Straws in the Wind

The extreme Tory Brexiteers are not quite so thick that they all fail to realise that once the nation understands the extent of the damage that a 'hard Brexit' will do to the economy, the government will have to back away from that option. So their tactic has been to push as hard as possible for the government to adopt positions from which a complete retreat would be impossible.

As the government has started to publish slightly more precise position papers as a basis for negotiations with the extremely well-prepared team around M Barnier it is clear than common sense is still present in most of the arguments and suggestions that are appearing. And while this moderate position is developing, so the events in the economy - and the predictions to which they trend - show that the UK would be ruined to an incalculable extent if it withdrew from the European Free Trade Area. Mrs May has made sticking-points [or 'red lines'] on immigration and the the ECJ [the European Court of Justice]. The immigration issue has been somewhat clarified by the discovery that the number of international students remaining in the UK when their visas expire each year is certainly less than 20,000: not the hundred thousand of the May myth. Also, the largest flows of immigrants by country of origin are India, Poland and Pakistan: the immigration that has been unaffected by the European policy of freedom of movement - that has always been under British control - is massive; and it is that migration that is of most concern to many people. On the issue of the European Court it is evident that some compromise will be made, that allows the ECJ a role in Britain that is not 'above' the British courts.

Meanwhile, the economic data stack up against the idiotic assertion that the UK can survive as an economic power, and maintain the people's living standards, outside the cocoon of the European Economic Area. Britain's growth is lowest among the G8, productivity is not improving, the decline of the pound [now 18% against the euro, since the referendum] more than offsets any benefit that the UK gets from its exports seeming cheaper in other countries; and government policy continues to be hurtful to firms and their capacity to invest. Today the Chambers of Commerce point out that three policy initiatives that lie within Mrs May's concept of a caring society are laying a heavy toll on business and on employment. The living wage has been increased, while the productivity of labour generally is not increasing. Mandatory workplace pensions are part payable by employers, and employees who have their share of the contribution to pay are seeking wage increases to pay it, so it is a double-whammy for employers. And in addition, the introduction of the apprenticeship levy on firms [according to the number of people they employ] will better educate those who could well become unemployed in coming years, as technological change makes the skill that the apprentices acquire become redundant]. An economy that should be training the young in the mathematics and in the principles of engineering and coding that support IT and AI [artificial intelligence] is instead preparing young people for jobs whose obsolescence is virtually inevitable.

The economy's capability to employ the whole available population increasingly depends on investment, adaptation and the rising productiveness of industry and commerce, on which productivity improvements depend. Living standards are now falling, and people are feeling it. Real wages are still lower than before the crash of 2008; and although the USA has begun to rein in Quantitative Easing and raise interest rates, and the European Central Bank is expected to so the same soon [it may announce steps in that direction at Jackson Hole this weekend] there is no sign that the Bank of England under Mr Carney - who is to be absent from Jackson Hole - has the opportunity of the bottle to do similar things.

As the extreme fragility of the British economy becomes more apparent, the idiocy of the Cameron-Clegg-Osborne gang and of their 'project fear' becomes more obvious. One can have slender sympathy for Mrs May as the inheritor of the mess and the inheritor of Brexiteer bullying, but not very much. She is grown up, and should be able to recognise the weakness of her negotiating stance. If she does not act on that basis, she will attract odium even greater than that which has settled in the Cameron clique.

Being Mr May

A huge burden has fallen on the shoulders of Philip May over the past few days. His wife opened her innings as Prime Minister extremely well; then within a very short time she embraced a clutch of harebrained policies that undercut her position - notably her advocacy of foxhunting and grammar schools. Then she opted for a general election, at a time when the opinion polls indicated that the Labour party was seriously unpopular; apparently without checking that her own situation was strong. Thereafter she relied an her two close confidants, who had been unpopular at the Home Office where they had [or so it is now alleged] led her into several delusory paths. Thus came about the catastrophic manifesto and the idiocy of constantly asserting that she was 'strong and stable' as she demonstrated herself, and her position, to be anything but secure.

Most significant, and dangerous for the entire country, was her inability to explain how she would lead the negotiations on Britain's exit from the European Union. Part way through the election campaign I decided that this was because she genuinely did not understand what was expected of her. I do not think that she begins to understand what a 'hard Brexit' would be, or what catastrophic effects in would have on the entire population. I do not think that she understands any economic issue at all, whether in terms of rational ratiocination or idiotic economic theory.

She has now put her party in a position when they are in office but not in power, and even Boris Johnson has been able to see that she has earned the painful position that she must now be kept in for as long as possible. Michael Fallon and other senior ministers have made it clear that she will be controlled from now on; that policy will be made in cabinet, and she must follow it. So there is a hope that the country will get a decent outcome, and the Tories may even achieve a little credibility.

Mrs May will not enjoy that situation. Recently it has been made even more clear than before that she it utterly dependent on her husband: to a degree that makes her marriage very different from Denis Thatcher's. Denis became a popular figure, who was seen as powerless but fully autonomous; and Margaret's loyalty to him was unquestioned. Mrs May's dependency is palpable and painful, and the removal of her guard-dogs leaves the couple dangerously exposed in their isolation from real life.

Prime Minister's spouses have long been important, but to go back just eighty years, no-one doubted the calming and cheering influence of Lady Churchill. Then, when Labour won by a landslide in 1945, as Harold Laski and Herbert Morrison were said to be plotting to remove Clement Attlee from the Labour leadership, Mrs Attlee drove the small family car to the palace and her husband was given the King's commission; thus the plotters were stymied. Lady Eden took her husband on holiday when he ran off his trolley after Suez, and thereafter the nation was polite about the difficulties of the MacMillan marriage. Mary Wilson became a national treasure, supporting Harold in sickness and in health and later taking care of Lady Thatcher when she was a demented widow. Cherie Booth's independent career - and her republican reputation - did her no harm, nor did she have any detrimental effect on Tony Blair's career. His relatively recent marriage, and the children it produced, gave Gordon Brown a positive future after his defeat; and the loss of office after the loss of the referendum reanimated "Sam Cam's" career.

How Mr May fits into that catalogue is yet to be proven: but few people could envy him.