Liz Truss and the Conservative Party.

[DelayRepay]

I think it is the media who are responsible for spreading the false impression that an "energy price cap" of £2,500 meant that this is the maximum any household would have to pay.

I think it's the regulator, who for many years have referred to it as a 'price cap' rather than a 'maximum unit price'. Of course, the government let them.

 

[MikeWM]

Oh good, so it turns out we have yet another terribly weak government that gives in to a bit of pressure from the media (and/or its own backbenchers, spooked by the media).

Whether you agreed with the policy or not (I was largely indifferent to the *policy*, but thought it was poor *politics* to do it when they did), another weak government buffeted around by the whims of the media and the markets is very very much exactly what we don't need right now. This is far more concerning than the original policy.

 

[Western Sunset]

Whether it was the media or the regulator talking about "caps", one would hope that the prime minister would understand the difference and communicate without giving a totally wrong impression.

 

[nw1]

I see it’s being reported that Re-Smog wants to scrap loads of workers’ rights and other protections in smaller firms.

The Pope should excommunicate that loathsome hypocrite.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2022 ==

"We get it, and we have listened"

https://twitter.com/KwasiKwarteng/status/1576820620293468160

(Tweet from Kwasi Kwarteng confirming a u-turn on scrapping the 45p rate)

No you don't get it, Kwasi: you're just frightened of losing your job.

Whatever, this pair have lost all credibility and it's time for a) another leadership contest or b) better, a general election.

 

[DelayRepay]

Oh good, so it turns out we have yet another terribly weak government that gives in to a bit of pressure from the media (and/or its own backbenchers, spooked by the media).

Whether you agreed with the policy or not (I was largely indifferent to the *policy*, but thought it was poor *politics* to do it when they did), another weak government buffeted around by the whims of the media and the markets is very very much exactly what we don't need right now. This is far more concerning than the original policy.

Yes, this is a problem, and there is an air of Johnson and the Covid rules about.

Whatever one thinks of the policy, the Prime Minister was on TV yesterday defending it. The Chancoller is due to address the party conference later today; an extract of his speech released overnight to the media said 'We must stay the course. I am confident our plan is the right one.'

Yet here we are.

Are we in Johnson territory now, where everyone knew 'there won't be any more Covid restrictions' actually meant stock up on facemasks?

 

[nw1]

Yes, this is a problem, and there is an air of Johnson and the Covid rules about.

Whatever one thinks of the policy, the Prime Minister was on TV yesterday defending it. The Chancoller is due to address the party conference later today; an extract of his speech released overnight to the media said 'We must stay the course. I am confident our plan is the right one.'

Yet here we are.

Are we in Johnson territory now, where everyone knew 'there won't be any more Covid restrictions' actually meant stock up on facemasks?

We're in "help, we don't know what to do, we're not going to win the next election, let's just lurch from one thing to another in the vain hope that we might hold Redwall East" mode.

They should put everyone out of their misery and call one in the spring. Or tax BP until the pips squeak, to try and get back some of the money they've borrowed.

 

[Broucek]

Oh good, so it turns out we have yet another terribly weak government that gives in to a bit of pressure from the media (and/or its own backbenchers, spooked by the media).

Whether you agreed with the policy or not (I was largely indifferent to the *policy*, but thought it was poor *politics* to do it when they did), another weak government buffeted around by the whims of the media and the markets is very very much exactly what we don't need right now. This is far more concerning than the original policy.

You've saved me posting exactly this....

 

[jon0844]

They didn't U-turn because of the public and media backlash. They did so because prominent Tory MPs said they wouldn't support it and pointed out the fact they'd definitely lose the next election. Within hours, there's the backtrack.

