May’s convictions
Sir: Nick Timothy seeks sympathy by revealing that his ‘loved ones’ are upset by the personal attacks to which he is now subject (Diary, 17 June). They could have been spared distress if he had not invited retaliation by swearing at senior ministers and civil servants who crossed him. How could a prim vicar’s daughter have allowed endless profanities from this ill-mannered man and his ill-tempered associate Fiona Hill? Perhaps Timothy’s most extraordinary claim is that ‘a return to traditional campaigning methods’ was planned but Lynton Crosby vetoed it. Traditionally the Tories did not contract out their campaign to consultants charging vast fees. The leader and party chairman took charge. The manifesto was carefully costed. Commitments in it were explained in detailed briefings for candidates from the Conservative Research Department.
Timothy fails to tell us what we most want to know. Did the statist manifesto reflect Mrs May’s convictions, or were he and ‘the brilliant Ben Gummer’ able to cook up the whole thing between them because she has no convictions of her own?
Alistair Lexden
House of Lords, London SW1
A brisk electoral response
Sir: Nick Timothy declares a new principle of social justice in claiming that younger people should not pay for the care of older people.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in