Theresa May’s statement of intent

Theresa May’s speech to the Conservative conference firmly planted her party’s standard in the political centre-ground. That has gone out of fashion recently but it is where British elections are usually won. What is different this time is that the EU referendum has created an opportunity to redefine what the centre-ground is. May used it to call for a “new meritocracy” that works for everyone and not just the privileged few. She weaved an appeal to working-class voters with an attack on a pro-EU establishment that she depicted as arrogant and self-interested.

In her speech, May offered a one-nation conservatism for the Brexit era. Adopting the New Labour tactic of triangulation, she contrasted her government with the unappealing extremes of Corbynite socialism on the left and the uncaring dogmatism of the “libertarian right.” That latter term was perhaps a coded reference to free-market Thatcherism, as May made clear that while she supported market forces, she also saw a role for an interventionist state. That pragmatic notion of the market where possible and the state where necessary was common to both moderate social democracy and traditional conservatism until the 1970s. It has been a while since a Conservative leader talked openly about how “government can and should be a force for good; that the state exists to provide what individual people, communities and markets cannot; and that we should employ the power of government for the good of the people.” In this context, May mentioned rural broadband, energy companies and “the dysfunctional housing market.”

But if that sounded like a rejection of Thatcherism, the Tory right will have been reassured by her firm stance on leaving the EU. May’s first speech to the conference on Sunday appeared to signal she was moving closer to “hard Brexit” rather than “soft Brexit.” Of course, that might turn out to be just a negotiating tactic, but other ministers have provided a bit more policy detail. In particular, the home secretary, Amber Rudd, talked tough on controlling immigration and revived the idea of British jobs for British workers.

Indeed, it was on the post-Brexit landscape that May was most interesting. Once Britain leaves the EU, the country’s politics will enter a new era. Policies that were once off the table—for example, because they were in conflict with EU competition rules—could suddenly become feasible. The referendum itself saw millions of voters ignoring the advice of the leaders of the parties they normally support to vote for Brexit. A realignment of voter preferences is quite conceivable, particularly with UKIP in meltdown and Labour veering sharply to the left.

May strongly rejected the liberal consensus that the vote for Brexit was fuelled by ignorance and racism. Instead, she condemned politicians and commentators who find ordinary people’s “patriotism distasteful, their concerns about immigration parochial, their views about crime illiberal, their attachment to their job security inconvenient.” It represented a firm pitch for the Brexit vote. May will be looking to coax back former Tories who switched to UKIP in 2015. But she will also have an eye on the one third of Labour supporters who rejected their party’s advice in June and voted to leave the EU.

Labour’s current weaknesses are a vital part of the backdrop to May’s early premiership. A large part of her appeal to the centre-ground and to “ordinary working-class people” was to communicate to moderate and patriotic Labour voters that they don’t have to settle for Corbyn (she called Labour “the nasty party,” echoing her criticism of her own party in 2002). Labour’s factional conflict between the left and moderates has meant that the party has barely responded to the challenges of the Brexit vote, other than for some moderates to hope for a second referendum. But how will it speak to the millions of Labour supporters that backed Brexit? May sought to exploit that vacuum.

The turmoil engulfing the other parties is fortunate for May. Politicians who become prime minister mid-term often fare badly—rankings of post-war prime ministers regularly position those who took over mid-term towards the bottom of the list (Macmillan is the only exception). Lacking a personal mandate and facing problems left by their predecessors, mid-term prime ministers can quickly look stale. But May used Brexit to cast herself as a change-maker. Conservative leaders have often attempted to do this, but rather than the showy liberalism of Tory modernisers, May’s appeal for a new social contract was offered as an alternative to the pro-EU values of the financial and cultural elites. The bumpy road to Brexit will test this vision but it was a bold early statement of intent.