 

[jfollows]

The majority of Conservative MPs who didn't vote for Liz Truss now know that they have power over her, and won't hesitate to use it.
Personally, she's better than Boris Johnson because everything she says isn't a lie, and because she seems capable and willing of answering questions directly.
However the implementation of her ideas hasn't survived contact with reality. I'm relatively unbothered by the 45% tax thing, it didn't apply to me anyway, but I've always been against it in principle. But the politics stinks, and she should have thought about this better.
It has also obscured some of the better things in the "mini budget" like the scrapping of rules relating to IR35 and self-employment, which were bad and worse than the problem they were trying to solve.
But this week has set Labour on a path now and I don't see the miracle necessary for Liz Truss to be able to recover from this, so we're back to 1997 in a way now, and she's doomed as was John Major then, and nobody in their right mind will vote Conservative in 2024.
However a week is a long time in politics ......
AND they only "listened" because their jobs were on the line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2022 ==

This also leads to an argument for scrapping the membership vote for selecting the Conservative party leader, I don't think it will happen but it's hardly "democratic" given the profile of its electorate who voted in their self-interest (as I would have done also, had I been one of them, that's what voting is mainly about).

The wider party membership has hardly been wise in its selection of past leaders either, Ian Duncan-Smith and William Hague come to mind, even though I knew the latter when at university I can't say that he was appropriate for party leader although he did sort out party finances at the time. It's a rarer coincidence of a good leader being selected in the way that it is.

Liz Truss is continuing to demonstrate that she doesn't listen, as was the case previously, but where it mattered less. Whether or not she starts using her ears for the first time in preference to her mouth remains to be seen, I suspect not.

 

[Typhoon]

AND they only "listened" because their jobs were on the line.

You listen before making an announcement, get a feel for where MPs sense the priorities are. Not the outright question 'should we cut taxes for the rich?' but 'where do you think our priorities should be?' and ask those you can trust, often the senior members. The trouble is that many of those that are left are the Redwood's and Chope's of this world (or, rather, not of this world in their case); Johnson booted out a lot of those capable of sage advice.

Labour should now ask whether the tax cut is off the table for the rest of this parliament. Anything other than an unequivocal 'Yes', it goes on their publicity material, prominently.

EDIT:

The wider party membership has hardly been wise in its selection of past leaders either, Ian Duncan-Smith and William Hague come to mind, even though I knew the latter when at university I can't say that he was appropriate for party leader although he did sort out party finances at the time. It's a rarer coincidence of a good leader being selected in the way that it is.

Hague would have made a much better leader later, after he had shadowed a senior role, he was s decent Foreign Secretary. Streets better than Duncan-Smith. It would have done Truss no harm to talk to him.

 

[SynthD]

I think it is the media who are responsible for spreading the false impression that an "energy price cap" of £2,500 meant that this is the maximum any household would have to pay.

Truss said it repeatedly, on broadcast radio. Why blame the media for finally being permitted a chance to question the PM, on what was attempted to be engineered favourable terms to her? If some news sources made the same 'mistake' and quoted her without criticism, I'd like to hear names so I can avoid them.

Labour could point out that Truss doesn't have the mandate for removing the tax or adding it back. They could invite more u-turns, as we shouldn't let the rest of the fiscal event go by, including refusing to see or publish the OBR's reports.

 

[ainsworth74]

I see it’s being reported that Re-Smog wants to scrap loads of workers’ rights and other protections in smaller firms.

Not even that small. I saw it reported it would apply to firms with 500 employees or less. Which someone dug out ONS figures which suggested that was basically all businesses in the UK other than about 7,000 odd of the largest. There being more than 1 million businesses in the UK...

 

[dosxuk]

They didn't U-turn because of the public and media backlash. They did so because prominent Tory MPs said they wouldn't support it and pointed out the fact they'd definitely lose the next election. Within hours, there's the backtrack.

There were also enough voices coming out after the first day of conference stating that they were going to rebel and vote against the budget that the Government was no longer sure they would be able win. I don't think they're so much looking towards the next GE, they know they've lost that - but more at not becoming the shortest serving PM in British history.

