James Forsyth

Westminster has a tendency to get ahead of itself. MPs want to discuss the aftermath of an event long before it has happened. They play never-ending games of ‘What if?’ At the moment, the political class cannot stop discussing, in great detail, what the post-EU referendum political landscape will look like. The speculation is, in and of itself, part of the political process. Much of the talk of the post-vote challenges facing David Cameron is intended to persuade him to pull his punches in the final weeks of the campaign. What no one disputes is that the Prime Minister will find governing even harder after 23 June. His majority is already thin and he has had to U-turn on a host of policies since the election.

It was George Osborne v Angela Eagle at PMQs today, with David Cameron at the G7 in Japan. Eagle, who is a far better despatch box performer than Jeremy Corbyn, started off by contrasting Osborne’s handling of Google’s tax affairs with the French authorities raiding the company’s Paris office. She then went on to do what Jeremy Corbyn won’t, or can’t do, exploiting Tory divisions over the EU referendum. She asked Osborne if he agreed with Priti Patel or Len McCluskey on the EU and workers’ rights. But after this Eagle lost her way, her questions turned into mini-speeches and Osborne batted them away with increasing ease. By the end of their exchanges, the Chancellor had the upper hand.

In a speech to Policy Exchange today, Steve Hilton—David Cameron’s former senior adviser—will make the case that ‘any intellectual rigorous examination makes it impossible for a Tory moderniser to support staying in the EU’. He argues that Tory modernisation was about trusting people, and that the EU does not; that modernisation was about localism, and that the EU is inherently centralising; and that the EU helps the rich and not the rest. I think there’s much to be said for Hilton’s analysis. (Though, of course, it should be recognised that there are Tory modernisers on both sides of the argument.) But where Hilton is surely right is that the EU is not the future, it is an idea of its time—the late 20th century.

Steve Hilton coming out so strongly for Brexit is important for two reasons. First, it is a reminder that the idea that, within the Tory party, this referendum is the modernisers versus the right is far too crude. There are Tory modernisers on both sides of this argument. Indeed, given the importance of localism to Tory modernisation and its appreciation that there’s a difference between being pro-big business and pro-market, there are thoroughly modernising reasons for wanting the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. Hilton also details how it was the experience of government that tipped many Tories into backing Brexit. It was the discovery of just how much the European Union limited what they could do in office that made them believe that the UK should leave.

David Cameron and Boris Johnson are the two biggest beasts in the Tory jungle. But they are currently involved in an increasingly undignified scrap over Brexit. As I say in The Sun today, it is hard to see how it ends well for both of them or the Tory party.  As one Cabinet Minister lamented to me recently, ‘it is a personal fight’ between Cameron and Boris and that ‘the Conservative party is on a hiding to nothing.’ Boris and Brexit is the itch that Cameron can’t resist scratching. When Iain Dale asked him about Boris going Out, Cameron—in effect—accused the former Mayor of putting his personal ambition ahead of the national interest which is about the most serious charge you can make of a politician.

David Cameron wants a ‘definitive’ victory in this referendum, one that will settle the question of Britain’s EU membership for a generation. But, increasingly, I doubt whether this referendum will resolve things for that long. A second referendum within a decade now looks likely, as I argue in the magazine this week. So, why do I think a second referendum looks likely if In wins? Well, leaving the EU used to be a relatively fringe position in British politics. Most Eurosceptics said that they wanted reform rather than for Britain to leave outright and there was no one in the Cabinet who openly backed getting out. But that has now changed. There are more than 130 Tory MPs campaigning for Brexit, including five cabinet ministers.

In normal times, the government clears the decks ahead of the Queen’s Speech. It wants to ensure maximum publicity for its legislative agenda. But these are not normal times: there’s an EU referendum campaign raging. Number 10 are being quite clear, as I write in The Sun today, that with less than six weeks to go to polling day, there won’t be a campaign ceasefire this week. ‘It is too close now’ one senior source tells me. So, why is the Queen’s Speech taking place at all? One IN supporting Minister complains that it is ‘moronic’ to be having it now, as it means that the measures announced it are likely to get caught up in the referendum cross fire.

