How Do You Solve A Problem Like Theresa?

In one of the better villain lines of cinematic history, James Mason’s character in North By Northwest describes a troublesome adversary as “a matter best disposed of at a great height ... over water”. Would that this expedient solution was available to the Conservative Party which - having missed many opportunities during Theresa May’s Humiliation Tour of Europe over recent months - now faces the ghastly prospect of a Vote Of Confidence.

Events are moving fast; even given the normally ephemeral nature of blogging, Sordel sets finger to keyboard knowing that suspense will be brief and the matter largely settled either today or shortly thereafter. Yet, so rich & aromatic is this smoke for the connoisseur of game theory that it is irrestistable to draw it in and linger over it for a moment before breathing it back into the air to be lost forever.

In terms of tactics nothing should be more simple. The Prime Minister clearly does not carry the confidence of her party. No fewer than a hundred were expected to vote against her Brexit deal had she not put the motion back in her pocket and walked away whistling. If a hundred would oppose in public, it's a reasonable guess that others would oppose given the luxury of a secret ballot. On paper, Brexiters (whose letters largely, if not exclusively, triggered the vote) should vote against her. Remainers should vote against her.

Yet behind these seemingly straightforward decisions there is a lot for a Tory to ponder. Moderate Remainers and Brexiters could probably rally around the current deal to avoid the possibilities of No Deal or a so-called “People’s Vote” (which is just another referendum only this time made less threatening to anyone intimidated by four-syllable words). Hardline Brexiters have to weigh the possibility of wielding the knife yet losing the crown. And noisy Remainers face the exquisite paradox that although they are very keen to extend a vote to the country in general, they are genuinely terrified of putting a choice to their own party membership, who are very likely to impose a Brexiter leader should the vote fall to a free choice between a candidate from one of the party’s two extreme wings.

So although Conservative MPs don’t back Theresa May, there can be very little appetite to remove her. If she wins the vote, she is entitled to stay as leader: she cannot be challenged again for twelve months.

This is the key problem.

For while the parliamentary party might be happy to leave her in place severely wounded, there can be no delight anywhere at the prospect of giving her security of tenure until after Brexit. Unfortunately for her, the Prime Minister is not at all trusted by either wing: putting the Union in jeopardy has alienated even the somewhat Brexit-agnostic to her right; pulling the vote and humiliating the party has enflamed the paranoia of those to her Left to such an extent that it is widely suspected that she is engineering a stealth No Deal. Should either mistrust prove founded, there would be the numbers to support an opposition-led No Confidence vote, but that would be the only way to remove her and they would have to face a General Election whose result is highly uncertain.

The twelve-month moritorium on further votes was introduced to give the leader some security again endless Votes of Confidence, but it may prove to the decisive factor in unseating Mrs. May. A calculating Tory MP on the Remain side might rationally conclude that keeping her in place is hardly worse than having even the most loathed Brexiter in her place. (Indeed, there is a reasonable argument for saying that a loathed Brexiter in her place might be very good for a Remainer, giving considerable cover for moves against future government motions.)

When neither wing has a possible route to victory, it hardly matters what the result is, and that's how Mrs. May got the job in the first place.

[Image copyright: Reuters]

Everyone Says I Hate You

The unmasking of Harvey Weinstein (if one can describe as an unmasking the public revelation that what he appeared - on the most cursory of glances - to be was actually what he was) has led to a remarkable wave of self-congratulation in Hollywood. Weinstein, a traditionalist who seemingly regarded the starlets as his own personal seraglio, was, until 2017, doing pretty much what the rest of us thought most producers were doing. Had he not actually attempted to ruin the careers of his more unyielding targets, he would almost certainly have harassed his way into a comfortable retirement. Now he's long gone, and we are told that a new spirit has seized not only the film industry but all other industries, as though some sort of leadership role is automatically conferred to the industry with the most appalling wrongdoers. It's almost like Volkswagen gets to lead the world in anti-Vivisection campaigning.

This has now become a problem for Woody Allen, who has certainly slept with more than one of his leading ladies (Diane Keaton & Mia Farrow to name but two) but not, as far as anyone knows, outside the bounds of strict propriety. And I think that we now would know, because open season has been announced. For the most part this involves the Clintonian defence from actors: they worked with him once, they didn't inhale and they wouldn't do it again. Rebecca Hall, Colin Firth & Mira Sorvino are just some of those doing the walk of shame, apologising for having dared work with him in the first place.

People are choosing to believe that the furore over Allen goes back to 2014, when Dylan Farrow tried (somewhat unsuccessfully) to get actors interested in her renewed accusation that the director had molested her. The reality of the matter is that everyone of an age to remember will recall that these accusations came to light at the time of Allen's separation from Mia Farrow in 1992. So the much-repeated excuse from actors that "I wouldn't have worked with him if I had known then what I now know" rings pretty empty, even were they to know what they are claiming to know. Moreover, even if you set aside the idea that Allen molested one adopted daughter, it is a matter of public record that another adopted daughter - whom he first met at about the age of nine and to whom he owed an unambiguous duty of care - became his sexual partner and subsequently his wife. It's odd to take in one's stride the relationship with Soon-Yi and yet baulk at the accusations regarding Dylan.

These actors posturing over Allen are therefore wrong in two different ways. In the first place, if they are concerned about his sexual biography then they had plenty of reason to avoid him in 1992. If they were worried about the Dylan Farrow accusations, these have been known for as long as many of them have had careers. Yet they were investigated and no prosecution brought at the time. The Law did not sleep over Allen the way that it could be said to have done about other historic accusations. Isn't punishing someone because one believes the legal system to have failed the very definition of Vigilantism?

Greta Gerwig's "come to Jesus" moment was seemingly being nominated for two Academy awards. Gerwig had appeared in the 2012 film To Rome With Love and, like every actor who appears in an Allen-helmed feature, had presumably enjoyed the career boost that comes from inclusion in one of the director's stellar ensembles. It was a useful step up for a young actress, but now her movie Lady Bird is up for several Oscars and, frankly, this is no time to leave dots undotted and crosses uncrossed. So she came out and joined the attack on Allen. She also "guided" another Lady Bird actor, Timothée Chamalet, to donate his fee from another Allen film to charity.

Gerwig doesn't strike me as an activist. Her previous brush with controversy came only last year after she signed a letter opposing an Israeli-backed play. She later climbed down from her support, writing in words that seem especially ironic today that "to put my name to something outside my personal realm of knowledge or experience was a mistake - my mistake - and I am sorry for any confusion or hurt I may have caused'. Her stated positions are at the very least subject to review.

But more worrying than Gerwig herself is what her behaviour says about an industry that was so recently terrorised by Weinstein. If, as Sordel suspects, she fears that insufficient condemnation of Allen may tip the balance in Oscar deliberations, doesn't this show that while the new boss is not the same as the old boss, it is still a boss that governs through terror? Now that Allen's star is seen on the wane it is hardly surprising to see people turn on him. Genuflecting to Power is still the only game in town when L.A. is the town under consideration.



Picture credit to Georges Biard, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49011499