Apparently the wider party reacted with "dismay" when John Curtice (the polling expert) told them a few ugly truths last night.

New PM Liz Truss was now as unpopular with voters as Boris Johnson was when he was ousted, said Sir John.

And even if Labour's current double digit poll lead reduced before the next election in 2024, Labour were still likely to gain power, he suggested.

His analysis was greeted with dismay and cries of "wow" from activists.

In the event of a hung Parliament, opposition parties would be unlikely to prop up a minority Tory administration, he suggested, which made Labour clear favourites to gain power.

He's not the only person making these claims either, with their own pollsters also telling them to "get it together" if they want any hope of not being wiped out.

 

[Busaholic]

Not even that small. I saw it reported it would apply to firms with 500 employees or less. Which someone dug out ONS figures which suggested that was basically all businesses in the UK other than about 7,000 odd of the largest. There being more than 1 million businesses in the UK...

Been reported for a few weeks now (i.e. before the 'result' of the leadership election was declared Putinesquely) that Trump and Rees-Smug were intent on enacting legislation forbidding union representatives at firms receiving agreed, paid time off to engage in those activities, so taking the Communist Polish Government line rather than the Lech Walesa one, for those with a sense of history.

Have a feeling the 'Where did it all go wrong for the x Party?' thread should remove the word 'Labour' and replace it with 'Conservative', a party that deserves to lose power for another thirteen years at least.

 

[MikeWM]

They didn't U-turn because of the public and media backlash. They did so because prominent Tory MPs said they wouldn't support it and pointed out the fact they'd definitely lose the next election. Within hours, there's the backtrack.

Yes, but the prominent Tory MPs did so because of the public and media backlash; I'd imagine the vast majority would support this policy 'in a vacuum'. It is exactly the same scenario as to why Johnson was removed in the first place.

I'd point out that exactly the same thing happened with Corbyn too. Anyone daring to suggest anything outside the 'cosy consensus', from left *or* right, is relentlessly attacked, however popular (or not!) their ideas are, until they back down or are forced out. Those on both the left and on the right need to work this out, rather than get behind this sort of pile-on when it is convenient for them and then oppose it when it happens to something they agree wth.

It's a terrible state to find ourselves in. We really do need a government that has the strength to make unpopular decisions and stick to them, if they believe they are for the good of the country. (And I don't believe for one second that Kier Starmer will provide that).

I'm not opposed to U-turns, in fact I positively welcome them when a policy is shown to be failing, and one of the many issues we have is the opprobrium that politicians face when U-turning, as it means we end up stuck with bad policies for longer than necessary. But this sort of U-turn - simply due to pressure rather than evidence - is pretty horrifying.

--

Yes, this is a problem, and there is an air of Johnson and the Covid rules about.

My first thought too, and very much not a happy one!

 

[jfollows]

It's a terrible state to find ourselves in. We really do need a government that has the strength to make unpopular decisions and stick to them, if they believe they are for the good of the country. (And I don't believe for one second that Kier Starmer will provide that).

I agree with you, but how do we work out what's "sticking to unpopular decisions" versus "untried academic theories"?
Or something like that.
It's clear, with the wisdom of hindsight, that Margaret Thatcher stuck it out from 1979 to 198x and was vindicated in her then-unpopular plans. But is Liz Truss doing the same now?
Actually, I think the 45% tax thing is a bit bonkers because it's irrelevant in the big scheme of things, but it's symbolic because it's about rewarding the already-well-off in the face of those who aren't. Its cost isn't hugely significant and the U-turn doesn't hugely impact the economic impact of the non-budget. I don't personally agree with income tax greater than 40%, but that's arbitrary and personal - I spent a lot of my working life avoiding paying 40% tax.
But I agree with the premise - make decisions and stick to them. However what when the decisions are wrong? Who says and why?

 

[XAM2175]

Oh good, so it turns out we have yet another terribly weak government that gives in to a bit of pressure from the media (and/or its own backbenchers, spooked by the media).

