Uk politics

Theresa May has picked the first defining fight of her leadership—and it is the same one that David Cameron chose. But, as I say in The Sun today, she has picked the opposite side from him: in favour of, not against, more grammar schools. Cameron’s opposition to more grammar schools infuriated many Tories, particularly those who were grammar school educated. They objected to a privileged public school boy telling them that they couldn’t be more of the schools that had done so much for them. May, by backing grammars, is sending out a very different message. She is showing these Tories that she’s one of them, a grammar school girl. As one Number 10 source puts it, ‘It is a bit of red—or blue—meat for the party’.

Theresa May received the traditional desk banging reception when she addressed the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers. May pleased Tory MPs by emphasising that they  would have more opportunity to feed into policy making process now through George Freeman and the policy board and the green papers that will---once again—precede white papers. But what most excited Tory MPs was what May said about opportunity and grammar schools. May said that she would give a speech on a 21st century education system soon, explaining how selective schools--in other words, grammars--fit into the mix. Strikingly, she defended an ‘element of selection’ arguing that there is selection already in the system, and it is selection by house price.

Labour MPs have just voted 168 to 34 in favour of bringing back Shadow Cabinet elections. This doesn’t mean there will be elections for the Labour top team straight away: the measure, proposed by Clive Betts, now goes to the party’s ruling National Executive Committee, which is now dominated by Corbynites. If the NEC so chooses, it can propose the rule change at the party’s conference. This is, however, another example of the PLP, which had been fading as a parliamentary force compared to the Tory backbench 1922 Committee, asserting itself against Jeremy Corbyn.

David Davis has just finished his first statement to the Commons on the process for the UK exiting the European Union. Davis’s initial statement stuck closely to what the government has said already; the coordinated Labour backbench heckle of ‘waffle, waffle’ had some truth to it. But it was striking that Davis said he hoped the UK’s security relationship with the EU would be as close or closer post-Brexit; in Whitehall, Britain’s intelligence and military capabilities are regarded as one of our key assets in the negotiation. But in answer to the questions that followed, Davis--a naturally frank politician—gave a clearer sense of what he means by Brexit.

Theresa May is on her way to her first G20 summit. But she has still sat down for the traditional start of term interview with Andrew Marr. Reading the transcript of it, it looks like a classic Theresa May interview: with very little given away. She avoided answering Marr’s questions on whether she would like to see more grammar schools and refused to say whether she shared her chief of staff Nick Timothy’s view that Chinese involvement in the Hinkley point nuclear project would be security risk. On Brexit, May said little new about the deal she would like to strike--confirming the sense that, as one Minister told me, the government is ‘a way away from forming a definitive position’.

So, where are we at on Brexit? Well, we know that Theresa May wants immigration control as part of the deal which essentially rules out a Swiss or Norwegian style deal. But, as I report in The Sun, beyond that little is settled. As one Cabinet Minister said to me after the away day at Chequers this week, ‘The truth is that, at the moment, we’re still in the preparatory stage’. Cabinet Ministers were struck by how open the discussion was at Chequers. Unlike in the Cameron era, there was no early indication as to what the Prime Minister wanted the meeting to conclude. According to those present, one of the most forceful speakers was the Chancellor Philip Hammond. He emphasised that growth would be lower next year.

The parliamentary move against democracy is gathering strength. The notion that parliament might vote down the results of the referendum is being backed by some serious, intelligent politicians (and Labour’s Chris Bryant). My old boss Patience Wheatcroft is leading the attempt in the Lords, hoping to stall it until such times as another referendum could be called. Even David Lammy, who I also admire, is leading similar attempts in the Commons involving a petition (Rod Liddle, in response, has started a petition to have Lammy removed as MP. It now has 6,300 signatures). Bryant explains (in a tweet) that he’s out to defend parliamentary sovereignty. 'Our membership was by act of parliament and it needs an act of parliament to undo it.

Today, in a highly unprecedented move, the Labour party actually managed to achieve something. It has just signed a deal with a security firm, OCS, for its autumn conference in Liverpool. This is a huge relief to those in the party with a sense of professionalism, like its General Secretary Iain McNicol, who had feared that the whole conference might have to be cancelled, which would be yet another illustration of the terrible, potentially terminal, mess that the party is in. But McNicol was able to say this afternoon that ‘We look forward to working together on what will be an excellent event’.

Throughout this fractious summer, one thing has united all the warring pundits and politicians. Left, right; Leave, Remain, everyone at least agrees that it was crazy to leave the country in Boris’s hands. He’s not serious, they say, looking, as they make this pronouncement, jolly pleased with their own relative gravitas. They should instead be ashamed. The endless jeering at Boris isn’t justified — he was a decent mayor of London — and it is not in good faith. What purports to be considered criticism is almost always just sour grapes. Why the bitterness? More often than not, Boris-bashers — in Parliament or press — are his contemporaries. A lot of them went to Oxford with him and they measure their success against his. It makes them cross.

Just three years ago, the Scottish government enjoyed claiming that an independent Scotland would be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Perhaps even the sixth wealthiest, as measured by GDP per capita. Sometimes the claims made were a little more modest. Scotland might be only the 14th richest country on earth. But, however the figures were calculated and wherever Scotland was presumed to rank, one thing remained consistent: Scotland would be richer than the United Kingdom it would be leaving behind. Well, you can't make that case any longer. In truth, it wasn't a case sensible people bought in the first place. It was too good to be true, too dependent upon time-sensitive statistical chicanery, to be entirely convincing.

In England and other places there can still be surprise when discussion of football in Scotland segues too smoothly into the discussion of religion. And vice versa. It can also get entangled with toxic politics too. The sectarian divide between Celtic and Rangers doesn't need to be rehearsed, but the tribal hinterlands behind this ancient sporting rivalry point to the sad opposition between Loyalist and Republican, Royalist and Nationalist, Britain and Ireland, Catholic and Protestant. Some say it's fading away, some say it isn't, but there was a manifestation last week that it may be evolving – into something worse. Celtic played the Israeli team Hapoel Beer Sheva in Glasgow on Wednesday in a pulsating European qualifier which the home team won 5-2.

Sadiq Khan’s endorsement of Owen Smith is rather handy for the ailing Labour leadership contender, given Khan is one of the few Labour politicians who has actually won something: that something being the largest personal mandate of any politician. This enormous mandate is rather handy when Jeremy Corbyn starts waving his own huge mandate about, but it may not be attractive enough for Labour members, who largely seem besotted by the idea of Corbyn as leader.