February 23, 2024 - 7:00am
Liz Truss only had 50 days as prime minister. It’s less than 500 days since she occupied the role, but in that time she’s had more comebacks than Frank Sinatra.
Her latest stage was the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort in Washington DC. She was politely received, ripples of applause punctuating a less than riveting 20-minute speech. But when you have Nayib Bukele and Javier Milei on the conference programme you need a few lulls to balance out the excitement.
In any case, hers was not an upbeat theme. “Western civilisation is doomed,” Truss warned the audience — unless, that is, conservatives gain not only office, but power too. It is no use the Right winning elections, she argued, unless the Right also has a plan for dealing with the “administrative state”.
It’s a view she expands upon in her new book Ten Years to Save the West. But from what, or whom, does the West saving? A familiar axis of evil: Russia, Iran and China.
As for the enemy within, those are summarised in the subtitle of her book: “Leading the revolution against globalism, socialism and the liberal establishment”. Her opposition to socialism we can take as read; the liberal establishment she blamed for her rapid loss of both power and office; but what doesn’t add up is her newfound animus towards globalism.
Didn’t Truss campaign for Britain to remain in the European Union? Wasn’t she an enthusiastic advocate of free trade as a minister? Hasn’t she spent her entire political career defending capitalism in its neoliberal incarnation?
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeCall me a ‘conspiracy theorist’, but Truss was removed as PM in a perfect, bloodless coup and replaced by a WEF puppet leader, all by a bit of hedge fund market manipulation. The lack of interest of any corporate media in the fine details of what went on, especially with the appointment of Hunt, is telling.
Don’t mistake that as me expressing any love for Truss; I have none.
She was bullied and manipulated into appointing Hunt – previously a political busted flush, with questionable links to China – as Chancellor so that it would be a fait accompli for her successor. After that she had outlived her usefulness. But a stronger and smarter PM wouldn’t have found herself in that situation.
Was Hunt a political busted flush? He did alright running against Johnson and his reputation was largely in tact. He was only a political busted flush to the Johnson/populist wing who had learnt to expect a little more entertainment and titillation with their politics.
18 MPs only supported Hunt in the 2022 Conservative leadership election – 8th out of 8 – and reduced to proposing Esther VcVey as his deputy. No one surprised when he continued to be left out of the Cabinet, and certainly no one publicly suggesting him as a plausible Chancellor. It’s a matter of opinion whether his dalliance with the concept of Zero Covid had left his reputation intact.
The 2022 one sure but trying to assess incompetence in the 2022 Tory field is like trying to find out if it’s raining at the bottom of the ocean.
The 2019 one he was a viable candidate.
Is there any evidence he wanted to be in the cabinet? Noting that we’ve had absolutely dire governance since 2019 at least.
Is that the same Hunt who was part of Govt that legislated an increase in stamp duty but that if you bought 7+ properties in one go you’d be exempt…and then went and bought 7 properties?
All part of the same racket. Fleece the poor and middle classes and protect the v wealthy.
Nobody is fleecing the middle classes.
There’s no middle class left to fleece. A few have managed to worm their way up but the bulk have been kicked back down to the ranks of the working class thanks to falling homeownership rates
Isn’t she also a WEF member?
This is what turned Truss. All those years of thinking free capital flows and Thatcherism were the road to freedom and they betrayed her! That. is. a. disgrace!
It’s not even a conspiracy theory. We have given primacy to growth and profit and have handed political power to finance and free markets as the means to achieve it. When people talk about “taking back control” they want to wrest back control from these “globalist” actors who have so benefited from the neoliberal re-ordering.
but ask Truss (or generally any anti-globalist Tory / Right Winger) if she still believes in tax cuts for the rich, small state laissez faire low regulation etc. with growth and profit as a priority and she’ll give you a positive response in her forcefully absent manner.
People here are similarly confused. The state should simultaneously enforce our borders and protect domestic workers and producers whilst also leaving the little guy alone and allowing private interests to flourish. e.g. anything to do with the agricultural protests.
