© Ben Jones
Show Hide image

Hacking the brain: can DIY neuroscience make you happier – and smarter?

Using kit purchased on the internet for £60, trend-setters are perking up their brains with low-level blasts of electricity. Lucy Jones tries it out.

The emperor Claudius suffered from the most savage migraines. By 46AD, he was in his late fifties and, presumably at his wits’ end from the pain, he agreed that his esteemed doctor Scribonius Largus could try something new and a little off-the-wall.

Largus, who had his work cut out for him looking after a boss with a long list of health problems and a mercurial temper, paid a local fisherman to catch a couple of electric eels from the Mediterranean Sea. Back at the palace, he held them to the emperor’s temples in an attempt to quell his excruciating headache. It is the first recorded instance of electrical stimulation being used as a medical treatment.

Fast-forward two thousand years or so to a couple of students in their early twenties in a bedroom in Leeds, using electricity in an attempt to make their lives better and easier. A brain stimulation kit bought on the internet includes the wires, electrode sponges, headband and basic device needed to get them started. A nine-volt battery is not included.

Katie, 23, has suffered from anxiety and depression since she was 18. When her boyfriend Lee told her about transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS), a form of neurostimulation that involves administering a low level of electrical current to the brain, she was sceptical. But Lee had heard that it could help people with mood disorders and wondered if she might benefit.

“The first time, I freaked out,” she remembers. “I thought, ‘I can’t cope with putting electrical stimulations in my brain.’ Lee put this machine on and, it’s difficult to explain, but everything went empty in a good way. I can’t remember if I’ve ever felt like that. I felt relaxed and chilled inside. It was a mad sensation and an out-of-body experience.”

She’d tried antidepressants in the past but found they didn’t work for her. Now Katie uses the kit regularly. “It’s improved my life and improved my mind,” she says.

Lee uses the tDCS kit for different reasons. He was intrigued by its claims to enhance learning. Motivated by his general interest in self-improvement, he bought the kit from a website for about £60. The first time he used it, he found it easier to revise for his degree. The information “stuck” better, and for longer. He got a First.

I ask if he is concerned that zapping his brain could be dangerous. He is a bit worried – “At the end of the day, you’re frying your brain” – but hasn’t noticed any negative effects so far.

 

***

 

Katie and Lee aren’t alone. Small but growing numbers of people are delivering electric currents to their heads at home with online kits. Some in this DIY brain-zapping community build their own machines from scratch. If you’ve got basic electrical skills and know how to wire a circuit board, a kit is relatively easy to make. Garage neuroscientists do it for various reasons: to speed-learn, pick up languages quickly, treat depression, reduce anxiety, increase attention span, soothe migraines, get smarter, improve confidence and memory and motor skills. The claims made for tDCS are varied and seemingly endless.

Its potential is being explored by medical and scientific professionals seeking to help people suffering from a number of diseases and symptoms, from depression to epilepsy. While scientists aren’t completely sure how it affects behaviour – and there are sceptics – we know that a flow of electrical current affects the way the brain works. The basic science is simple and it works like this: administering direct current to a particular part of the brain makes it more likely that neurons will fire under the anode ­(positive) and less likely they will fire under the cathode (negative).

Roi Cohen Kadosh, a research lecturer at the department of experimental ­psychology at Oxford University, says: “What we can say about tDCS is that it does change how our brain works. It changes the level of excitability of different brain regions.”

tDCS has been used for over 100 years but was overshadowed for much of the 20th century by electroconvulsive therapy and drug treatments. It became popular again in 2000 with the increased use of new brain-imaging techniques, such as fMRI, and other brain stimulation methods such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clinical trials and studies of the effects, ­veracity, safety and future of tDCS continue to mushroom. This year, it looks like kits might become readily available for the first time.

When I first heard about tDCS, it conjured up stereotypical images of shock treatment from Sylvia Plath’s novel The Bell Jar and the film of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (which the Royal College of Psychiatrists said did for electroconvulsive therapy what Jaws did for sharks). But as I read more about it, I learned that the current normally used is extremely low (1 to 2 milliamps, compared with typically 800 milliamps in electroconvulsive therapy). It sounded, within a controlled environment, safe. Maybe I should try it.

One day I went to University College London’s Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience to act as a guinea pig for a doctoral student, Camilla Nord. She is running a trial on the effects of tDCS when used together with cognitive behavioural therapy – a talking treatment – to treat depression. I climbed the stairs feeling excited. My mood changers these days are limited to coffee and sugar. Would I get a buzz off electricity?

To improve the accuracy of her result, Nord is using a “double-blind” experiment, in which half her volunteers receive sham tDCS. No one, including Nord, knows whether it is a placebo or not.

According to Nord, “tDCS is this ­amazing tool and a way that neuroscience can help psychiatry”. She is hoping to find that it augments the effect of cognitive behavioural therapy, making both treatments more successful than they are in isolation. She is confident that by directing an electrical current at the neurons in the dysfunctioning area of the brain that causes depression, she can make that area more active.

I sign a form and confirm that I don’t have a history of seizures. Nord takes down my hair and puts a headband on my head. She positions two sponges dipped in saline solution on the front of my skull where the frontal cortex sits under my cranium. A towel around my neck mops up the water dripping down.

She presses the button. “I don’t feel anything.” Zap. “Should I feel something now?” Zap. She explains that there might be some tingling of the skin and continues to administer the current to my cranium. Zap, zap, zap. I feel tingling but it could just be the cold water on my scalp.

Then I’m given a brain-training “N-back” test on a PC in the corner. It’s quite hard and the room is hot. I’m not very good at it, and feel flustered. I expected heightened senses or a sharpening of my brain.

Aren’t I supposed to feel smarter?

“Saying tDCS makes you smarter is an unhelpful myth; but that doesn’t mean that tiny, specific tDCS might not make you better at tiny, specific things,” Nord explains.

We talk about recent studies that have cast doubt on the efficacy of tDCS but Nord remains optimistic that neuroscience can help people with depression and other psychiatric conditions. She is worried about people using the kits at home, however. “tDCS should be more readily available if that means people can buy safe machines. Because of the publicity about it, you get people fabricating their own machines at home with seriously unusual side effects.”

I leave feeling relaxed and a bit spaced out, but that might be tiredness from a few hours spent talking about complex science. I had the electrical current for only about five minutes. Perhaps when I try tDCS with the DIY community in east London they might be a little more cavalier with their dosages and times. But now I’m feeling a little more cautious after Nord’s warnings; I don’t really want skull burn.

 

***

 

The next morning I talk on Skype to Xavier, a French man who took part in Camilla Nord’s trial. Last summer, while working in the City as a banker, he began feeling depressed. He went to a GP who prescribed him pills. They didn’t work. The doctor offered cognitive behavioural therapy but there was a six-month wait. Desperate, he took up the offer to be part of the UCL experiment that offered cognitive behavioural therapy alongside tDCS.

“My friends thought it sounded a bit crazy, but I thought, ‘I need to find a solution,’” Xavier says.

Although he doesn’t know whether the tDCS he received was real, Xavier believes it was, because he felt burning on his scalp. He’s much better now and looks happy and healthy. I ask if he’d use electricity again. “In a controlled environment,” he says. “The brain is the greatest asset we all have, so you have to be careful.”

It is people like Xavier who Marom Bikson, professor of biomedical engineering at the City College of New York, hopes will benefit from tDCS as it becomes mainstream. Bikson is a leading voice in the field. He says: “I think, I hope, that tDCS has a huge potential to remove human suffering and that’s why I’m very anxious for it to be made available.”

As well as depression, he mentions fibromyalgia, neural pain and status epilepticus as serious health problems that might be treated with electricity. Depression is the area where he has seen the most encouraging results. “That’s why I’m not comfortable waiting 15 years for us to work out all the scientific questions. There are people suffering today who could benefit from this technology. Their lives are shattered by their diseases and it’s so unfortunate that something that might – big ‘might’ – be able to help them, and is considered so safe that we’ll use it on college students, is not available.”

But he is confident this is going to change very soon. “What is needed is clinical-grade tDCS, which should be made available for people to use at home. That path needs to open up and I think it will later this year.”

In April, I attend the Magstim Neuro­science Conference 2015 at Oxford University. (Magstim is a company specialising in transcranial magnetic stimulation devices, so tDCS is on the agenda.) I meet Nick Davis, a lecturer in psychology at Swansea University, who is studying the effects of tDCS on motor control. I ask him how we can use brain stimulation to improve performance in sport.

Davis gives tennis as an example, and the length of time tennis players spend getting their serve right. Imagine if they could use tDCS to reduce this. “It could free up their time to do other things and make them better players,” he says.

Of course that raises a question of ethics. Would we count that as cheating? Would we put it in the same category as using steroids? And what of the difference between sport and artistic performance?

“Say I give you cocaine and you run faster in a sprint; we would consider that cheating,” he says. “But if I give you cocaine and you write a better song, we don’t think that’s cheating – we just think that’s being in a band. We don’t care that an album was made on drugs. In sport, we care about the effort people put in so anything that improves your effort is cheating.”

The comparison between cocaine and electricity leads me to wonder how addictive tDCS could be. Most of us resort to drugs when we want to change our mood, whether it’s caffeine, a glass of wine or something stronger. I am conscious that my interest in tDCS is triggering a kind of appetite for or excitement about a potential new way of hushing my racing head and balancing my mood. But Davis doesn’t think that ­electricity could be addictive: “In the same way as performing a ritual can become not addictive but part of your behaviour, there is that potential. Is it addictive in the same way as nicotine and alcohol? I don’t think so.” Bikson agrees, describing the doses being used currently as “baby aspirin” level.

Bikson’s talk at the Oxford conference, “Are We Ready To Go Home?”, is about taking tDCS into people’s houses safely. He argues that it is deployable, simple and safe, that there is considerable patient demand for it, and that we need to stop people resorting to home-made kits, as even low-intensity stimulation can cause harm when applied with bad technology.

The numbers Bikson quotes are persuasive: 40,000 tDCS sessions have taken place over the past 15 years, with no serious adverse effects documented in nearly 1,000 studies published.

He suggests some ways to regulate over-the-counter devices: single-use electrodes, single-position headgear, or one dose stored on a single physical module. A code that ­unlocks the device could act like a safety lid on a bottle of Calpol.

Finally, Bikson advocates making tDCS freely available in the interests of science. As Davis says, “No one wants to stop people innovating: it’s how things happen. But you’ve got to think about people’s safety.”

For people who want to try tDCS, such as the musician St Vincent, who tweeted in December that all she wanted for Christmas was a tDCS machine, how close is this to reality? “That ship has sailed. It’s just a case of accelerating it,” says Bikson. “People have to get used to the idea of using electricity instead of pills.”

The Thync System, which went on the market in June, might be the first big step. It doesn’t make medical claims: it’s a cognitive enhancement tool (costing $299) that promises “to deliver pulsed neurostimulation waveforms to modulate psychophysiological arousal for lifestyle or wellness applications”. The manufacturers are quite cagey with information but say the devices “use neuro-signalling to induce shifts in ­energy and calm states within minutes”. Bikson is a product adviser and a fan, though he struggles to find the words to describe Thync’s effects: “It’s not how coffee or wine makes us feel, it’s the way electricity makes us feel.”

Although tDCS is already being used in a couple of private hospitals in the United States it won’t be available on ­prescription from your GP yet. NICE, the UK health regulator, is developing guidance on its use for depression; two pivotal multi-centre trials for treating depression with tDCS are also under way.

The two recurring themes in my conversations with scientists are optimism about tDCS as a tool for treatment, on the one hand, and concern about people experimenting at home on the other. Davis is wary of the activity of DIY enthusiasts. “It’s dangerous,” he says, “but they tend to know it’s dangerous.” Contributors to the busy DIY tDCS forum on Reddit, a bulletin-board-type website, discuss recent studies and share personal experiences and tips about which “montages” – how the electrodes are positioned – to use. That way, you can stimulate the specific parts of the brain governing anything from numerical reasoning and improved socialisation to migraine pain and the reduction of cravings. It is mainly a practical forum for individual users. “Best electrode to avoid skin burn?” is a typical query.

 

***

 

I visit a hackspace in east London to meet Andrew Vladimirov, a Russian neuroscientist who runs a computer security business. He’s a member of Brain Hackers, a group of neuroscientists, electronics engineers and hobbyists. It is a step up from the Reddit DIYers; this group strives to enhance the field of neurostimulation and make it available to others.

There’s an old arcade game in one corner and a tuck shop selling penny sweets and Space Raiders crisps, next to an area filled with brewing apparatus. Experts and amateurs interested in hacking, gaming, science, technology and innovation mill around surrounded by sewing machines, 3D-printed octopuses and other animals, Rubik’s Cubes, lab coats, old computers, new computers and a laser cutting machine. Outside, guys fly drones next to a caravan for “Robotics”. The bookshelves read like poetry: Practical Ruby Projects, Drupal, The Definitive Guide to Grails, The Klingon Dictionary, In Code.

Soon after Vladimirov arrives it becomes clear that he views tDCS as boring and is more interested in other ways of altering the brain, such as magnetic fields, lasers, ultrasound and alternating current. He seeks to measure brain activity simultaneously through electroencephalographic (EEG) devices, including the readily available, consumer-friendly Muse and MindWave, as well as more hackish, DIY headgear.

There is talk of nootropics (smart drugs). Vladimirov wears a locket-type container around his neck containing a couple of doses of piracetam for emergencies. Like many others in London’s DIY neurostimulation community, he is a transhumanist: one who strives to enhance human life with science, health research, technology and innovation.

I ask Vladimirov if I can try something and he applies a combination of transcranial, pulsed magnetic-field and laser stimulation at alpha-band frequency to the back of my head for ten minutes. He is using a machine produced by a friend in Ukraine (where this device is apparently used to treat depression and anxiety). Afterwards, my vision seems slightly sharper and I have a bit more energy; but I am paranoid I’ve damaged my brain.

We talk about safety and Vladimirov allows that it would be possible to get into a state you didn’t want to be in – say, highly alert, or very mellow – and not be able to get out. I don’t think I’ll be rushing to buy a kit on the internet. Later, I have strange dreams. I feel nauseous for the rest of the evening and the next day, though this could be from something I ate.

I catch up on the tDCS Reddit and find a plea from a bipolar patient desperate to find a montage to help him study psychology: “I read a post here, of a guy who used tDCS day before exam, couldn’t study earlier because his grandpa passed away or something. Anyway. He aced on the tests. Tried finding it to know what montage he used. Can’t find it,” he says, asking for a “partner in this journey”.

Various users offer advice, and then there’s a breakthrough. “Hey, that’s me!” says the guy whose grandfather’s illness caused him to miss classes. It turns out he’s J D Leadam, the 25-year-old chief executive of Neurolectrics and creator of the Brain Stimulator – the machine used by, among others, Lee and Katie in Leeds. He gives details of the montage he uses and links out to his own Brain Stimulator site.

In a way, Leadam the young entrepreneur, Bikson the eminent scientist and Vladimirov the hackspace pioneer are all coming from the same place: if we can improve the brain, why shouldn’t we?

This article is published simultaneously in the “Brain” season of The Long + Short, Nesta’s free online magazine of ideas and innovation. thelongandshort.org

This article first appeared in the 26 June 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Bush v Clinton 2

Picture: David Parkin
Show Hide image

The humbling of Theresa May

The Prime Minister has lost all authority. The Tories will remove her as soon as they feel the time is right.

Being politicians of unsentimental, ruthless realism, the Conservatives did not linger in the grief stage of their collective disaster after the general election. Disbelief, too, was commendably brief.

Currently, their priority is to impose some sort of order on themselves. This is the necessary prelude to the wholesale change that most see as the next phase in their attempt at recovery, which they all know is essential to their career prospects – and believe is vital to a country whose alternative prime minister is Jeremy Corbyn.

For that reason, talk of Theresa May enduring as Prime Minister until the end of the Brexit negotiations in two years’ time is the preserve of just a few wishful thinkers. Some sort of calm is being established but the party is far from settled or united; there is a widespread conviction that it cannot be so under the present leader.

Elements of the great change have been executed, as Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, May’s former advisers, will testify.

However, this is only beginning, as shown by the debate in the media about how long May can survive in Downing Street. There is dissatisfaction about elements of her recent reshuffle, but it is quieted because few believe that some of the more contentious appointments or reappointments will last more than a matter of months. Her colleagues are also alarmed by the meal she has made of doing what was supposed to be a straightforward deal with the DUP.

The climate in the party at the moment is one in which everything – jobs, policies and, of course, the leadership – will soon be up for grabs. Debate over “hard” and “soft” Brexits is illusory: anyone who wants to be Conservative leader will need to respect the view of the party in the country, which is that Britain must leave the single market and the customs union to regain control of trade policy and borders. That is one reason why the prospects of David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, are being talked up.

Some of May’s MPs, for all their hard-mindedness about the future, speak of feeling “poleaxed” since the general election. Even before the result changed everything, there was dismay about the bad national campaign; but that, it was felt, could be discussed in a leisurely post-mortem.

Now, instead, it has undermined faith in May’s leadership and credibility. “The social care disaster was key to our defeat,” an MP told me. “It wasn’t just that the policy damaged our core vote, it was the amateurishness of the U-turn.” A more seasoned colleague noted that “it was the first election I’ve fought where we succeeded in pissing off every section of our core vote”.

The limited ministerial reshuffle was inevitable given May’s lack of authority, and summed up her untenability beyond the short term. Most of her few important changes were deeply ill judged: notably the sacking of the skills and apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon, the MP for Harlow in Essex, and a rare Tory with a direct line to the working class; and the Brexit minister David Jones, whose job had hardly begun and whose boss, Davis, was not consulted.

George Bridges, another Brexit minister, who resigned, apparently did so because he felt May had undermined the government’s position in the negotiations so badly, by failing to win the election comprehensively, that he could not face going on.

Much has been made of how Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, was marginalised and briefed against, yet reappointed. Patrick McLoughlin, the party chairman, suffered similarly. Conservative Central Office was largely shut out from the catastrophic campaign, though no one got round to briefing against McLoughlin, who kept his head down – unheard-of conduct by a party chairman in an election.

As a political force, Central Office is for now more or less impotent. It has lost the knack of arguing the case for Conservatism. MPs are increasingly worried that their party is so introspective that it just can’t deal with the way Corbyn is spinning his defeat. “An ugly mood is growing,” one said, “because militant leftism is going unchallenged.” That cannot change until May has gone and the party machine is revived and re-inspired.

***

Nobody in the party wants a general election: but most want a leadership election, and minds are concentrated on how to achieve the latter without precipitating the former. One angry and disillusioned ex-minister told me that “if there were an obvious candidate she’d be shitting herself. But most of us have realised Boris is a wanker, DD isn’t a great communicator and is a bit up himself, Hammond has no charisma, and Amber [Rudd] has a majority of 346.”

On Monday a group of senior ex-ministers met at Westminster to discuss next steps. It was agreed that, with the Brexit talks under way, the most important thing in the interests of restoring order was securing the vote on the Queen’s Speech. Then, May having done her duty and steadied the proverbial ship, the party would manage her dignified and calm evacuation from Downing Street.

Those who agree on this do not always agree on the timing. However, few can make the leap of imagination required to see her addressing the party conference in October, unless to say “Thank you and goodnight” and to initiate a leadership contest. Many would like her out long before then. The only reason they don’t want it this side of securing the Queen’s Speech is that the result, as one put it, would be “chaos”, with a leadership contest resembling “a circular firing squad”.

That metaphor is popular among Tories these days. Others use it to describe the ­apportioning of blame after the election. As well as Timothy and Hill, Lynton Crosby has sustained severe wounds that may prevent the Tories from automatically requesting his services again.

Following the Brexit referendum and Zac Goldsmith’s nasty campaign for the London mayoralty, Crosby has acquired the habit of losing. And then there was Ben Gummer, blamed not only for the social care debacle, but also for upsetting fishermen with a vaguely couched fisheries policy. These failings are becoming ancient history – and the future, not the past, is now the urgent matter – yet some Conservatives still seethe about them despite trying to move on.

“I haven’t heard anyone say she should stay – except Damian Green,” a former minister observed, referring to the new First Secretary of State. Green was at Oxford with May and seems to have earned his job because he is one of her rare friends in high politics. He is regarded as sharing her general lack of conviction.

Older activists recall how the party, in 1974, clung loyally to Ted Heath after he lost one election, and even after he lost a second. Now, deference is over. Most Tory activists, appalled by the handling of the campaign, want change. They would, however, like a contest: annoyed at not having been consulted last time, they intend not to be left silent again.

That view is largely reflected at Westminster, though a few MPs believe a coronation wouldn’t be a problem, “as we don’t want a public examination of the entrails for weeks on end when we need to be shown to be running the country effectively”. Most MPs disagree with that, seeing where a coronation got them last time.

With the summer recess coming up, at least the public’s attention would not be on Westminster if the contest took place mostly during that time: hence the feeling that, once the Queen’s Speech is dealt with, May should announce her intention to leave, in order to have a successor in place before the conference season. It is then up to the party to design a timetable that compresses the hustings between the final two candidates into as short a time as compatible with the democratic process, to get the new leader in place swiftly.

