SELF-INFLICTED WOUNDS AND A SELF-CENTRED CULTURE FOSTER FAILURE
Liz Truss was elected leader of the Conservative party and so became Prime Minister with comparatively little support from her Parliamentary party, the MPs. However, it might have been hoped that her in-party detractors, after some bitter campaigning, would after the election have some respect for the result, emotion might die replaced by pragmatism and common sense, with some real effort to unify. Focus on delivery was her mantra in electioneering, and the Tory party has but two years left to deliver on promises in their manifesto. But disunity and a party shambles has been the hallmark of the first few weeks of this Prime Minister’s term. Rishi Sunak pledged his support after losing the election, and while he remains quiet his supporters have from day one been dedicated to undermining her authority.
The rushed mini-budget published by Kwasi Kwarteng as Chancellor, but authorised by Liz Truss, spooked the markets, and the damage was done. See Sherbhert article Economic Rorke’s Drift. He has had to be sacked and key pieces of the mini budget are being revoked or tweaked. The “delivery” reputation is holed, perhaps beneath the waterline.
Given that the PM from the start must have been aware of the doubts about her within her own party and the scepticism over her ability to do the job, with downright hostility from a few particularly senior MPs, as well as in the media, the error of judgement in not seeking a level of consensus before publicising a controversial economic approach is damning. Can she learn from it, or is there a character flaw of excessive belief in her own self publicity? Is there a fatal flaw in her self-awareness that she knows not her limitations? Second, the Cabinet appointments she made seem to have been driven by that weak leadership trait of surrounding oneself with colleagues based on patronage and friendship, not competence. To omit so much experience and leave it on the back benches betrayed perhaps a fear of challenge. To omit representatives of the factions which opposed her was merely to strengthen enmity towards her. Has she woken up to the need to embrace some not so like-minded people around her by the appointment now of Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor? He may prove to be a fig leaf to buy time but not much more. Boris Johnson killed his own premiership through misplaced self-confidence, lack of respect for norms and his own self-inflicted wounds. Is Liz Truss about to follow suit?
There are numerous knives out for her in her own party. Philip Hammond, a “once was” and other ex-chancellors and “once was” ministers, publicly denounce her. While few MPs openly demand she step down immediately and mutter about giving her a chance, some indulge their cowardice by anonymous abuse through the media. What is being revealed is a political party no longer interested in the collective unity which is essential, but a number of factions and individuals ready to disrespect those who disagree with them, seemingly oblivious to the need for stability, so important during this time of war and economic stresses. These factions and egos are another side perhaps of a cancel culture of abuse normally today associated with the morally degrading silencing of others’ opinions common among certain extreme groups. Does not the constant daily, or even hourly, media speculation as to when, not if, she will be forced to resign mean that, if the public have not totally written her off already, they soon will have done so. Rightly or wrongly, she is portrayed as incompetent: she probably is not as she has got this far but, if something is said often enough by enough people, even if fake news, it acquires the status of fact in today’s world.
WHAT NEXT? WILL THE KNIVES DO THEIR WORK?
The UK needs sound and stable Government. The squandering of their huge majority and the opportunity to advance the UK’s fortunes, mostly through self-centred infighting, is currently the main achievement of the Conservative party in the last few years. Successes are soon forgotten. Voters struggling to pay mortgages and make ends meet will blame government as they will be encouraged to do by all opponents, even if there are global forces beyond the control of the UK Government which are mostly responsible. Boris Johnson’s poor judgement and Liz Truss’s character weaknesses mean the Conservative reputation is perhaps in tatters, and even if it is not, the fact that enough Conservative MPs might say it is will ensure that becomes reality. They continue to talk themselves into failure. Without a credible leader, no party can carry authority. Cancers are best diagnosed and treated early. So are political blunders. It does not matter that perhaps other major countries are suffering similar or even worse economic harms. The UK’s doomsters will ensure its continued paralysis and decline, unless a leader with the interests of the UK, not personal ambition, at their core takes the reins. Does such a person exist in Parliament at a senior enough level?
