HUBRIS, as we know, is followed by nemesis.
In these days of an anti-Establishment mood gripping voters here and abroad, it seems inconceivable that a senior politician would seek to adopt an arrogant Establishment approach and expect the electorate to follow blithely behind.
But that is what has happened and Theresa May is now paying the price, possibly at some point with her job.
Having confidently called a general election to bolster her working majority of 17, the Conservative leader’s lack of presence on the campaign trail, her U-turns and her decision not to debate fellow leaders backfired, so that she now is looking to have a working majority of just seven but only thanks to the help of the Democratic Unionist Party, which has 10 MPs.
Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, announced she would be having talks with the Prime Minister this weekend about, not a formal coalition but a so-called confidence and supply arrangement.
This means the Democratic Unionists would support the minority May Government on a policy by policy basis, supporting it in any votes of no confidence and supporting it on supply votes ie those that implement Government spending.
In return, the DUP is likely to extract spending commitments from the Tory government on public spending projects. Given the PM does not want to allow Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street via the back door, then Mrs May will be very keen to satisfy the DUP’s demands.
After such a disastrous electoral performance, the Tory leader could have expected to have been ousted within hours. But these are not normal times and the Brexit process looms.
Tories will be torn between ditching the pilot within days and allowing Mrs May to begin the talks with Brussels to provide stability and continuity in the early stages.
But after a high-stakes gamble that went disastrously wrong, the PM could be on borrowed time.
George Osborne, sacked as Chancellor when Mrs May took over the Conservative reins, could hardly contain his glee on the television as he engaged in punditry on election night. In his new role as editor of the London Evening Standard he said Mrs May’s “authority is non-existent” after a “disastrous” campaign.
While Mrs May looks set to stay for a while as the Tories do not want a new civil war in the party, which would hand the initiative over to Labour, her role looks decidedly like a caretaker one.
This throws up the question of who would succeed her. At present, there appear to be three possible contenders.
Firstly, David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, who challenged unsuccessfully David Cameron for the leadership but who, this time round, could be seen as a safe pair of hands, who could steady the ship going into the next General Election.
Secondly, Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, who stood in for Mrs May during the live election TV debate when the PM decided to reject the offer, saying she would rather engage with ordinary voters than her political opponents.
Thirdly, Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, who is known to be desperately keen to become Prime Minister but whose attempt last year to succeed Mr Cameron was sabotaged by his Brexit colleague Michael Gove, the former Justice Secretary. He came to the conclusion that Mr Johnson was simply not up to the job of leading the country.
Mrs May appears to have dropped her “strong and stable” mantra, switching it for “certainty”. But the period ahead looks neither strong, stable nor certain either for the country or the Tory leader, who ignored the first rule of politics: never take the public for granted.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel