Excellent record of the short but historical tenure of Theresa May as PM. The account in many ways inspires sympathy for the plight and circumstances May found herself in, following an unexpected and largely uncontested leadership election in the wake of the referendum. With little time for preparation and planning and under immense pressure from the party, electorate, and the media, May was thrown into the maelstrom of 'getting Brexit done!'. So what is the verdict on May as PM and how will history judge her premiership. In some ways once could suggest that this is the classic 'Peter Principle' in action, a promotion too far, however given the enormity of the task and the extreme situation of a divided electorate, parliament and party, that would seem unreasonable, indeed not since WWII has the country been faced with such historical challenges to be overcome by a new leader. It has to be acknowledged that 'Europe' has been a thorn in the side of many prime ministers, and influential in bringing down Thatcher, Major and Cameron. In addressing the challenge it must be said that difficulties of Brexit had been underestimated or ignored by the Brexiteers, 'populists' and most of the media - and were far more difficult than virtually anyone imagined. That, and a well disciplined, effective and strong EU 'fighting their corner' and putting the EU and it's structure / principles 'first' (understandably) made the role even more demanding. Cameron had failed to get much from the EU, so they were not going to 'roll over' to a country leaving the club, in spite of how easy people like Farage and the Leave campaign claimed it would be. Furthermore, the splits in her own party and the lack of loyal friends further exacerbated the task for May. Let's remember that May was a seasoned, experienced and able politician who had done a very good job in the Home Office, with significant talents. She is undoubtedly very strong, disciplined, determined, driven, conscientious, hard working and a woman of values and integrity - wonderful qualities you might say. But given the circumstances, these strengths and virtues whilst admirable, proved not to be enough in the role and under the extreme circumstances she found herself. So what went wrong? Her first 10 months were a 'honeymoon' where most things actually went right, but instead of using this time to forge effective relationships with her cabinet and MP's, reach out across parties and listen to the electorate in order to formulate a 'winnable' Brexit which would enable us to leave but also took into consideration the 48% and 'business', she was insular, independent and reliant on a small group of close advisors, not least Timothy and Hill. Their advice led to so many strategic errors in revoking Article 50 too soon, setting out too many 'red lines' to early and failing to involve and gain consensus behind a clear strategy and set of tactics. These factors were to cause significant issues going forward, but the biggest errors were to come, notably calling an election, but more fundamental, setting out an unpopular and complex manifesto that was conceived behind 'closed doors'. Of course the election proved a disaster given the approach, which instead of 'Get Brexit Done!' tried to introduce policies and approaches where buy in was extremely low, and in many cases attacked her base (Triple Lock / Winter Fuel / Bus Passes / Grammar Schools / Social Care) This with the added issue of a very poor 'campaigner', wooden, robotic, lacking the charisma of a Blair or Cameron produced the disastrous election result which delivered power not to May, but to the DUP and the ERG (and to the Remainers). After the election, a further opportunity to 'reach out' and 'involve' and allow 'cross party' talks was missed. The outcome was the abject failure of the 'meaningful votes' on the doomed Chequers deal, and of course the inability to get Brexit done. So for me, the failure of May as PM in achieving her main objectives, was not so simple as her 'personality' or lack of 'emotional intelligence' as so many are wont to allege, but actually a string of disastrous mistakes in strategy and tactics. So who would have done a better job? The irony is that Johnson would certainly have more charisma, charm and personality than May. He would have possibly been better at building support across his party, and no doubt his 'election' would have been more successful under the guidance of Cummings. On the other hand, the EU would have hardly been less intransigent, probably more if anything, and the challenges would have been just as great in negotiating a 'deal', with a high risk of a 'no deal' outcome. Of course, had Boris been leader, gone to the country and won a large majority (as he has) in 2017, he would have had the power that May so earnestly craved, to get Brexit done by 29th March (as he has now done in Jan 2020). The big question about Boris however, is what type of Brexit would it have been, and importantly what sort of trade deal will he get? The jury has decided largely on May, and for me, if I am being kind, she remains a talented, principled and honest individual facing up to extreme circumstances, who in other times and with a little more luck, would have been a good PM with a good 'One Nation' set of policies. Now we can watch how Boris does in similar circumstances but with the 'power' to do his 'own thing'. Yes we are 'out', but how will he fare in negotiating a trade deal not only with the EU, but also with the USA and other countries, and what will be the long term results for the country, the Union and the people.....on that the Jury is still very much out! I hope for the country and not least the 'poorer' areas that voted Leave that it works out, but I would not 'bet the house' on it!!