Amber Rudd has been accused of blatant careerism in her 180-degree U-turn, not just regarding her views on Boris Johnson as a prospective boss, but also on his current policy of leaving a no-deal Brexit on the table.
When the work and pensions secretary told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that leaving without a deal on October 31 should be “part of the leverage to make sure people compromise more”, she was asked whether this was a job-saving pivot from her previous views. She explained, “I accept I’ve changed, I accept circumstances have changed as well.”
This flip-flop, coming after her assertion last week that she would be prepared to serve in a Cabinet led by Boris Johnson as PM, has ruffled feathers across Westminster and beyond from both sides of the House. Leftwing commentator Owen Jones was quick to ask, ‘Amber Rudd, how could you?’ writing how this once again proves the myth of the ‘compassionate Tory’ to be just that. And more personal barbs came from her own party where, it seems, she is no longer welcome in the staunch Remainer group seeking to find an instrument of parliament that could permanently squash a no-deal.
The Sun quoted a group insider complaining she was “two-faced”, “couldn’t be trusted”, while another of its number, Guto Bebb, MP for Aberconwy since 2010, told the Times her U-turn was absolutely disgraceful, saying: “I’m surprised that my hill farmers have to pay the price to keep Amber in cabinet. I find it absolutely disgraceful. Either you believe in things or you don’t. She clearly has decided that she doesn’t.”
This comes after Rudd’s former defiance of the Tory whip, abstaining on a vote to rule out no-deal back in March, and putting her name to an article asserting it would be better to delay Brexit than “crash out of the EU”. She had been one of the Cabinet members tipped to resign if the Prime Minister pursued a no-deal Brexit.
Add to all this her memorable zinger about Boris Johnson being the life and soul of the party, but not someone you’d want driving you home afterwards, and it’s easy to see why her most recent statements have been interpreted as a self-interested move to safeguard her job, come Johnson’s expected move into Downing Street next week.
Pure careerism, then… and what exactly is wrong with that? Particularly for a woman with a jaw-droppingly small majority of 326 (0.5%) in her constituency of Hastings and Rye, talk of a General Election brewing, and her clear satisfaction with the job she’s currently doing at the Department of Work and Pensions?
For a start, it puts her at her odds with at least two of her Cabinet colleagues. Philip Hammond is clearly expecting to be chancellor for only a few more days and is preparing for battle beyond. He said cheerfully last week, “It has not escaped my attention that the next prime minister’s majority will be only three, and that I will be a backbencher.
“Parliament is going to be where the action is, and I will be there on the back benches.
With similar cheerfulness, Rory Stewart, current Secretary of State for International Development, appears to be exalting in his outsider status, claiming he would never work in a Johnson Cabinet and getting as far away from Westminster as possible. Following his failed tip at party leadership, he’s off to hear what the people have to say, and is even preparing to mount a Tory version of Momentum.
Of course Stewart was likely to be sacked anyway, but a crucial political skill is the ability to put one’s finger in the air, feel which way the wind is blowing, and act before losing face.
Quitting a Cabinet role over principle has a history of mixed fortune. While Geoffrey Howe’s resignation was seen as the final nail in Margaret Thatcher’s premiership coffin, Michael Heseltine later reflected on the years of exile that followed his own departure as “a complete waste of time”. When Robin Cook quit the Government over his PM’s commitment to military action in the Iraq war, his resignation speech was rewarded by the first-ever standing ovation in the House of Commons, and from the backbenches he became a totem for integrity and independent thinking in his tragically short subsequent career.
Perhaps the most pertinent lesson for Amber Rudd is Clare Short. When Robin Cook left, she initially chose to stay as International Development Secretary and suffered the same heckles over her principles, or lack thereof, as Rudd does now. But she quit anyway two months later, became increasingly isolated from her colleagues and eventually resigned the Labour whip three years later. If staying did her no favours, quitting really didn’t either.
Amber Rudd clearly feels the same need as Short for someone who disagrees with her leader to stay in the room, and hopefully serve as a moderating influence. She told the Times at the weekend she would be arguing for a “sensible Brexit” and that it would be a mistake for the new PM to exclude all the former Remainers when he has such a tiny Commons majority.
Besides Brexit, she loves her actual job of running work and pensions, and is one of the MPs determined to do what she can whether or not we leave the EU. Her diary notes her visiting 25 job centres in six months, and she says herself, “I wasn’t sure I would enjoy or be good at this job but I love it because there is so much you can do, tiny changes that really affect people.”
Charged with preparing her department for life post-Brexit, she cites its recent moves to prepare a hardship fund for inevitably raised unemployment. She claims it is also ready to pay pensions overseas. Bearing in mind the Windrush debacle that saw her departure from the Home Office, one imagines she doesn’t scrimp on the paperwork.
If careerism is wanting to keep all this vital work on track, bearing in mind no one actually knows what will happen on October 31st or if Boris Johnson will in any way stick to what he’s promising his ballot-paper congregation, who is anyone to say that’s a bad thing?
It’s worth remembering, too, that Michael Gove, a fully-paid up arch-Leaver, got nothing like the same kind of grief from allies and rivals for changing his mind and putting his weight behind Theresa May’s proposed withdrawal agreement, showing us, if we needed reminding, that women remain held to a higher standard on personal qualities such as consistency.
Of course the simplest defence of Amber Rudd’s recent actions is that, as a thoughtful, intelligent person, she’s allowed to change her mind in changed circumstances.
In which case, we might gently whisper, why can’t the rest of us?
