By Miraj Rahman-Blake (Westminster Correspondent)
Edited by Mark Etkind (Politics Editor)
The Conservative Party is in a very tenuous position. Can Liz Truss pull it back or has she been sent to lead a losing battle?
Mary Elizabeth Truss was born in Oxford in 1975. In her early life she moved around the UK, eventually settling in Leeds at Roundhay School, a school she has criticised for its lack of encouragement and ambition. Roundhay School and Leeds City Council refused to comment.
At Merton College, Oxford, the Prime Minister was president of the Oxford University Liberal Democrats. This is a period of her life that some of her critics have used against her, suggesting that she may have too fickle tendencies to hold the office of the Prime Minister, or that she may have held on to some of her Lib Dem views. Do remember that she used to be a Republican and a Remainer, but would now describe herself as a monarchist and believes in Brexit more than many people who voted for it (data from You Gov 2022). Others have hit back at this criticism, saying that it is perfectly natural to change your mind over this length of time. Regardless, she does have a history of policy U-turns, and many more are expected to come.
Showing her Liberal Democrat tendencies, the Prime Minister has said she is “prepared to look at” getting rid of speed limits on English motorways (transport is devolved) and has already vowed to scrap the “failed” smart motorway conversion. This is even more taxpayer money thrown away on a plan ditched by the very government who introduced them through Highways England. The ditching of speed limits has been popular among Tory members but does not seem to have much support from anyone else. Concerns have been raised that it would make roads even less safe than they already are, with one reader of the Sheffield Star saying that “middle lane hogging” and “tailgating at high speeds” already posed a safety issue on our motorways. No one seems to be sure as to the origin of this policy proposal, but it does not seem likely to play out.
Some other of Liz Truss’s policies do seem to be rather out there. One of her big aims is to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. Many have labelled this unnecessary, populist, and not properly costed. Sorry on that last one, would not want the Prime Minister to accuse of “bean counting”. Raising defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030 would require a 60% increase in real terms spending, to the tune of £157 billion. At a time when public finances are facing a very tough few years, is this wise? And who will foot this bill?
For someone who attempts to emulate Thatcher at every turn, the Prime Minister has a very blasé attitude to fiscal responsibility. Her energy bill support plan, whilst generous and more than anyone expected, will cost the taxpayer over £100 billion in borrowing. This is in addition to the £157 billion she will have to commit to the Ministry of Defence. Of course, it does not have to be this way. As noted by many of her opponents, many oil and gas producers have made excess profits in the billions this year, and energy suppliers have also made vast profits. A plan proposed by Labour would extend the current windfall tax arrangement on energy giants and slash household bills. The Prime Minister does not like this idea and would rather cut the fuel duty and VAT on fuel, neither of which would amount to the same sum, but would be less “hostile to business”. Instead, the bill will be paid by those who are already being squeezed dry, the working population.
Speaking of the working population, the Prime Minister does not seem to give them much credit. A leaked audio recording from when she was a minister in HM Treasury had the Prime Minister say that British workers needed “more graft” and suggested that workers outside of London did not have the “skill and application” of foreign workers. Such patriotic things to say. The Prime Minister also co-authored a book in 2012 called Britannia Unchained, which called British workers “the worst idlers in the world”. She has since claimed that she did not write the particular passage, but her name remains on the list of authors. As Patrick Wintour of the Guardian noted, “to be on the side of hardworking British people has long been safe Tory territory”. Some say this could be enough to turn those hardworking people against her.
The Prime Minister has found another even more controversial position in the Rwanda policy, which sees asylum seekers in the UK deported to Rwanda, a southern African country with a deplorable human rights record. The European Court of Human Rights has more than once spoken against this policy. The Prime Minister’s plan concerning that criticism is a simple one: they can change their mind, or we can withdraw from the convention. Boris Johnson’s Attorney General Suella Braverman has long been critical of the ECHR and is now the Home Secretary. This could suggest a greater hostility towards the Court and its rulings in future.
In a change of pace from her predecessor, however, the Prime Minister plans to issue thousands more visas to foreign workers every year to plug labour market gaps, especially in the agriculture sector. There has been a lot of criticism of the Conservative government’s handling of work visas post-Brexit, with many saying that we need more foreign labour or risk the decline of many of our domestic industries. These include agriculture and hospitality, both of which have relied on foreign and seasonal workers for a long time.
On Scotland, the Prime Minister has said there will not be a second independence referendum on her watch. She said she would work closely with Douglas Ross, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives to provide solid opposition to the SNP. With rising appetite for a referendum among the SNP’s core base, this position does not seem very stable, but there is still no constitutional provision for Holyrood to unilaterally call a referendum on Scottish independence.
Since the Prime Minister took office, clearly the most significant event of her (currently very short) tenure has been the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. This does not only mean a late start to her premiership and potential political instability, but also a suspended Parliament. The Prime Minister had promised to hit the ground running and has had to wait a little while to do so. How this will impact her premiership in the medium to long term is yet to be determined.
The Prime Minister has had a lot on her plate from day one. It remains to be seen whether she will rise to the occasion or be the end of twelve long years of Conservative government.
Comments