadership will lead to a progressive and more egalitarian society, its not inconceivable that austerity will, temporarily at least, be suspended in favor of greater investment.
Health and Education
TM has largely supported moves which have promoted privatization and competition within both health and education. Again, considering the political party she serves this isn’t exactly a shocking revelation.
Theresa May has voted-
For allowing more schools to gain academy status
Against requiring new academy schools to only be built in areas where there is a proven need for additional capacity
Against requiring academy schools to have a curriculum which includes personal, social and health education.
Against requiring academy schools to follow the School Admissions Code
Against requiring Academy Schools to comply with legislation on pupil exclusions
For the establishment of free schools
For allowing student loan interest to be charged at market rates
For raising tuition fees to £9000
For turning all primary and secondary schools in England into academies
Against raising tuition fees from £1125 to £3000 (2004)
Against reducing the amount of income an NHS foundation can make from private patients
Against introducing NHS Foundation trusts
One of the more interesting aspects of TM’s voting record is her mixed stance on tuition fees, she was against raises during her time in opposition but has been a strong supporter of increases during her time in government. In reality, no conservative is going to reverse the current course of privatization and it is extremely unlikely that TM will presented any marked change in government policy regarding either health or education.
constitutional issues
Having been an MP during the biggest period of constitutional reform in the history of the U.K. TM has a rather extended record on constitutional issues, this makes an interesting read, not least considering the constitutional issues likely to follow the Brexit vote.
Theresa May voted-
For a 25% reduction in the central government grant to local government
For boundary reform, including a reduction to 600 MPs
Against increasing deposit vote level from 5% to 7.5%
For no lower limit on declaration of MPs expenses
Against allowing forms of proportional representation on the ballot for the AV referendum
For house of Lords Reform (80% elected house) (2007)
For house of Lords Reform, introducing 15 year terms for members with an elected element
For Fixed Term Parliaments
Against devolving tax raising and borrowing powers to the Welsh Government
Against devolving powers to Scotland to regulate those air weapons deemed so dangerous they need to be licenced
For returning responsibility for regulating health professionals to Westminster
Against a range of measures intended to increase the powers of the Scottish Parliament
Against allowing the devolved administration in Scotland to introduce a requirement for gender balance among the members of the Scottish Parliament and members of boards of Scottish public authorities.
For English votes for English laws
TM’s record on constitutional issues will soon prove to be telling, in the near future (2018) we will see the boundary commission return a report detailing how the number of MP’s will be reduced from 650 to 600 via boundary review. Obviously, its unlikely that TM would reverse this plan, being that all research and analysis suggests its likely to benefit the Conservatives to the tune of 30 (ish) seats against Labour at the next election. Of course,more pressingly TM faces the very real possibility of a U.K. split, unsurprisingly as a Tory, TM is committed unionist. She has regularly voted against measures intended to increase devolved power. This of course may be crucial, we now have a situation where a second independence referendum in Scotland seems more likely than not; how TM reacts and handles that probability could be crucial. If she maintains her current approach, of attempting to maintain Westminster’s exclusive right to legislate in numerous areas of policy, she will only strengthen calls for independence. With this coming at a time when Plaid are beginning calls for Welsh independence and there are, muted, calls for a border poll regarding the reunification of Ireland, anything which looks like an attempt enforce the rule of Westminster will only increase support for independence in all the devolved administrations. Of course, Westminster is under no legal obligation to listen to any desire expressed by the devolved parliaments. However, failing to heed the concerns of voters and governments from the regions will only serve to make the UK even further divided. Therefore, I will make the bold prediction, that TM will reverse her current path and support further moves toward devolution. In particular, it now seems that a federal U.K. is a real possibility for the future, perhaps TM will embrace that future.
Home office and immigration
As previously noted, TM has been one of the longest serving Home Secretaries in history. With this in mind, it should be remembered that much of TM’s voting record in this area in fact involves issues that she herself was the driving force behind. One must not forget her role in failing to deal with, what was in effect, the state sanctioned abuse of women and girls at Yarls Wood Immigration center. Or her statement from 2015 that it is ‘impossible to build a cohesive society’ where there is immigration.
Theresa May voted-
For restricting support for failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants
Against giving asylum seekers permission to work if a decision on their application takes over six months.
Against allowing the use of intercepted communications evidence in inquests.
Against identity cards (at third reading having voted for them at second reading)
For the introduction of police and crime commissioners
For the snoopers charter and retention of communication information
For the creation of criminal offences of renting a home, driving, and working, while disqualified from doing so due to immigration status; and for other measures in the Immigration Bill
Against banning the immigration detention of those who are pregnant and against guidance to be taken into account on the immigration detention of vulnerable people.
For extending the power to deport an individual before considering an appeal on human rights grounds so it applies to all those appealing on human rights grounds against their removal.
Unsurprisingly, as a former home secretary, TM has a very strong stance on immigration. She has consistently complained that the U.K.’s international human rights obligation have stood in the way of her achieving her goals. It seems very likely, particularly with Brexit opening up a new avenue to curtail migration (so long as we are wiling to surrender membership of the single market), that we will see an even harsher line coming on migration. I would expect to see TM taking steps to recognize the conservative manifesto pledge of cutting immigration to the tens of thousands. Indeed, for those of us who care deeply about human rights and see immigration as a benefit to our society TM taking office cannot be read as anything less than a disaster. I would expect to see further restrictions falling upon what are considered valid asylum claims, and further restrictions applying to those seeking to come here from outside the single market and potentially the deprivation from EU migrants, already resident in the U.K., of their rights to remain.
of course, all that has been said about TM comes from a time where she would have had to follow the wishes of her colleagues and vote with the government, in the main. yet, we are still able to glean some sort of idea as to what her views are from her past votes, particularly while in opposition, and from her policy statements. While TM remains bound by the manifesto her party was elected on in 2015, I do expect to see a change in policy. Particularly, the need to avoid recession will bring a new direction to economic policy, further I would expect an even harsher line to be taken on immigration and civil liberties; but in the end only time will tell.
Thank you to TheyWorkForYou.com for all voting information presented in this article.
