Is Andrea Leadsom a serious contender to become Prime Minister? A few days ago, she was almost about to sign up to Team Boris, and even held talks with Team Crabb & Javid. Which made sense: she has been in parliament for just six years, and has been a junior minister for an even shorter time. But to those Tories unable to forgive Michael Gove for knifing Boris, she is the only viable Brexit candidate. Until Leadson turned up on the Brexit debates, she was virtually unknown. Now, we’re being asked to assess her as a Prime Minister. Her appearance on the Marr show today was a chance to do that: it as a job interview, on live TV.
He started by quoting extracts from a speech that she gave to the Hansard Society just three years ago, saying that Brexit would be a “disaster for our economy and would lead to a decade of economic and political uncertainty at a time when the tectonic plates are moving”. She said that her view had moved on since then: that’s true for a lot of us, myself included. But I never thought that Brexit would lead to disaster, as she seems to have done. Nor am I as relaxed as she about the turbulence now. So the distance of her journey is quite considerable.
“That speech was in April 2013 and things have so moved on,” she said. Maybe so, said Andrew Marr, but your fundamental point as about the damage that the act of Brexit would do. The risks of staying in the EU “massively magnified at about that time” she said: Greece has lost 25pc of her economy, you have a massive migration crisis at the same time that the UK’s economy has been recovering. So the EU had become a different beast. Perhaps so, but she fails to deal with the fundamental point: the act of Brexit is dramatic, and does trigger precisely the uncertainty she warned of back then. The weakness in her proposition now is that she is trying to dismiss the idea of uncertainty, whereas she needs a Sajid Javid-style plan to deal with it. Her optimism is a selling point, but being Panglossian will not provide the reassurance required now.
And why her? She has never been in the Cabinet nor fought the wars that come with that, unlike Michael Gove. Indeed, she has had just a few years in parliament: Liam Fox was a whip during the Maastricht rebellions. And (what Marr didn’t say) all this matters because managing MPs is part of the job. If Boris had more Westminster experience, he would have known the crucial importance of seizing every minute of a leadership contest: he wouldn’t have faffed about last weekend, faffing that ended up destroying his leadership chances. And a bit of me thinks: well, it’s probably just as well that he didn’t run for leader because he evidently lacked the parliamentary experience that a UK Prime Minister needs to lead a team of vain and emotionally needy MPs. Executive experience alone doesn’t cut it in politics which is why Archie Norman, a retail hero who saved Asda, fared so badly as a Tory MP.
Leadsom told Marr about “people who have real world experience” and her experience “running enormous teams, small teams”. But the job she is applying for her precious little to do with the “real world” and all to do with being queen of the jungle of Westminster. It’s the paradox of politics: there is no link between business skills and political skills. Leadsom seems to be pitching herself to us on her business experience: fine, but political skills, in this case, are far more important.
Marr threw her what I saw as a lifeline: “So in a sense, what you’re saying is it’s time for sime outsiders. Politicians have screwed it up so badly that it’s time to bring in people from the outside. Time for a rookie.” Her reply:-
“I’m absolutely not saying that. I genuinely want to do some things for our country, to make it the greatest country on earth. And I believe I have the experience of the real world, as well as a good deal of experience in government… I have actually a good deal understanding about politics.”
I suspect Theresa May’s supporters would have liked that answer. A “good deal” of political experience? Doesn’t Britain need someone with a great deal, someone who is battle tested? Hasn’t the Gove/Boris fiasco showed that eloquence is no substitute for raw political organisational ability?
She also got tetchy when Marr mentioned that he’d seen lots of Ukip supporters support her on Twitter: was she relaxed with that? She referred to “the undertone of your accusation.” Accusation? She’ll encounter plenty accusations as Prime Minister; this was, as Marr told her, a “friendly question.” She then recovered, saying:
“In answer to your friendly question, I’m delighted by a wide range of support.”
But when asked, she wouldn’t rule out giving Nigel Farage a role in renegotiation. I suspect that was a reflex answer: no comment on anyone getting any jobs. But Farage ruled himself out of respectable public debate with that disgraceful poster, rightly condemned by the Vote Leave team. I suspect that, on reflection, she will have to rule Farage out. Plenty in her party would not support any Tory who even toyed with the idea of involving Farage.
Her strongest answer came when she was asked why she’d be better than the favourite, Theresa May.
“I think that Theresa is a superb candidate, no question about that. But genuinely*, I think that the country needs to be led by someone who believes fervently and understands the opportunities of leaving the EU. We’ve just had a referendum, people voted to leave. We need understand and deal with it… Somebody who says “Okay, I’ve been told to leave so I’ll leave” with no enthusiasm is very different to somebody who absolutely sees the sunlit uplands of leaving the EU. The prospects – for our children, our grandchildren, our buisnesses – of being open to the world. And secondly, really importantly in this debate, I just don’t think it would be right to have a coronation. I think people need a choice of candidates.”
Marr signed off asking if she’s publish her tax returns. This is a nonsense question: every MP’s salary is a matter of public record, and they all have to declare any extra earnings. So we all know how much they’re on: when David Cameron published his tax returns, it was a stunt that delighted bored journalists but didn’t contribute at all to transparency in politics. But politics is as much about perception as reality (hence Cameron’s ill-advised stunt) and as soon as he did so, he made sure this question would be put to all senior politicians. So Leadsom ought to have thought about this before.
She hadn’t. She looked perplexed when Marr asked her that, seeing as Cameron published his returns, whether she would do the same. “I’m…. I’m… Oh. Would I do the… I’m” her brain whirred on live TV. “I’ll have to think about that,” she said. She said she would not want all MPs to have to do it, which is not the question that was asked. “Could you just say ‘yes’?” pleaded Marr. “Yeah, yes. Okay! Yes.”
In recent days, I’ve spoken to Tory MPs who are hugely enthusiasts about Andrea Leadsom. One told me yesterday that he has never been so optimistic about the potential of any leader than he is about hers. That, if she made it to the final two and went on a campaign trail and TV debates, she’d show verbal dexterity and uplifting optimism that the robotic Theresa May lacks. Perhaps she does have this ability to wow, but I’m not sure it came through in this morning’s interview.
* She also needs to stop prefixing her questions with the word “genuinely”, which implies here other answers aren’t so genuine.
Comments