The same applies to their approach to culture war issues. People should be free to live as they choose so long as it fits my specific narrow preferences.
Have you ever asked yourself how it is that the country has been getting poorer since 2008, but you and everyone you know has been getting richer?
You haven’t have, have you?
Always suspected you moved in unique circles HB and you appear to have confirmed it.
Go back and think – how much salary did I need to afford a House when I was the age of my kids/grandkids? Could we contemplate the wife or oneself not working full time whilst we brought up the kids?
Stretch your perspective and you’ll see millions of middle class experiences are fundamentally different than what we had, and this all whilst the v Rich have got richer.
I do call you a conspiracy theorist! She lost power according to the very well trodden path most British prime ministers have! Including Margaret Thatcher. Only people who seem to think the British constitution consists of plebiscites on every single issue and appointment would take issue with that. And they of course are notably less enthusiastic about votes that don’t go the way they think they should! The prone minister in the UK is not, and has never been popularly elected!
Still, don’t go with the simple explanation when a fat fetched conspiratorial one will do!
Liz Truss was (at least) an enthusiastic proponent of globalism, so the conspiracy/ WEF /dark powers / puppet masters theory makes no sense in its own terms.
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-january-2023/how-the-bank-broke-the-government/
It never made sense to me that the proposal to lower taxes (the mandate Truss had as a leader) would ‘spook’ the markets. Markets hate taxes, love liberal economic policy and believe stimulation from government expenditure is risky and ineffective. It also seemed strange to me that the media and public seemed to be completely competent in disentangling the impact of changing yields of on pension fund investment decisions, to conclude that ‘the markets have decided’! Truss made political mistakes but all the financial experts, with no political skin in the game, point to the ‘unpardonable, actions of the Bank of England, in particular its failure to understand, and respond to, the increasingly dangerous behaviour of a large sub-sector of Britain’s pension funds, the so-called Liability Driven Investment funds (LDIs).’
Far more complex than presented by a multitude of jobbing journalists.
“Liz Truss won’t save the West”
The title contains such a self-evident, “say-no-more” truth that I had to click on it just to see how the author would pad out the word count.
Why are there so many articles about her everywhere if she is such a non-threat?
Because our politics, currently, is devoid of people of calibre, leaders or honesty.
Because to get into No.10 the Tory membership and Tory media had to also demonstrate their utter stupidity. They unfortunately have not disappeared. So one has to undertake an important public service and remind us these plonkers remain a threat.
Intellectually confused was my conclusion about Ms Truss.
Yes I think there’s intellectual confusion and also she’s piggybacking off what’s popular on the right (anti-globalism) to stay relevant. Problem for her is when you look at most of her ideology it’s still globalism. It might be a different to WEF type globalism. But it’s still globalism.
That’s a very generous way of putting it.
Intellectually I think she’s consistent and relatively strong.
Her trouble is that she struggles to compromise principle for politics in the same way charlatans like Boris and Mogg might.
She also just has a Biden-esque impression of intellectual absence when put behind a microphone.
The ‘problem’ in the West, and the UK included, is our humongous ‘Welfare’ State.
‘Welfarism’ is destroying our economy, our values and the standard of living of working people.
It has created an unsustainable ‘something for nothing’ society and enabled millions choosing not to work.
Truss does not refer to ‘Welfarism’ and nor do any of our other politicians in fear of the repercussions.
The biggest welfare spend is on pensions. The second biggest is paid to workers who despite working full time aren’t paid enough to pay their rent. It isn’t a something for nothing culture that’s hurting us, it’s the neoliberal economics that encourages mass immigration to keep wage costs down and house prices high. It’s corporate welfare that allows firms to pay their staff too little and expect the state to pick up the tab
Your last sentence is the strongest argument for a decent minimum wage.
I think reducing rents and house prices would be a more productive method of improving lives and reducing the need for in work benefits rather than constantly forcing up the minimum wage. I do think it needs to rise, but unfortunately you can’t keep forcing it up simply to pay ever higher rents
Yep. A huge part of the welfare bill subsidises the dividends (or rental costs! for supermarket and high street retailer shareholders.
Yep. The v Rich want even more and driving this
House prices went up 250% under the Blair Labour Govt, and increases have continued under the Tory govts of the last 14 years.
Its nothing to do with the politics anymore … labour & tories are essentially adopting the same socialist policies.
We have an inept political class in Westminster and we need to curb their power.
Socialism for who? The only ones who have benefitted from the policies of both parties for the last 30-40 years are those who already owned assets. They’re extracting an ever increasing an amount of the wealth from the economy in the form of high rents and house prices, and benefiting from increased immigration and globalisation to keep their expenses down. Productivity has stalled as there’s little money to invest in new innovation, and what little there is is increasingly tied up in property.
Council houses have been sold off, utilities privatised, unions smashed, the gig economy created and inequality sits at record levels. What’s socialist about any of that?
It’s not socialist leaning at all (whatever socialist might mean which is another debate). It is certainly the case some of trend started under last Lab Govt but QE and Covid immensely accelerated it. Think about it – where did the £800b given out during Pandemic end up? Asset boom for the well off. Watch what happens now as interest rates drop a bit – house prices will surge again as those with wealth switch back to property pushing affordability even further away from our youngsters.
Lack of supply has a role too, but the game is rigged to favour those who’ve accumulated largely through luck and because we incentivise asset accumulation much more than dynamic investing. The process ‘ratchets in’ increasing inequality and at some point that’ll have a major blowback. We can change it but changing the rules and what we tax, has v strong forces aligned against that.
Does welfare include pensions?
Does ‘welfarism’ include rentseekers taking something for nothing?
If you look at a pie chart of Govt expenditure the state pension is generally included in the welfare section. Probably shouldn’t be, but that’s how Govt classifies it.
Most people wouldn’t include rent-seeking as welfarism. Probably they should, to some degree, if the money is derived from Govt.
Pensions are paid from the general taxation of todays workers, so it makes sense to show it in any chart depicting government expenditure
No it’s not. The v wealthy want you to believe that for sure, but the biggest problem is the continued concentration of extreme wealth in mostly v unproductive wealthy hands through asset accumulation and control of taxation.
Doesn’t mean some reform in Welfare not warranted but you’re ‘buying’ the deliberate distraction technique.
No JW. The crisis is the concentration of power in the horribly unproductive State and its mangled regulatory degrowth agenda which is totally suffocating enterprise. Look up the numbers paying top rate tax in the UK…terrifyingly small…then subtract a huge chunk for the 1%er public sector grandees of our vast admin state – council leaders, NHS consultants, University bosses, Regulators and other parasitic Statist forces. We need to cherish the rare likes of Dyson JCB and Radcliffe, not wave class war banners like the mean spirits of our Left.
Come on WM the v rich won’t be paying any income tax. What do you think the expensive Accountants and Business Vehicles are for.
There are granted some wealthy entrepreneurs who generate jobs and wealth for others too, but increasing minority, and even they eventually just drift into the easy money asset/rentier accumulation.
They then buy as much of the media as poss, set up things like Unherd, and cultivate useful idiots to help them.
Sure, but the trouble is there are relatively few very rich people, but millions of unproductive middle class freeloaders.
How much of what you have is wealth that you created? ‘Not much’ is the answer, isn’t it? So, if you didn’t create it, then who did? Where did all that unearned property wealth come from. And how did you get your hands on it? The problem isn’t someone else. It’s you. Look in the mirror.
I think an argument based on one’s personal experience/role often narcissistic, but as a one off – 22 years in the Armed forces arguably a fundamental protection for a free dynamic economy. And then 20 years clinical and training service in a state hospital part of how we help maintain a workforce, as well arguably as civil society such that a thriving economy can flourish. Contributions are made in many ways. What’s changed is the accumulation of the dividend has become more concentrated whilst that concentration fails to create the next generation of jobs and wealth for others.
I disagree. A much bigger problem is that an ever increasing concentration of wealth is used to buy existing assets (such as rentals) that are extractive rather than in productive industries that create jobs and growth.
A mass house building programme of council houses would reduce the demand for private rentals meaning many would then fail to turn a profit, which would then see them sold and house prices fall. Surely that’s a better use of public money than simply handing over billions a year subsidising private landlords?
That is true BB, but also we need to tax assets much harder, and take the ‘heat’ off income tax at same time. That would have the benefit of getting the v wealthy to invest more in things that better spread the benefits.
It is tragic that the one rare Conservative to loudly reaffirm our now desperate need for enterprise and growth – and have the opportunity for a re-set – proved to be such a flawed erratic politician. Proposing a vast uncosted Energy Bailout from a Magic Money mangled bankrupt State at the very same time as the needed tax cuts was pure madness – crass timing – and has damaged the fight against the creeping socialism and sufffocation of the EU style Progressive Order she rightly opposed. Only Kemi and Jenrick are credible New Tories now. Truss should recognise the gravity of her political naivity and the harm she has inflicted on party, cause and country.
Tragic indeed, unless one was v rich and which point it was ker-ching!
A plant I suspect.
Not so!! A very few hedgies will have won big. But her errors exposed the LDI bomb within the pension system as well as giving millions of rich but still mortgaged top tax payers massive pain as their mortgages too flew up 5%. The same pain was felt by the rich with the pension crisis. Your Risk Averse Blob had regulated that all pension funds switch to bonds and away from equities (so helping store up the current chronic under investment crisis on LSE). The Pension Funds soon discovered that they could not meet their liabilities with bomds at 1% and were given the ok by your hapless regulators to gamble with derivatives. Doh! All State driven madness note. The big bomb in the Truss crisis was the unravelling of this gamble to tune of some 65bn. Remember too – your shouty progressive pal Brown had earlier shattered the savings industry by denying pension funds tax relief in a windfall tax. Billions lost. So when you bang on about the evils of individual Super Rich Non domy Musks of the world, I feel that you have really lost the plot in your Rainbow Fog . Such crippling and disastrous systemic State and Regulatory errors have smashed wealth creation opportunities for the poor and middle classes. Add in punitive Net Zero, mass uncontrolled migration and the 25 year scandalous mismanagement of our housing energy and labour markets, and I think it is very clear who is doing the damage. The Progressive State not the global super rich.
Just because she is seemingly rather confused and wobbly doesn’t mean she is wrong about the blob. I think she’s a classic politician of our time: she can see lots that is wrong but has a lack of overall mission and statesmen-like strategic vision. Her true ‘failing’ has been to speak out against the wrongs before finding a practical and realistic vision around which to build a solid base of support.
Agree but she fell because of immature foolish practical political errors, notably on the phasing/timing. If she had unbundled the Plan – dealt separately and first with the Energy Bailout Bomb that rightly freaked the market – then moved on months later to tax cut proposals she might have survived. She was sitting on a huge ticking bomb- the lalaland post 2008 Zero Interest/QE Regime – and she whacked it with a hammer.
Two moments sealed the parties fate at the next general election. 1. getting shut of Boris, 2. the right of the party opting for Truss rather than Kemi in the subsequent leadership campaign. Starmer is so poor and Labour so wedded to unpopular ideas that either Boris or Kemi would have had the whip-hand by now had they been in Number 10.
That the Kemi who it appears to have tried to suppress the timing of some of Post Office scandal?
The key moment, isn’t a moment – it’s continued failure to just ask oneself the key question – why have the v rich got richer during all the struggles of last decade? The moment one does that one’s onto the real trail of what’s gone wrong.
Because Boris had been so effective up until they got rid of him?
The only reason that he isn’t considered the worst prime minister in history is because of the utter dud who immediately followed him.
Kemi? She’s a chancer who sees an opportunity to appeal to the bug eyed loons by constantly raving about trans kids. She and Braverman are in a race to the bottom and will provide a highly amusing sideshow as Labour get on with fixing the mess.
