Though her election to the House of Commons predates the Conservative Party’s ‘A List’ of candidates, Theresa May is in many ways the personification of that sacred text of Tory modernisation: its role model; its idol; its champion.
Her appointment as Home Secretary surprised many, but it should not have done. Her star was perceived to be on the wane when the election came around, after some portentously lacklustre displays on the opposition front bench. But this founder member of C-Change, the one no less who first called modernisers to arms against the Nasty Party, was never likely to be given anything other than a senior position in a Cameron cabinet, particularly after Caroline Spelman’s nannying difficulties left Mrs May unchallenged as the mods’ leading female.
Thus, if her selection in Maidenhead fifteen years ago was not a case of positive discrimination, her appointment to the Home Office could certainly be regarded that way. As I watched the stuttering, shifty, embarrassing train wreck of a performance given by Mrs May before the Home Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday, in the wake of Project Cameron’s latest spectacular foul-up, the UK Border Agency fiasco, I was left to reflect that this is where positive discrimination gets us.
Please don’t get me wrong. I am not making any sort of sexist assertion. My message most certainly is not “put a woman in charge and trouble ensues”. No Thatcherite could ever think that, after all. My message is “put anyone in charge for reasons other than merit and, barring good fortune, trouble will ensue”. I could further assert “put a Cameroon in charge and trouble will ensue”, but we know that simple truth already, don’t we?
The sheer hypocrisy of the Tory modernisers’ position is exposed by the fact that there are many, very able women who have no hope of preferment under the current regime. There are excellent opportunities in Mr Cameron’s Tory Party for any woman who professes devotion to the modernist cause, but a female MP or aspiring candidate who dares to veer from the path of enlightenment is harming her career as surely as any male counterpart who does so.
Ann Widdecombe recognised the hopelessness of this predicament and stood down at the election. There was never the slightest possibility that her ministerial experience and undoubted intellect would be called upon by a Cameron government. Imagine, though, that it was Home Secretary Widdecombe in Marsham Streetright now. It is honestly hard to imagine that the present pantomime would have been played out. The former member for Maidstone is nothing if not rigorous; one can reasonably guess that she would have knocked as many civil service heads together as was necessary, to make sure she knew exactly what was going on in her own department. It is questionable, too, whether she would have sanctioned any part of the pilot scheme which led to the whole, sorry mess.
If this fiasco had come to pass with Miss Widdecombe presiding, it can be said with some confidence that she would not have dumped all responsibility upon a senior official, as Mrs May has dumped it, so shabbily, upon Mr Brodie Clark. Why? Because it was Miss Widdecombe, whilst Minister of State at the Home Office, who objected so strongly to comparable treatment being dished out to another official, Derek Lewis, sacked as Director of HM Prisons by Michael Howard, godfather of the Cameroons, in an earlier washing of home secretarial hands.
Indeed, as Mr Clark prepares to fight back with claims of constructive dismissal and allegations that the Home Secretary has misled Parliament, the UKBA affair projects increasingly uncanny echoes of the Lewis case. Howard was able to evade repercussions until after he had left office; Mrs May might not be so fortunate, even with the Prime Minister’s continued, desperate patronage.
The departure of such an over-promoted third-rater could only be to the benefit of both the country and the Conservative Party. The story which has unfolded over the past few days has beggared belief. Heaven knows how much damage has been done to the party’s reputation on immigration and crime by Mrs May’s catastrophic performances at the dispatch box and before the Committee, generating headlines such as “I’m Sorry, I Haven’t A Clue” (from the Telegraph, of all newspapers).
As she continues to stutter and fret in complete ignorance about the number of security threats her extraordinary bumbling has let into Britain, Mrs May should consider this: nearly thirty years ago, it took just one, isolated security breach to convince a previous Home Secretary, William Whitelaw, that he should offer his resignation. Though he himself could not possibly have been considered directly culpable for Michael Fagan’s unscheduled audience with the Queen, Mr Whitelaw nonetheless believed he was directly responsible, as the relevant minister. But Willie was a more honourable kind of Home Secretary altogether.
At least, if the current Home Secretary must go, kicking and screaming and blaming all but herself, Ann Widdecombe has pointed the way to a world outside Westminster. One feels that the sight of Mrs May’s infamous kitten heels, foxtrotting across the Strictly Come Dancing floor, will seem like rather less of a waste to the nation.