Just over a year ago we had a general election and the Tories, to their own slight surprise, found themselves in power with a thin majority. That majority was won on the basis of a manifesto. By tradition, the Lords do not challenge matters of policy contained in a manifesto which seems fair enough.
Being human, we may have voted Tory in the expectation that David Cameron would be the leader and that many familiar faces would be on the front bench with him. That is the nearest we common people come to being able to choose our Prime Minister.
Now, we have a Prime Minister we did not expect. No harm in that. It has happened before, John Major and Gordon Brown being the most recent examples.
The big surprise was the almost clean sweep of the existing front bench that followed. Not that one regretted seeing the back of some of them of course. Out went the 'Notting Hill set' and in came a collection of new faces, many of them women (which was good to see).
So where does that leave the manifesto and does the Brexit vote somehow trump the manifesto or add to it. In short, where are we actually going?
The new chancellor has instantly over-turned George Osborne's target of balancing the budget, a major plank of the original manifesto. The 100,000 cap on migrant numbers - which was a farce anyway - has been formally dropped. Now we seem to be having eleventh hour second thoughts about Chinese investment in Hinckley Point power station which is hardly going to do much for our credibility in future trade negotiations with a country that we are going to need really really badly if/when we leave the EU.
As many commentators have pointed out, we have not even had the benefit of a hustings to see what our Prime Minister's policies might be. All we have is her speech at the door to No 10 which made all the right noises about the common person but, and forgive a slightly cynical note, that sort of thing has been said before and ignored the following day.
The only thing we do know is that 'Brexit means Brexit'. It is unclear whether this should be translated as 'I intend to take us out of Europe' or 'the dictionary definition of Brexit is "a British exit from Europe"'.
The track record of some of the participants is not encouraging.
Our Prime Minister actually voted to Remain and yet seems happy to change her spots to achieve the top job. As Home Office Minister, she managed to miss the spurious and unachievable target of keeping migrant numbers under 100,000. She has no Foreign Affairs or Trade Department experience and is faced with the biggest change in our foreign and trade relations in 40 years.
Our Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, was described by one journalist as a person who 'had yet to find a ministerial job that he could not do badly or slowly'. He it was who wanted to ban access to books for prisoners and introduced the ludicrous magistrate's charge: two policies overturned (eventually) by his successor. He will be in charge of little matters like airport expansion and HS2.
Our new Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss, was described by one journalist as being 'indissolubly wedded to a set of theories about how the world should be, that are impervious to argument, facts or experience ... She seems determined to dismantle the protections that secure our quality of life: the rules and agencies defending the places and wildlife we love.'
And Andrea Leadsom ... has anyone got anything positive to say?
It is impossible to know where to start with the idea of Boris Johnson being in charge of the smooth, diplomatic Foreign Office and of our spies given his track record of naked ambition, gossip, lying, bumbling and various other misdemeanours. The reaction from other countries said it all as the UK became a laughing-stock.
And Andrea Leadsom ... has anyone got anything positive to say?
It is impossible to know where to start with the idea of Boris Johnson being in charge of the smooth, diplomatic Foreign Office and of our spies given his track record of naked ambition, gossip, lying, bumbling and various other misdemeanours. The reaction from other countries said it all as the UK became a laughing-stock.
Liam Fox and David Davies, his Brexit henchmen each carry baggage which is best forgotten.
There are many others. It does not make a happy story. I wonder what they will cook up over the summer and whether, at some point, we will be given the equivalent of a new manifesto or plan for the coming four years. Somehow, I doubt it.
All we can assume is that the government has lurched to the right and so the result is unlikely to be pleasant.
There are two common definitions of politics. The first, more honourable one, is along the lines of the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. The second is the manoevring and back-stabbing between people which achieves power.
As one correspondent wrote: 'Politics makes such good drama because it is about the lust for power, driving ambition, the balance between cynicism and belief. It is about when to strike - brutal and quick - and when to stay the hand. But it is also about personality, about an inner life and inner doubts that haunt us all. It is about self-confidence and the need for love. Never more so than in this drama.' A damming indictment indeed. If there is a coat then let us turn it.
Elsewhere, we were reminded of the thought that 'values are at the heart of politics. Without values, politics are nothing'. This clearly referred to the first definition of the activity: certainly not the second.