Whether you agreed with the policy or not (I was largely indifferent to the *policy*, but thought it was poor *politics* to do it when they did), another weak government buffeted around by the whims of the media and the markets is very very much exactly what we don't need right now. This is far more concerning than the original policy.

It's a terrible state to find ourselves in. We really do need a government that has the strength to make unpopular decisions and stick to them, if they believe they are for the good of the country. (And I don't believe for one second that Kier Starmer will provide that).

I'm not opposed to U-turns, in fact I positively welcome them when a policy is shown to be failing, and one of the many issues we have is the opprobrium that politicians face when U-turning, as it means we end up stuck with bad policies for longer than necessary. But this sort of U-turn - simply due to pressure rather than evidence - is pretty horrifying.

I can't help but feel that you'd have a very different opinion about strong governments not bowing to pressure if England's government had adopted and stuck with a Covid response far more restrictive than it actually did.

 

[MikeWM]

But I agree with the premise - make decisions and stick to them. However what when the decisions are wrong? Who says and why?

I think the key issue here is that there is no new *evidence* of any sort that the original decision was wrong (or indeed right). Truss and Kwarteng obviously thought it was the right thing to do until a few days ago. So presumably they still think that, but they've abandoned their plan because they came under a bit of pressure. That's a bit rubbish, to put it mildly, and doesn't inspire confidence they'll stick by any of the other tough decisions they need to make.

If they implemented it and then it didn't have the desired response on tax intake - whatever that was - then *that* would be a good time to reverse it, and quickly.

--

I can't help but feel that you'd have a very different opinion about strong governments not bowing to pressure if England's government had adopted and stuck with a Covid response far more restrictive than it actually did.

I wouldn't have been *happy* at all, but I do think that a government with a decent majority should be able to deliver the policies they think are correct. Of course I'd oppose them if I disagreed with them, as I did with much of Thatcher's program and indeed much of Blair's. And if the evidence showed they were wrong, *then* I would expect them to change course.

I would add that the government bowing to pressure, apparently against the better judgement of the PM, is exactly why we had the disastrous covid policies that we did have, and why they went on for so long.

 

[dosxuk]

I do think that a government with a decent majority should be able to deliver the policies they think are correct.

In this case though, it seems at least, that it isn't the Government who thought these policies were correct, but just the PM & Chancellor. There has been an astonishingly small number of ministers willing to go on the record that they think the choices are correct, and haven't simply pointed the blame/credit in the direction of the PM/Chancellor. The last 24 hours showed that there is little support for these measures amongst the Government themselves.

Maybe if the PM/Chancellor had even consulted the cabinet before announcing them they'd have realised they need to get the party on board before trying to sell the idea to the country.

 

[LittleAH]

I think it is the media who are responsible for spreading the false impression that an "energy price cap" of £2,500 meant that this is the maximum any household would have to pay.

Nope. Liz Truss said it herself. It has been pretty clear throughout, especially those who listen to Martin Lewis.

Oh good, so it turns out we have yet another terribly weak government that gives in to a bit of pressure from the media (and/or its own backbenchers, spooked by the media).

Whether you agreed with the policy or not (I was largely indifferent to the *policy*, but thought it was poor *politics* to do it when they did), another weak government buffeted around by the whims of the media and the markets is very very much exactly what we don't need right now. This is far more concerning than the original policy.

Pressure from the media?! When 70 of your MPs are supposedly having conversations with Labour to vote it down, when Tory MP's are being threatened to have the whip removed for not voting it through, with former cabinet members saying they're willing to lose the whip, I think it is more of an issue than "the media" most of whom are on the Tories side...

 

[jon0844]

I am not sure Liz was ever fully behind the move, but given her inability to defend it and just go on about Putin and cutting energy prices with a (non-existent) cap on bills, she was obviously having to go along with it but hide from the public as long as she could (which with a party conference coming up couldn't last forever, so she stupidly thought local radio would go easy on her).