A dramatic day in Wales today. The vote for First Minister ended in a tie between Labour’s Carwyn Jones and Plaid Cymru’s Leanne Wood. Labour, despite only having 29 out of 60 seats in the Assembly, had not done a deal with any of the other parties to ensure Jones’ election. Plaid then nominated its own leader, who was backed by the Tory and Ukip AMs as well as the Plaid ones, The Assembly has now adjourned. The Assembly has until 2 June, to decide on a First Minister. If it cannot vote someone in, then the Secretary of State for Wales can call fresh elections. Plaid are now saying, according to the BBC, that they are ‘surprised other parties supported them’ and ‘did not want to give Labour a bloody nose’.

As the dust settles on Thursday’s election, it becomes ever clearer that—with the exception of London—these were awful results for Labour. They were bad enough to suggest that the party is on course for a third successive general election defeat. But, as I say in The Sun, not disastrous enough to persuade the Labour membership that they need to dump Corbyn. One Tory Minister remarked to me yesterday, ‘Labour have done well enough to keep Corbyn. I can live with that.’ Before adding, ‘Corbyn’s survival is the single most important thing for 2020’. The result that should worry Labour most, though, is the Scottish one.

Sadiq Khan is the new Mayor of London. After what seemed like an eternal wait, withs second preferences counted, he claimed 57pc of the vote to Zac Goldsmith's 43pc - a comfortable margin of 14pc. So after eight years of Tory control, Labour has retaken City Hall.  Khan’s result is Labour’s best of this election cycle. He has won a decisive victory in a contest which has seen turnout go up, and by a wider margin than Boris's 2012 victory. There’ll be much criticism of Goldsmith’s campaign in the next few days, but it is worth noting just how relentless Khan was. He hit his key messages endlessly, never missing an opportunity to remind voters that he was the son of a bus driver.

[audioplayer src="http://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/262486539-the-spectator-podcast-erdogans-europe.mp3" title="James Forsyth, Fraser Nelson and Isabel Hardman discuss Boris" startat=552] Listen [/audioplayer] After an eight-year detour into municipal government, Boris Johnson has now returned to national politics. The former mayor of London will mark this moment by going on the stump for the Leave campaign. He has some catching up to do: while never far from the public eye, he was absent from the Commons for seven years. Even when back in Parliament after the general election, Boris felt he could not take the cabinet job that was offered to him. But his time at City Hall hasn’t dented his ambitions; quite the opposite.

It was gloves off time at PMQs today. With elections taking place across the UK tomorrow, David Cameron went for Jeremy Corbyn repeatedly. He kept attacking Corbyn for having referred to Hezbollah and Hamas as ‘friends’ and called on him to withdraw the remark. He argued that Sadiq Khan’s willingness to share platforms with extremists was one of the reasons why Labour had a problem with anti-Semitism. It was bare-knuckle politics, and a preview of how the Tories would try and monster Corbyn in any general election campaign. Corbyn responded by complaining about the Tories ‘smearing’ Sadiq Khan and by claiming that Suliman Gani, the preacher at the centre of this platform controversy, was a Tory.

Labour might have hoped that the announcement of an independent inquiry into the issue of anti-Semitism in the party would have drawn a line under the matter, and let the party get back to its election message ahead of polling day on Thursday. But comments by senior Labour figures are ensuring that this row continues. This morning, Diane Abbott went on the Marr show and said that ‘It is a smear to say that Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism’—which makes you wonder why Jeremy Corbyn has set up an inquiry into the issue. If this was not enough, Unite leader Len McCluskey declared on the radio that ‘The idea that there is an anti-Semitic crisis in the Labour party is absolutely offensive. But it’s being used to challenge Jeremy Corbyn.