Truss proving again she’s a bit dim – not exactly new News is it.
The more remarkable reflection remains- how on earth did she rise so high and Tories thought her a suitable PM?
Problem with the Right is they just won’t reflect sufficiently on a v basic fact – how is it that the v rich have got even richer during this period of stagnation and wealth stripping of the middle classes? We all know it’s because given the chance they will hoover up asset after asset and consciously and perhaps also occasionally sub-consciously then use multiple levers to protect their position. Maybe the Right ought to go away and really think about it before we end up with more western cities and societies mirroring the worst extremes of Rich vs Poor seen more often in other parts of what we used to call the Third World. Truss would be correct that a multi-millionaire PM is never going to tackle this – he’s too much to protect – but does she even have a grasp of the core question to be asking.
And I guess final question – has she given back the bath robes and towels ?
I don’t care for Truss, she’s useless. She’s changed her position on just about every major policy available. An embarassment.
You however keeping on trotting the same tired comment, just like the one on Mary Harrington’s piece yesterday. Why doesn’t the Left admit it’s huge error in allowing mass immigration to take place while handing interest rates to the BoE. It was these two decisions that allowed spiralling asset accumilation to take place, suppressing wages and removing incentives for work, training and innovation.
Just for once own your mistake and let’s have none of the nonsense about xenophobia or demonisation of “forriners” as a means of deflection
Very few people care about which party is in power… they’re all the same. Thank goodness for Technocrats running the country for the last 30 odd years, otherwise the country would be in right old mess, eh.
Mass immigration, with the whole family in tow as from a far flung country, seems a post Brexit thing doesn’t it? So not sure why you are referring to the Left – a semblance of the Left not been in power for 14 years. How long do you want? The Left never supported mass immigration as undercuts workers bargaining position, and a position that can be held without demonising migrants.
The BoE issue a side show. It’s not the fundamental issue. QE and who’s benefitted most is a more pertinent point IMO, but most fundamentally is how the v wealthy, who over this period have indisputably accumulated even more wealth, avoid tax whilst placing ever greater tax burden on others.
It’s like you don’t bother to read the whole comment, can you even “debate” without using fallacies.
“The Left never supported mass immigration as undercuts workers bargaining position, and a position that can be held without demonising migrants”. Sigh
Well Labour did and it was The Blob in Civil Servants Gus O’Donnell and Jonathan Portes that advocated for the policy. The Left and The Blob are SILL advocating for mass immigration and any criticism is racist (because they say it is).
The ratio between wages and house prices kept on rising as did the difference between CEO and the average employee during Labour’s term in office. Interest rates remained low as did house building during this period.
It’s impossible to take anything that you say (as indeed Liz Truss) seriously.
You of course assume Labour = Left.
But that aside it’s still 14 years ago. To not take up the post Lisbon treaty option to limit free movement numbers and to assume it would in reality be much lower than turned out to be was in hindsight a mistake, but it’s still 14 years ago. And it was migration from similar cultures.
Whilst we’re on it I think also a mistake Blair didn’t go with his instinct on ID cards – we’d have less illegal and disappeared migration if we’d done this as a Nation. But given 14 years further experience what the Right been waiting for? Truth is it prefers the chance to weaponise the issue than the implications of stopping it and ties itself in a proper pickle trying to square that.
You bang on about the Right like it’s some homogeneous mass. I consider myself a right leaning centrist, I have nothing but contempt for all the political parties but he current Conservative party is a complete joke and deserve to be trounced at the next General Election and will be.
No, it wasn’t a mistake.
And before that it was?? Blair presided over the fastest widening of the class divide that this country has ever seen.
I agree that the Tories have to own the current immigration madness, but to claim the left is anti immigration is simply nonsense. The old left was, but the current incarnation is usually much more in favour of open borders. Unfortunately this is because the new left is a largely middle class affair who aren’t adversely affected by it
I think anti-immigration isn’t the right emphasis BB. The Left doesn’t like demonising and does recognise some of our demographics mean sensible immigration important. Mass uncontrolled immigration hits the poorest and most vulnerable most so Left most definitely against that. (Of course at far end of the spectrums there are proper loons but they don’t represent the majority)
The Left doesn’t demonise people?! The modern Left may not demonise people due to ethnicity but it absolutely relishes demonising plenty of other groups and individuals.