I think we all know she doesn't listen to other party members but what she's told by the ERG/lobbyists. She was then backed fully by people associated with that. She's sold her soul and it's going to be a very uneasy time for her - and the party.

I assume her supporters are not best pleased she didn't stick to her guns, but over the weekend it was clear she was preparing for a potential caving by speaking like the chancellor did it on his own without consultation and she was also unaware - like Boris being unaware of parties, even those he attended.

I do hope one day the corruption within the party can be sorted and the Tories can return to being a party I could vote for again. There's clearly zero sign of that right now.

 

[MikeWM]

Maybe if the PM/Chancellor had even consulted the cabinet before announcing them they'd have realised they need to get the party on board before trying to sell the idea to the country.

Well, yes - as I said originally, it was very poor *politics*, whatever one thinks of the policy. But once you've done it, doing a u-turn simply because there is (entirely predictable) pressure to do so, is significantly worse in my opinion.

--

Pressure from the media?! When 70 of your MPs are supposedly having conversations with Labour to vote it down, when Tory MP's are being threatened to have the whip removed for not voting it through, with former cabinet members saying they're willing to lose the whip, I think it is more of an issue than "the media" most of whom are on the Tories side...

But why are these MPs acting like that? I can't imagine there are more than a handful of Tory MPs, if that, who object to the *policy* of the top rate of tax returning to the level it was at under 10 years of Tony Blair's 'Labour' government. They're objecting because of *politics*, possibly because they're annoyed their guy didn't win, and/or they're worried about losing their seat.

 

[LittleAH]

But why are these MPs acting like that? I can't imagine there are more than a handful of Tory MPs, if that, who object to the *policy* of the top rate of tax returning to the level it was at under 10 years of Tony Blair's 'Labour' government. They're objecting because of *politics*, possibly because they're annoyed their guy didn't win, and/or they're worried about losing their seat.

Because it is a crap policy that will lead to more debt.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, this is a problem, and there is an air of Johnson and the Covid rules about.

Whatever one thinks of the policy, the Prime Minister was on TV yesterday defending it. The Chancoller is due to address the party conference later today; an extract of his speech released overnight to the media said 'We must stay the course. I am confident our plan is the right one.'

Yet here we are.

Are we in Johnson territory now, where everyone knew 'there won't be any more Covid restrictions' actually meant stock up on facemasks?

I think the key issue here is that there is no new *evidence* of any sort that the original decision was wrong (or indeed right). Truss and Kwarteng obviously thought it was the right thing to do until a few days ago. So presumably they still think that, but they've abandoned their plan because they came under a bit of pressure. That's a bit rubbish, to put it mildly, and doesn't inspire confidence they'll stick by any of the other tough decisions they need to make.

If they implemented it and then it didn't have the desired response on tax intake - whatever that was - then *that* would be a good time to reverse it, and quickly.

--



I wouldn't have been *happy* at all, but I do think that a government with a decent majority should be able to deliver the policies they think are correct. Of course I'd oppose them if I disagreed with them, as I did with much of Thatcher's program and indeed much of Blair's. And if the evidence showed they were wrong, *then* I would expect them to change course.

I would add that the government bowing to pressure, apparently against the better judgement of the PM, is exactly why we had the disastrous covid policies that we did have, and why they went on for so long.

Absolutely not. If governments want to make radical, ideological changes, they should get a mandate from a general election first.

I see nothing "strong" about a government whose policies are so controversial or poorly put together, that they daren't put them to the public in a manifesto.

 

[Typhoon]

But why are these MPs acting like that? I can't imagine there are more than a handful of Tory MPs, if that, who object to the *policy* of the top rate of tax returning to the level it was at under 10 years of Tony Blair's 'Labour' government. They're objecting because of *politics*, possibly because they're annoyed their guy didn't win, and/or they're worried about losing their seat.

