Liz Truss: Meeting a hero... and being called unsound

Many of you will well-know of my affection for the Right Honourable Member for South-West Norfolk, Elizabeth “Liz” Truss MP. I have followed her career since my own conversion to conservatism in 2015-16. I am somewhat glad to report that my seeing of the light came at a much younger stage than it did for her, who was a Lib Dem until after her university days. Admittedly, however, my own conversion was from the unreconstructed left-wing position rather than the traditional liberal variety, so we’re probably even on score overall. Either way, I like to think that we share the zeal of a convert in our heart-felt belief in conservative virtue.

My belief in Truss was so strong that in March of 2018, when she served as Chief Secretary to the Treasury; the most junior and low-profile position in Cabinet; I placed a bet of only £25 on the prospect of her becoming Prime Minister by 2025. It has been uncharitably put to me that my great support for her was primarily down to the prospect of winning a great payout from PaddyPower. I reject this strongly. I supported, and continue to support, Liz Truss because she reminds me a lot of my own self.

My own conversion to conservatism was brought on by a strong belief in social mobility; a theme that my contemporaries in OUCA are no-doubt sick to the back teeth of me talking about; and the idea that our policies of tearing down barriers to entry in the economy, streamlining rules and regulations, strengthening exam rigour, and devolving power to the individual rather than to the almighty state, would be my own personal route to success. In truth, I did not become a conservative because I was rich, I became a conservative because I didn’t want to be poor forever. And, given this determination, and my almost dogmatic belief in freedom, the market mechanism, a strong defence, belief in the rule-of-law, respect and reverence for tradition, institutions, our fellow man and our elders, and respect for legitimate forms of authority; I naturally gravitated towards any politician who spoke without shame about these ideals. I couldn't understand for so long why no-one was talking about these things which seemed like common sense to me. I soon learned, as all conservatives do in brutal fashion, that in contemporary society ‘the great and the good’ deem these ideas to be unpalatable and uncouth. Some might have reacted by changing priorities, but the natural contrarian that I am instead hardened my resolve to see these conservative virtues realised, and my admiration for any public figure who was brave enough to stand firm for them grew enormously.

So, in early 2018, when it seemed like Corbyn-style socialism would win-out, and that Brexit, and the very idea of British nationhood, was losing the argument, I heard this relatively junior member of the cabinet who wore bright colours and had an excellent Instagram account give an interview to Julia Hartley-Brewer. She spoke from what sounded like first principles about the positives of the market as an way of structuring the economy, and the positives of free trade in particular. During this same period, the Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May was embarking on a platform of increasing regulation and compliance regulation on business, of increasing tax on the self-employed, of legislating for our personal lifestyle choices, spending more on the health service with no account for the fact that it would be gobbled up by administrators rather than patients, and at the same time rowed back on solid policies on grammar schools, taking the poorest out of tax and, of course, Brexit. There we had a Prime Minister who believed that Britain’s “burning injustices” necessitated more government action. There appeared to be a big-state,
almost corporatist, consensus. And, as I say, here was this cabinet minister unafraid to buck the tide, turn conventional media questions on their head and espouse the unthinkable; conservatism. And her name was Liz Truss.

Having properly ‘discovered’ her in this sense, I went looking for more. At this point, however, it is worth saying I had known about her before. I had watched her conference speeches (no, not just the cheese one) and various interviews she had given during the 2015 and 2017 election campaigns, but as Environment Secretary, her role was fairly niche to someone who lived in a part of Britain where agriculture, fisheries and the environment was a devolved issue, it was hard to be engrossed, although she did strike a chord with me when, at the 2014 Conference she spoke about her left-wing upbringing and how she grew out of that to become a conservative. As someone who was fast becoming a hardened British Conservative Thatcherite in a relatively left-wing and Irish nationalist school, area and family, she gave me some glimmer of hope. Regardless, the more of her I saw, the more impressed I was, prompting me to put down my long-shot bet. At all the jobs she did in Government, she delivered. One of the bright-spots of the May era was the constraint on public spending, where for the first time in decades debt as a percent of GDP began to fall; the job of the Chief Secretary. She moved on to trade, where she batted for Britain excellently. Where the pompous clowns, sorry “the experts” , told us that we could never achieve the same terms of trade with the over 60 countries which the EU had trade
deals with. Given that EU negotiators achieved those terms with over 300 million consumers behind them, it is remarkable that she, with the help of excellent Co-President of the Board Trade and fellow member of The Queen’s College, Tony Abbott, was able to attain the same levels of market access with only a fraction of the number of consumers for the goods to offer.

Remarkable. On top of this, she secured new trade deals with Australia, New Zealand
Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, with talks opened with India and others too. These have been a roaring success. Yes, of course “the experts” said these deals mean nothing, but forecasters always downplay the effect of trade on the British economy, and frankly the fact that they talk down this wonderful country is no more surprising than it is plain wrong. Half-wits have said that these countries will export more to us than we to them, giving them a dreaded trade surplus over us. But this is fantasy economics. Firstly, if you’re infuriated by the idea of us buying more from our trade partners than we sell to them then maybe this country should’ve put some effort into being a place worth building a plant or factory over the last twenty-five years. But in any case, as our illustrious Ex-President, the Lord Hannan pointed out, the local pub where he gets he goes regularly has a trade surplus over him every-time they advertise a free glass of wine with a meal; they’ve sold more to Dan than he has to them, but that in no way means he’s worse off as a
result. Getting back into the free trade arena is an amazing thing for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we can thank Liz Truss for that.