Some letters requesting a contest are said to have reached Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers. One MP told me with great authority that there were eight; another, with equal certainty, said 12. Forty-eight are needed to trigger the procedure. However, engineering such a contest is not how most Tories would like to proceed. “She has had an international humiliation,” a former cabinet minister said, “and it is transparently ghastly for her. Then came the [Grenfell Tower] fire. There is no sense our rubbing it in. I suspect she knows she has to go. We admire her for staying around and clearing up the mess in a way Cameron didn’t. But she is a stopgap.”

MPs believe, with some justification, that the last thing most voters want is another general election, so caution is paramount. None doubts that the best outcome for all concerned would be for May to leave without being pushed.

Her tin-eared response to the Grenfell disaster shocked colleagues with its amateurishness and disconnection. “I’m sure she’s very upset by Grenfell,” someone who has known her since Oxford said. “But she is incapable of showing empathy. She has no bridge to the rest of the world other than Philip.” Another, referring to the controversial remark that torpedoed Andrea Leadsom’s leadership ambitions last year, said: “You would get shot for saying it, but not having had children hasn’t helped her when it comes to relating to people. Leadsom was right.”

***

May was quicker off the mark on Monday, issuing a statement condemning the appalling attack at Finsbury Park Mosque swiftly after it occurred, and going there shortly afterwards to meet community leaders. No one could fault her assurance that Muslims must enjoy the same protection under the law as everyone else, or the speed and sincerity with which it was made. She is learning what leadership entails, but too late.

Her administration has become unlucky. This happened to John Major, but, as in his case, the bad luck is partly down to bad decisions; and the bad luck that comes out of the blue simply piles in on top of everything else. Grenfell Tower, lethal and heartbreaking for its victims and their families, was merely more bad luck for the Prime Minister because of her slow-witted response and failure – presumably because shorn of her closest advisers – to do the right thing, and to do it quickly.

But then it turned out that her new chief of staff, Gavin Barwell, had in his previous incarnation as a housing minister received a report on improving fire safety in tower blocks and done nothing about it. That is either more bad luck, or it shows May has dismal judgement in the quality of people she appoints to her close circle. Form suggests the latter.

The idea aired last weekend, that May had “ten days to prove herself”, was a minority view. For most of her colleagues it is too late. It was typical of Boris Johnson’s dwindling band of cheerleaders that they should broadcast a story supporting Davis as an “interim” leader: “interim” until Johnson’s credibility has recovered sufficiently for him to have another pop at the job he covets so much.

They also sought to create the impression that Davis is on manoeuvres, which he resolutely is not. Davis has been around long enough to know that if he wants to succeed May – and his friends believe he does – he cannot be seen to do anything to destabilise her further. It is a lesson lost on Johnson’s camp, whose tactics have damaged their man even more than he was already.

Andrew Mitchell, the former international development secretary and a close ally of Davis, told the Guardian: “. . . it is simply untrue that he is doing anything other
than focusing on his incredibly important brief and giving loyal support to the Prime Minister. Anyone suggesting otherwise is freelancing.” That summed up the contempt Davis’s camp has for Johnson, and it will last long beyond any leadership race.

There is a sense that, in the present febrile climate, whoever is the next leader must be highly experienced. Davis qualifies; so does Hammond, who before his present job was foreign secretary and defence secretary, and who has belatedly displayed a mind of his own since May was hobbled. Hugo Swire, a minister of state under Hammond in the Foreign Office, said of him: “He’s got bottom. He was very good to work for. He is an homme sérieux. I liked him very much and he would calm things down.”

But, as yet, there is no contest. Calls for calm have prevailed, not least thanks to Graham Brady’s steady stewardship of the 1922 Committee, and his success in convincing the more hot-headed of his colleagues to hold their fire. Yet MPs say the 1922 is not what it was 20 years ago: ministers have become used to taking it less seriously.

However, many MPs expect Brady, at a time of their choosing, to go to Downing Street and deliver the poison pill to Theresa May if she is slow to go. Some who know her fear she might take no notice. If she were to play it that way, her end would be unpleasant. As the old saying goes, there is the easy way, and there is the hard way. Remarkably few of her colleagues want to go the hard way but, like everything else in the Tory party at the moment, that could change.

Simon Heffer is a journalist, author and political commentator, who has worked for long stretches at the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail. He has written biographies of Thomas Carlyle, Ralph Vaughan Williams and Enoch Powell, and reviews and writes on politics for the New Statesman

This article first appeared in the 22 June 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The zombie PM

0800 7318496