Because, although they may believe it is the 'right' policy, they recognise that it is the wrong time to do it.

To say it looks bad is an understatement!

I may have issues with Gove as a person, but he does tend to be more sensitive to the on-going mood, and his analysis of the situation was pretty much on the button. Truss and Kwarteng would do well to read it then read again.

 

[DelayRepay]

Because, although they may believe it is the 'right' policy, they recognise that it is the wrong time to do it.

I'm not sure they (Tory backbenchers) even believe it's the 'right' policy. They may support cutting taxes but not if the cuts are funded by borrowing, as appears to be the plan.

Of course, everyone may have had much more confidence in this plan if we'd been allowed to see the independent OBR forecasts, as is normal practice. I actually wonder if any forecasts exist at all, or if this is a bit like someone buying a new car on a whim, without giving any consideration about how they'll meet the monthly finance repayments?

 

[MikeWM]

Absolutely not. If governments want to make radical, ideological changes, they should get a mandate from a general election first.

I see nothing "strong" about a government whose policies are so controversial or poorly put together, that they daren't put them to the public in a manifesto.

The 2019 Tory manifesto says 'We not only want to freeze taxes, but to cut them too'. Yes, that is given a specific context of raising tax thresholds at the bottom end, but it seems a fairly clear general statement. At another point it says 'Already, the top 1 per cent of income taxpayers pay over 29 per cent of income tax – higher than at any time under the last Labour Government.' which seems a fairly clear indication they would like to reduce the amount of tax that top 1 per cent pay.

(source : https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/conservative-party-manifesto-2019)

Of course it also very explicitly says that National Insurance wouldn't be raised, and it was (did people ask for a general election about that?), so quite how much stock people want to put in manifestos is highly debateable anyway.

 

[XAM2175]

I wouldn't have been *happy* at all, but I do think that a government with a decent majority should be able to deliver the policies they think are correct. Of course I'd oppose them if I disagreed with them, as I did with much of Thatcher's program and indeed much of Blair's. And if the evidence showed they were wrong, *then* I would expect them to change course.

Which is all fair enough.

I would add that the government bowing to pressure, apparently against the better judgement of the PM, is exactly why we had the disastrous covid policies that we did have, and why they went on for so long.

But on this point, let's consider a hypothetical reversal: assume the government at Westminster had imposed Covid policies along the lines of those applied in Germany, let alone Australia or New Zealand (and leaving China right off the table). Assume these are serious unpopular and there is considerable pressure against the policies from the public, sections of the media, public health experts (including those totally independent of the government), and maybe some members of the governing party too.

Would a government that "bowed" to that pressure similarly attract your ire for being "terribly weak"?

 

[dosxuk]

Nadine Dorries getting upset on Twitter, that the policies she had no mandate to work on have been scrapped, and calling for a new general election.

Widespread dismay at the fact that 3 years of work has effectively been put on hold. No one asked for this.
C4 sale, online safety, BBC licence feee review - all signed off by cabinet all ready to go, all stopped. If Liz wants a whole new mandate, she must take to the country.

https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1576894518703423489

This is the same Nadine Dorries who confused 96% opposition for her plan to sell Channel 4 for 96% support.

 

[MikeWM]

Would a government that "bowed" to that pressure similarly attract your ire for being "terribly weak"?

It would depend on what the government was claiming to be their aims, and whether their policies were achieving those aims. If they were, then yes it would be weak to reverse course based on external pressures. In that case, you would need to pressure the government to change what they wanted the outcome to be, and thus deliver different policies to achieve those outcomes.

With covid the aims themselves were arguable. Is the aim to minimise death from covid at the expense of all else, or do you accept that these things involve finding a balance between all harms? (Actually I didn't think it was particularly arguable and the 'balance' argument should always win, but for some reason this became highly controversial). This case is different, because 99.999% of us want a good economy, we just disagree on the policies that would take us there.