Mass immigration does hit the poorest most, but you’re one of the few on the left that even acknowledges that as an issue – people concerned about mass immigration for that very reason are one of the groups the left loves to demonise.
Both left and right are complicit in mass migration. The Tories have also had 14 years to remove control from the BoE and they haven’t bothered so again they’re equally as culpable
I care for neither, as you say they are both complicit but New Labour set t.he ball rolling
I’m certainly not arguing with that, hence why they’re both equally as culpable
It would be interesting to find out how many of “The Blob” have property portfolios.
Depends I would guess how one defines Blob. Having a holiday let or two, while a real issue in itself, isn’t the main asset concentration trend driving rising wealth inequality with the v rich disappearing over the horizon.
Suspect you’d be surprised how much property and land is concentrated in few hands. Multi-millionaires living on interest and rent rather than generating a dynamic economy that generates goods and services where more can benefit from the jobs and the shared wealth that would create. I’ll give you a simple example I use with friends who don’t quite ‘get it’ – Alan Sugar, tech entrepreneur creating many jobs via his products manufacture and related supply chain became a property tycoon instead – simpler, easier money once you’ve accumulated assets. I quite like the guy and his attitude generally but it’s an example of what’s gone wrong repeatedly in the British economy. Change the incentives and stop the v rich tax avoiding a rate of tax the rest of us pay if they aren’t using their wealth to generate wealth for the many not the few.
Having a holiday let or two, while a real issue in itself, isn’t the main asset concentration trend
Finally! Your definition of ‘rich’ is anyone who’s richer than you, isn’t it? No doubt you have a little place in Spain too, eh? But none of that makes you ‘rich’, does it?
I’d define v rich as £5-10m+ as you asked. Many folks are now millionaires due to asset inflation, but don’t have lots of cash.
We’ve just the one home but have helped kids with their mortgage deposits and certainly recognise my generation had good fortune they have not. It’s dreadful that those without parents who can help are stranded. Holiday lets cause price inflation in those localities and it is a microcosm of the bigger concentration of wealth trend I would grant you.
But so did you, didn’t you?
Yes as regards asset wealth, most definitely and through nothing to do with hard work and endeavour. A pure symptom of when we were got onto the ladder. Income wealth much less so as real terms reduction last 10 years, but I’m certainly better off than most. RN pension helps too. That reflection though is why we can see it’s so rigged in favour of those with assets.
It is no use the Right winning elections, she argued, unless the Right also has a plan for dealing with the “administrative state”. — This is an obvious truth, one reflected across the Atlantic, too, where the permanent bureaucracy does far more to run DC than the elected class does.
what doesn’t add up is her newfound animus towards globalism. — I realize this is going to be out there, potentially a form of magical thinking, but it might be, could be, possibly, perhaps, a case of Liz realizing that her original belief was wrong. Yes, I know; a political would sooner cut off a limb than admit to error, which could be why the author is so flabbergasted by the turnabout.
Changing one’s mind is very much “a frank assessment of one’s own weaknesses and responsibilities.” Unfortunately, we tend to hand wave any such admission, or see it as a different type of weakness, perhaps an example of flip-floppery.
Truss and Trump are two of a kind. Utterly useless and always trying to find excuses for their thumping defeats.
She was right in her speech about Britain being run by quangocracies though, wasn’t she?
No, she wasn’t.
She’s a blithering idiot and this attempt at a comeback is hilarious.
Thank you! You are the best barometer!
When you start insulting someone, I can be sure that you are talking about a good and smart human.
To which the Tories have appointed their mates. Beggar’s belief the Right comes up with this deflection tripe after 14 years in power.
Just following the New Labour playbook JW