Faced with an undeliverable and ill-defined agenda - Brexit - with no public mandate, no manifesto worthy of the name and with a pack of snapping turtles around her ankles, she seems to be holding all decisions to herself.
The early days do not look good. There has been a significant and worrying shift to the right exemplified by the rhetoric about migrants, the have-nots, health tourists. She has done nothing to discourage this beyond meaningless platitudes about 'listening' (and where have we heard that before).
People have dared to ask 'Please, Miss, can we know what you are actually planning to do about this Brexit thing? Are we to be in the Single Market or not? Are we to allow free movement of people or not? What will be the economic consequences? How are we going to pay off the National Debt (which is already horrendously large) if the benefits of Brexit (if any) are not going to kick in for five years (or more)? Are we about to jump off a very high cliff with a millstone around our necks or not?
These questions are not allowed. They are certainly not answered.
No politician likes being questioned or challenged but how they react varies. If Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian is to be believed then only the left plays by the rules. Remember Blair's attempt to create a 'big tent' using people from across the 'political divide' to head up task forces. This would be unthinkable for a right-wing government like ours.
The right simply stonewalls: 'You lost get over it' or 'There will be no running commentary'. How dare we ask what on earth is going on?
As we all know, the primary purpose of the referendum was to heal a deep-seated rift in the Tory party. We, the voters, were allowed to pass an opinion which surprised us all and led to the fall of one Prime Minister, to be replaced by another from, yes, the same 'One Party'.
The vision of the Tory Party has always been clear: that they have a divine right to rule. The role of the Party has always been more important than the needs of the country (although they say they have our best interests at heart).
In a one party state, any disagreements between wings of the Party are kept behind closed doors and the public can know about Policy once the Party has resolved matters. It is not a matter for general debate or discussion.
Anyone who objects to Policy is vilified, dismissed as 'lightweights', and/or insulted. It does not take long to find the insulting adjectives in any article in the Daily Mail.
The judges dared to express a perfectly reasonable opinion on a matter of law and were vilified by the right wing press/bullies, to the extent that Gina Miller who brought the High Court action was unable to go out of her house for fear of being attacked.
Whenever people like Blair or Clegg talk about Brexit, Leavers react with sentences starting 'Why listen to the man who ...': substitute 'illegal war' or 'student fees' as appropriate. Why should these two men, both experienced politicians, be denied their right to think, or to have and express an opinion just because of their past decisions? In any sane world, they would be listened to as actually knowing what they are talking about. Let he who is without sin ...
The key problem is that they are not 'of the Party'. Trump is absolved of any past errors as he is 'one of us' (right wing) with whom 'we need to get along', just as Boris is tolerated for his misdemeanours.
The right does not grace Corbyn with insults for fear of drawing attention to a man they regard as beneath contempt.
The right answers any probing question with lines like 'We are not for turning', 'This is splendid for the UK' etc ... simple mind-numbing dull press releases re-iterating the Leader's thoughts are so anodyne to ensure they do not get the issuing Department (Truss, Grayling ...) into trouble.
The right does not seek to bring people together. It tells people to 'unite' with the unspoken addition 'behind the Party'. Believe in the Party. Trust the Party. Pure Orwell or Huxley.
At the heart of the web is a control freak: at the core of power.
We do not have to look very far for a model of what it could all look like. Just read Stephen McDonnell's article on the BBC website about the recent Plenum in China and ask yourself if it does not all sound horribly familiar.
A single Party which decides everything behind closed doors. A Party with a leader 'at the core' of its work, beginning to build a cult of personality. A Party which controls the media and brooks no opposition, no questions.
No wonder we are so keen to do business with China.