Is it possible for the Conservative party to regroup and restore credibility over the next 2 years? Possibly, but as things stand today, without change, many are saying it is impossible. With change perhaps, but it would require the PM to change herself to a massive degree, including becoming aware of herself, becoming a communicator, and being handed a dose of good fortune, such as energy prices plummeting (gas prices have been going down lately) and perhaps the end of Putin’s Ukraine war. Now there seems to be little consensus among Tory MPs about a future successor who would command a Parliamentary majority. Is an alternative strategy for leading Conservative figures representing all factions to unite behind a new PM without a members’ vote, bring their factions along, and once more crown that new leader, dismissing the current PM as an aberration? The manifesto of 2019 would have to be at the core of any mandate to credibly suggest there is national support. They would need to restore within the MP ranks a belief, and so a public demonstration of belief, that all is not lost and they can steal the next election. To achieve this a new culture of working for the greater good, not just personal aggrandisement, will need to emerge, and there is little sign of that. For now, no successor is in the wings to fulfil that calling and so this is not yet a viable strategy, although Rishi Sunak may emerge with sufficient backing.
Meanwhile, if the Labour party can remain consistent and sensible, merely pointing to the unfitness of their opponents, which is a manifest truth given current behaviour, and avoid internal strife themselves, then the simple “time for a change” message will reverberate to ensure their success at any general election in the next year or two. They do not even have to enunciate policies to ensure growth. But unless an early election is called, that is Tory turkey MPs voting for Christmas, there are two years to go, and anything can happen. Labour needs to demonstrate a unity, confidence, stability and calmness, in contrast to the Tories. If they do, then those who predict a resounding victory for them in any election are surely correct.
IS ANYONE IN CHARGE?
The volte face in policy by the PM has largely been in response to negative “market” reactions to the mini-budget and unfunded spending plans. So, is it the markets which now dictate UK government policy? What is meant by “markets”? To read and hear some commentary, one might be forgiven for thinking that the markets have some central rational brain working out the ramifications of UKGOV policy with pinpoint accuracy. Is it not rather the case that markets are an amorphous agglomeration of thousands of traders in bonds and other securities, all of whom spend their days, competing with each other, outwitting governments, gambling how to make lots of money or avoid losing lots of money? Fickle and uncaring of social and economic fallout resulting from their actions, is there perhaps to some degree a lemming like approach driven a bit by fear and insecurity? The classic explanation of why markets are moving in any direction usually includes a peppering of words like sentiment and confidence – is that not simply because probably nobody really fully understands what is going on? The implication that markets may be in charge may be valid, and it is a terrifying thought. Certainly, markets need to be placated by prudent consistent behaviour by Ministers.
The UK press over the weekend of 15 and 16 October is clear that it appears that Liz Truss has lost her authority and is not really in charge. Considerable commentary suggests that Jeremy Hunt, Chancellor, who has overturned her financial strategy, is more in charge than she is. Possibly also terrifying, especially if government reverses into the same old thinking with no imagination or plan for growth. Jeremy Hunt has declared support for the PM’s objectives, asserting she is in charge and decrying the idea she should step down as the last thing needed, and advocating growth to be the medium to long term answer: his tax and other plans need to reflect that, but there is a fear that stagnation is all that may be on offer. This is particularly so if public services generally have become a bit like the Health Service, a protected species never to be reduced or changed but instead lavished with cash. Has in fact Liz Truss been told for example by senior Tory figures, such as the 1922 Committee, that her days are numbered and to tread policy water while a successor is found? If so, nobody is really in charge. Cabinet needs to get a grip and explain a plan for future government as soon as possible, and it surely must include growth.
P.S. It is always worth remembering that the Covid aftermath and Putin’s evil war are the real cause of the pain, and until Putin is defeated life will be uncertain and hardships required to be endured.
Second, is not a lot of the financial pain, such as borrowing rates being unaffordable for many people, in fact the result of poor individual choices to live off credit and borrow to the hilt when money was cheap? Or should perhaps regulators like the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority, protectors financially of the public, have never allowed banks and other lenders to grant easy credit in such vast amounts, when obvious that borrowers would be bankrupted by interest rates increasing, as they one day were bound to do, recognising that ultra-low rates in recent years have been abnormal?
See also:- Today Versus Tomorrow and Prime Ministers in Waiting
