Two weeks after the country went to the polls to make its fateful choice on Europe, it faces another choice of huge moment: between Theresa May or Andrea Leadsom. But unlike the future of Britain’s membership of the EU, it is not a decision that will be put to the nation: just 150,000 Conservative party members will select the next prime minister.
There are superficial differences that distinguish the choice of May versus Leadsom from Remain versus Leave. Yes, neither woman was the leading face of the referendum campaign they backed. Yes, the wane in influence of the group of Oxford contemporaries who have dominated Conservative politics over the last decade has unfolded with remarkable rapidity in a frenzy of bitter, ruthless backstabbing. Add the resignation of Nigel Farage as leader of Ukip and the three key faces of Brexit have all exited the stage.
But in more important ways, it feels as though the referendum campaign is replaying itself. Leadsom’s comments in a Times interview that imply she is more qualified to be prime minister because she has children – and therefore a greater stake in the nation’s future than Theresa May – are as ugly and personal as anything we saw in the referendum campaign or in the two weeks since. Whether she genuinely believes this, or simply deployed the sentiment as a tactic to win round Conservative associations, it is a sure sign that a Leadsom premiership risks returning the Conservatives to their status as the “nasty party”: a party that cherishes traditional family values above all else.
Leadsom’s socially illiberal views, including on gay marriage and maternity rights, are clearly out of step with the country she seeks to lead. That alone should be enough to disqualify her as prime minister. Yet she is not required to seek a mandate from the British people: she only needs to convince a majority of Conservative members to vote for her. As the current predicament of the Labour party shows, party memberships are far from representative of the voters who back them. It is fundamentally undemocratic to have national political leaders, who represent millions, selected by party memberships numbering the hundreds of thousands. It represents an uncomfortable attempt at a halfway house between parliamentary representative democracy and the American primary system. It delivers the worst of both worlds.
The Tory leadership campaign is providing no further clarity than was provided in the referendum campaign about what Brexit means for the UK. The Leave campaign was run on a myth. Its leaders told us we could have it all: a booming economy, curbed immigration, control and sovereignty. They accused any who tried to point out the inherent trade-offs of talking Britain down. No vision of what a post-Brexit UK might look like emerged. Prominent Conservative Leavers have, over the last two weeks, given the impression they regarded the referendum more as a precursor to this leadership contest than the most important democratic choice facing this country for decades.
And so the illusion continues. Leadsom drops soundbites about sunlit uplands even as the economic warning lights are blinking furiously: the pound at its weakest level for decades; the FTSE250 down 10%; retailers warning that prices are likely to rise at a time of already faltering consumer confidence; construction and banking shares hit. Leadsom’s version of how Brexit negotiations will play out involves a prompt triggering of article 50 and a quick negotiation; she claims the EU has no reason to seek to impose tariffs on a member that has voted to leave the bloc. Her positions are either wilfully misleading or breathtakingly naive: neither qualifies her to be prime minister.
As critical as the outcome will be, it is not just Brexit negotiations that our new prime minister will have to contend with. She will need an economic strategy to minimise the recessionary impacts of Brexit and a much more flexible approach to borrowing than her predecessor. The housing crisis looks set to get worse still, with construction likely to be one of the sectors worst hit by Brexit. The prime minister will have to bring together a divided nation suffering the consequences of a toxic, nasty referendum campaign; the sharp rise in hate crimes we have seen in its wake is no coincidence. She will have the tough challenge of ensuring that an NHS suffering the effects of austerity is fit for the future. And as global instability continues, she will need to carve a new approach for British foreign policy outside the EU, learning the right lessons from Chilcot. These are perhaps the most difficult governing circumstances the UK has faced in decades. Even in much better circumstances, Andrea Leadsom would be a terrible choice.
That does not mean we should ignore the questions that hover over Theresa May. She has been a competent home secretary, the longest serving since 1951, but her record is not unblemished: her failures on border security temper her successes in facing down the Police Federation. She has been unafraid to use immigration as a political tool, although the campaign with which Leadsom is associated can be accused of far worse. Because of her reluctance to speak outside her brief, we know little about the approach she would take to economic strategy, to foreign policy, to improving the nation’s schools and hospitals. And on the most important democratic decision facing Britain for decades – whether or not to remain in the European Union – she chose to keep her head down.
But while a May premiership brings uncertainties, a Leadsom premiership carries certainty of disaster. We should be under no illusion May would be able to put to bed the political forces unleashed by the Brexit vote. No deal will ever be good enough for the most fervent Brexiters who will continue to claim Britain can have it all. In the likely event of an economic downturn, they will direct blame at Europe, the new government: anywhere but the disingenuous campaign that was fought to take Britain out of the European Union.
This leadership contest cannot resolve the political and economic mess in which the country finds itself. In narrowly voting to leave the European Union, voters didn’t endorse a plan – they rejected the status quo. It will be up to our next prime minister to try to resolve what that mandate means. But with no obvious answer, Conservative members have a duty to the country to put the more competent of the two choices at the helm.
