John Crace raised an excellent point in the Guardian yesterday. In between suggesting Theresa May was barely in charge of herself these days and that it would help if Liz Truss remembered she was in the last government (there have been two past governments since Labour was in office now) he hinted at something more significant. He was basically suggesting that Philip Hammond is now past caring.
I have no doubt our Chancellor would deny this. Just as I am sure Theresa May would claim, if asked, that she is enjoying every minute of her time. But the truth is that most people - and Hammond and May are more than flesh and blood; they are decidedly human too - can get to the point where circumstances wear them down so much that they do not care. And that is considerably more likely when you do not believe in what you are doing, and neither Hammond or May believe in Brexit.
The point of fatigue (and I know what it feels like this morning) is that it is OK if you are achieving what you want. It is more than doubly draining when just about everything, from your supposed colleagues onwards, seem stacked up against you. Hammond and May must feel like those odds are stacked against them now. They're not stupid enough to not see that the path they're on is disastrous, at best.
So the question is a simple one. When do they break?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Welcome back! You make a good point that is rarely discussed in public, which is the physical & mental well-being of (as the Americans say) our lawmakers. I wonder if any academic studies have been conducted on the topic. It’s impossible to know, of course, but one wonders to what extent illness affected the judgement of recent world leaders like Roosevelt, Churchill and Kennedy.
I’m not a medical practitioner but physical ailments are probably less of a concern than the mental strain of high office. Although, would Napoleon have lost the battle of Waterloo if he hadn’t been suffering from such physical pain and hence delegating to the less competent Ney?
We should expect our representatives to take appropriate time out to recharge their batteries. Cameron’s chillaxing should’ve been welcomed by the press. But then there’s the Trump issue, which is an altogether more serious problem. It seems the American Psychoanalytic Association has said it’s OK for its members to discuss the President’s mental state without having examined him, thus breaking the so-called Goldwater Rule.
Coming back to your point. I don’t know anything about Hammond’s health but we do know May has diabetes which is not an easy condition to manage under stress. I don’t think senior politicians should risk the quality of their decision making through ill-health. Saying ‘I’m stalwartly continuing to do my job in the interests of the nation’ is an oxymoron. I accept it’s a complex and sensitive topic but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discussed openly in public.
I am all too well aware of my own need to take breaks, and I work pretty hard
There are limits for us all, after which our judgement is undoubtedly impaired
It’s a natural presumption but even Tory Brexiters who want her gone also need her to stay to avert a Tory implosion that would initiate a General Election and threaten any degree of a hard Brexit
It’s a catch 22 where May has to walk a hard Brexit road to keep the soft Brexit flame flickering and the hard Brexit mob in order to keep their hopes alive need to keep someone in place who hopes to contrive to scupper their hopes.
With May and Hammond probably can’t survive without the other. Tories are leaning on them as a strategy to force them to hand over the steering wheel, but notably they won’t challenge them because if the clear potential to bring themselves down. But clearly bluff and posturing will play a role.
For Tory remainers, May is caught between signing neoliberalism’s death warrant on behalf of Corbyn or on behalf of Hard Brexit populism. For Tory Brexiters, they are caught between Corbyn ending the neoliberalism that is the transition vehicle for their populist dreams, and their party imploding if May and Hammond are elbowed out by internal pressure.
In this dilemma May (and to extent Hammond) has to be loved and loathed by her internal enemies.
With both sides fearing deregulated capitalism as a whole in danger, the Soft mob will point to Corbyn’s growing support to pressure the Hard mob into softening, and vice versa.
But what goes on in the meantime us complicated and compromised. Every strategy in the day-to-day issues will be skewed by motives of two sides of a party using every matter for its own purpose. That type of situation usually produces breaking points. Then there is the DUP position, which could change at any moment with a variety of potential causes.
One complication progressives need to be wary about is to consider where the hopes lie for the Labour neoliberals who seethe at lost control in the party to the left and the further-right drift of UK ideological control led by Brexit.
Which I think means when prominent Remainers appeal to progressives it is a bit of trap. They want neoliberalism preserved, blind to its culpability to lead to Brexit and Trumpism. Which us why I feel we must just be cautious that many prominent (Labour or otherwise) Remain initiatives would value May winning her internal fight against Tory-Kipperism much more than Corbyn booting out PFI and uni fees and all the rest of it and turning an overdue progressive corner we want and need to turn.
I say that because it’s relevant to the topic here whether May and Hammond can keep their positions faced with the pressure and strife. As someone who voted Remain, I feel the debate now is as pigeonholed between a neoliberal EU and a nationalistic non-regulated UK as it was then.
So to really put pressure on May and Hammond, progressives need to be their own Remain voice separate from the (neoliberal-slanted) Referendum campaign and separate from the broad-brush current initiatives. Because that campaign is right-Labour influenced and crosses-over with undermining the progressive opportunity that has evolved.
My conclusion therefore is that progressives who want May and Hammond to cave in is to be alert to some Remain elements enlisting Progressive help in order to thwart Progressiveness. That will mean for many – and the Labour neoliberals know it – choosing whether to speak out against New Labour smearing of its left in collusion with media.
