I don’t wish to make any comments about the West sending their missiles of indignation to Syria but what I would like to pose is the rhetorical question of whether Theresa May is overriding the concepts of political democracy? She could have recalled parliament to debate the problem immediately the missiles had become a possibility; perhaps she had her own agenda to follow which would be in her favour and would justify her personal unilateral attitude towards the Syrian predicament that should have been dealt with six or seven years ago before the Russians decided to get involved. What Mrs May might have had in her mind was something that would further incubate her delicate position as the Prime minister? By taking the decision to join the “missile gang” of three when she did, it obviated having to negotiate with parliament and experience a negative vote a second time. Risky for her indeed! Taking Oscar Wilde’s perspective that to lose one election is a misfortune but to lose two is carelessness, Theresa May couldn’t risk being voted down by Parliament by delaying several days until the following Monday in order to obtain, or not obtain, a democratic vote of approval from parliament. No doubt the fear of this would have motivated her decision to preclude a second negative vote by jumping the democratic gun. As such, she didn’t experience the denigration of the mutinous Conservative MPs who would have voted against her and joined the Corbyn set. Together, their combined votes might have relegated her ambitions to the political long grass of amnesia. This would have spoilt her chances of renewing her popularity which is one thing she lacks; the reshuffling of the situation would also damage her chances to be re-elected as a wannabe “genuine” Prime minister. Another aspect that might have been relevant, is that May might have seen this as a way to keep in balance, both the European Brexit problems and the future commercial contracts (fantasies?) that she doesn’t actually have yet, and that is without solving the Irish problem of the border between North and Southern Ireland. There is also the emerging problem of the English fishing industry and the European continuance of their rights to fish in British waters. Even if Brexit eventually becomes a reality, it won’t help the relatively small English fishing fleet if the European factory boats are still allowed to trawl the British waters to the detriment of what was once a proud industry of the Fishing ports of England.
Theresa May must be feeling inadequate with all the problems that were not actually part of the pro - Brexit claims as promulgated by the likes of Boris Johnson who manipulated, if not ignored, the true, post referendum facts. The Prime minister is desperately ingratiating the UK with possible connections and potential deals with significant countries and most prominent is the predilection for the USA and the tweets of President Trump as she throws out Brexit advantages with a political “Catherine wheel” delivery that many political thinkers consider to be distractions with which she hopes to influence and distract the public from her flawed ability as a leader and her personal failings. The Salisbury poisoning was a god sent distraction for May but might well result in a pyrrhic victory for the world of diplomacy. I am afraid that Theresa May is rearing the ugly head of self-importance if not the incipience of megalomaniac type decisions and attitudes. Her Syrian involvement echoes the Thatcher success that followed the Falkland’s victory which she used to win her next general election. I suspect a similar ambition was at the back of Theresa May’s mind when she appeared to deliberately obfuscate the political atmosphere that surrounds the Syrian disaster. Obfuscated perhaps, but convenient for Theresa May’s dissimulation which maybe is a desperate attempt to remain the unilateral leader of a somewhat doubtful British democracy; a democracy that is undergoing covert assaults in the climate of early 21st century politics which is increasingly suffering from flawed contemporary interpretations which have a peripheral significance of its own. The recent fiasco about the immigrants, from Jamaica and the Caribbean Islands, who came over at the invitation of the government so that they could help the British rebuild a war-ravaged UK, won’t necessarily help Theresa’s public image. It was she, as the Home Secretary, who changed the law and took away the right of the indigenous “Windrush” blacks, who had lived in England more than fifty years as British citizens, to remain in England. Desperately, like the political chameleon she is, she suddenly develops Mother Theresa qualities, determined to help them stay, and suddenly the steps of Number Ten are filled with Black people leaving the Prime minister’s residence with Mrs Theresa May hovering apologetically in the background where she exhibits her new role as obsequious sympathiser expressing regrets at the sudden plight of the erstwhile Caribbean residents. Genuine or spurious? It might be just too little too late to extend her residence at number ten but it has to be said that she has had more than her money’s worth.