Play all audios:
She was an apology for a Prime Minister, but she acted with dignity by returning to the back benches and looking after her constituents rather than dashing off to make money and causing a
by-election. Until now she has rarely carped at her successor and has resisted the temptation to meddle, an attitude one could respect. Alas, no longer. She and Boris are chalk and cheese.
He is cheerful and gregarious, she is a buttoned-up loner. He is charismatic, she is dull. His private life is a chaos of immorality, hers is immaculate. He makes people laugh, she bores
them. He wings it, she plods. So they were never destined to get on but for her to accuse him of immoral government is beyond parody. In case anybody has forgotten, it was Mrs May who
assured us all that her awful deal could not tie us to EU rules for ever. Then her government actually published extracts from the Attorney General’s advice to support her case but when
Parliament demanded to see the full unedited advice, it said the exact opposite. I never did know how she got away with it, as misleading the House of Commons is Parliament’s equivalent to
the sin against the Holy Ghost. That leaves her about as entitled to lecture Boris on moral government as he would be to lecture her on marital fidelity. Her specific grievances were that
the PM threatened to break certain clauses in the withdrawal agreement with the EU and that he has cut overseas aid. As to the first, it was what broke the EU’s colossal nerve. As for the
second, readers will know I have never been in favour of cutting overseas aid but rather of redirecting it and of having objectives (eg a pure water supply) rather than expenditure as
targets. There is no very great morality in spending regardless of effectiveness, as Mrs May seems to think. Theresa, your house is made of glass.