Not something many who are Progressive first and pro-Corbyn second want to hear. But if they want to tip May and Hammond over the edge – and potentially bring about an election that ends neoliberalism and heralds radical change – then please heed a view that lukewarmism on Corbyn among progressive Remainers is exploited and is the decisive ground that props May and Hammond up.
I am very aware of that risk that Remain = neoliberal status quo
Roll on Indyref 2.
Let’s get away from this appalling Westminster circus.
Separatists of the World untie.
Indeed. Saor Alba gu brath.
To me it’s more a question of when does this hopeless government break? Is there any chance there are some pro EU Tory MPs who can see the madness of the current situation, and will side with the opposition to bring this government down?
In other words, are there enough Tories who care more about the future of this country than their own party or careers? True patriots, in other words, not the flag waving nationalists and free market fanatics who are betraying their country whilst accusing their opponents of being traitors.
I am certain that May will do her duty to the bitter end. Hammond I am not so sure. He may feel that any plausible replacement would do a worse job. But perhaps they could uncork the Gauke?
They are all looking so tired, aren’t they.
The fatigue looks to be phenomenal
After Suez, Eden was a broken man. He died a few years after.
After the failure of the Munich settlement, the outbreak of war, and the Norway disaster, Chamberlain resigned and soon died – admittedly of a physical illness, but that, however, was likely aggravated by psychosomatic processes.
What was the fate of Lord North? He, Chamberlain, and Eden, are remembered in history as the PMs presiding over the greatest disasters of British history at least since the Civil War. Mrs May looks set to join them.
“After Suez, Eden was a broken man. He died a few years after.”
Not true – he lived for another 2 decades, even after his health was compromised by gallbladder removal surgery.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1356158/
To be honest with you I think that they have broken already but of course will not admit it.
As tribal Tories, they will just want to stay in power because as many of us have noted, that’s what Tories like – power for its own sake. The fact that they do not seem to be able to do much with power (regarding BREXIT for example) is secondary to just having it.
Meanwhile life gets harder and harder for everyone else because it is easier to victimise ordinary people. History will not be kind to them. And the next time I bump into Patrick McLoughlin at my local railway station I will tell him exactly – and publically – what I think of him and this shower of merde that calls itself a Government.
Do, please
Sounds good PSR; give the bugger both barrels while you’re at it!
Metaphorically, please
Might I suggest caution in language used, please?
Hammond? A mediocrity standing head and shoulders above the dim, the damned, and the deluded.
He has a grasp of reality, a head for facts and some figures, and he listens to his civil servants: a bland back-bencher who does well enough as a junior minister.
He’s no Lawson; he’s no Major. He definitely isn’t Balls or Darling; there isn’t even enough of him to be the archetypal chancellor who, by machiavellian design, has his place and his dangerous powers, only for as long as he lives under the Prime Minister aegis.
Trouble is, our Prime Minister is to weak to shield him: and, while the criticism he faces comes from politically-inept mental midgets, their malevolence, and the sheer numbers of their mob, are more than any Chancellor can handle – even the most ruthless and determined destroyer of departments and careers – and neither Hammond nor May have the strength and the skill to manage.
May? We know nothing of her. What little she has said of her principles and her beliefs, she has consistently contradicted a week later.
That’s pretty revealing, but it doesn’t reveal a coherent picture.
What we do know, is that her actions as Home Secretary were fully onside with the worst of the authoritarianism, vindictive xenophobia, and contempt for justice and humanity, that darkens the corridors of that dismal institution.
And she viscerally detests all and anything that checks those urges: Judicial Review, the European Convention on Human Rights, the ECJ, and Parliamentary Scrutiny. This, as far as we can tell, is an area of genuine enthusiasm in the Brexit project.
It may well be that her weakness as a leader springs from an unwillingness to come straight out with her principles: some of what she’s done is further to the right than Marine le Pen, and she would do well to keep that under wraps. More likely though, that May has no principles at at all, no core beliefs that mark the difference between mere politicians and real leaders.
How fortunate for us all, that she is politically inept, managerially incompetent, and weak.
Nile,
Saying Hammond is no Lawson is being kind to him. Will Hutton’s evisceration of him in last Sunday’s Observer had me cheering from beginning to end. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/21/enough-of-nigel-lawson-and-his-band-of-80s-ultras-brexit
This still doesn’t mean Hammond is any good!
Very good
I did not come to praise him: but I do not come to bury him.
Hammond’s mediocrity is the very, very best on offer in the Cabinet, and head and shoulders above the competition on the Government front benches.
I held him up to Lawsons virtues and successes – few as they are and contaminated, as they are, by their motivating ideology – and I find him wanting.
Conversely, his is not as bad as Lawson: Hammond’s mediocrity is his saving disgrace.
Far, far worse than Hammond is on offer.
If we’re going to have a Conservative government, even if an anti-Brexit coalition emerges, we have to keep him.