Moreover, getting us into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) was another brain-child of Truss’. Not only was this a wonderful move for the British economy, as a strategic move, it points out why she has the steel and vision to protect The West, and why she was a great choice for Foreign Secretary. The CPTPP is a collection of 11 Asian economies, excluding China. The importance of protecting the West from the evil Chinese communist regime is imperative, and isolating them on a trade
front, or even boosting their free neighbours, is a thoroughly good idea.

As Foreign Secretary, Liz continued to show why she is worthy of my admiration. She got the call right on the Ukraine war, ensuring that Britain was the first country in Europe to send weapons, and that Boris’ government led the entire western community in many ways. Make no mistake, Liz Truss was instrumental in this. Additionally, upon the unfortunate resignation of David, Lord Frost from his position dealing with the disastrous Northern Ireland Protocol, she took over negotiations and got the EU to do something they had categorically ruled out doing; reopen the negotiating mandate on Northern Ireland. In tandem with this, she introduced the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill to Parliament, unashamedly trying to keep Northern Ireland in its rightful position within the
Kingdom. Of course, the bed-wetters went nuts, but she stood firm on this issue, winning the admiration of all the Britain-loving patriots of Ulster in the process.

Then, in July 2022, as the clock seemed to run out on Boris’ tenure in office, that the
leadership of the Conservative and Unionist Party was vacated. It became clear as day that Rishi Sunak had had his slick video, logo and everything else ready to go for many months. By contrast, Britain’s loyal and dutiful Foreign Secretary had spent 2022 fighting for British and Western interests, not plotting. This consequently meant that her campaign for leader was put together at a moment’s notice from Indonesia, and meant that her ability to tour the bars and clubs of Westminster to woo support was delayed. Not for the first time, and neither for the last, what appeared to be bad politics proved the best qualities in a leader. I am proud that Liz Truss was too busy being a public servant to be an early favourite in the Tory leadership. That is, in my view, thoroughly commendable. Nonetheless, she would go on to win the race for Conservative Leader, and I am glad to say I was a part of ‘Team Truss’ from before the beginning.

Moving on then to her premiership, she sought to implement an agenda that was firstly
Conservative, and secondly, in accordance with the wishes of the members of the party, who choose the leader. How bold. And how uncharacteristic for the modern Conservative Party. She pledged that she would reverse planned and recent tax rises, would implement supply-side reforms to get the economy into growth mode, reform the planning system to get Britain building, and get Britain on a path to energy production to improve the British economy and our strategic position in the world. This was just a taste of the bold, ambitious, pro-growth, pro-British agenda that Truss sought to make a strong start on. It was, of course, exactly the path that Britain’s interest so desperately required.

Firstly, on the tax cuts. These have been described as “unfunded” and radical, among other
things. I must admit I don’t see either argument. On the unfunded point, it was clear to me that these tax changes were designed to spur investment, and would have recouped their value to the Exchequer in no-time. The top rate of income tax, for instance, was worth only £2bn in revenue, and experience from Gordon Brown and Nigel Lawson show that cutting the upper rates actually brings in more revenue to the Treasury. The same can be said for Corporation Tax, which Sunak had proposed to increase to 25%. This would almost certainly have caused a flight of capital and resulted in a loss of revenue. Similarly, the reversal of the disastrous National Insurance rise and giving us a penny off the basic rate of income tax, are relatively small measures. If public sector debt is the issue which caused the markets to have their panic, then surely it was the Energy Price Guarantee, which cost more than the tax cuts, and which was supported almost universally across the political spectrum, that caused more damage to the public finances and a fear that Britain would be unable to service its debt. It’s funny to me that this massive cost of public expenditure, albeit arguably necessary, was almost entirely overlooked by the broadcast media and
“experts” in their assessment that Truss had accrued too much public debt; the offending items were of course the tax reductions. This, I think, tells us a lot about where the economic establishment’s heads are at. In any case, the idea that this was a radical programme of tax reform is another idea we hear banded around. This is patent nonsense. The fiscal event of the Autumn of 2022 included changes to revert the NIC rate back to the spring of that same year, proposed to simply keep the Corporation Tax as it was; not to reduce it, return the higher rate of Income Tax to a rate which were perfectly allowable under Gordon Brown, and give us a one-penny reduction in the basic rate the following year. This was a very welcome programme, but hardly runaway stuff.

What is just as important as tax cuts, is the supply-side economic reforms. These included
streamlining the planning system, reforming the financial services sector and removing some of the most burdensome rules and regulation from the backs of businesses who we want to see part with their cash in this country rather than in that of our competitors. This is so important because deregulation is something that, like tax cuts, improves the economy, but has the added benefit of making it easier for smaller firms to compete, and break up monopolies and oligopolies. This is because markets which are over-regulated favour big market incumbents who have the resources to employ armies of accountants, lawyers and compliance officials to navigate the stack of rules imposed by well-meaning fools. On the other hand, a more streamlined market environment constitutes a reduction in barriers to entry, enhancing competition and consumer choice. While it pains me to have to make such a first-principles case for the market mechanism in a publication for a Conservative Association; looking at the state of our party, it often feels all-too-necessary.
Because increased competition takes the power of out the hands of big firms and puts it in the hands of the consumer it the marketplace; it is a great democratising force of economics. It is precisely this type of outlook that makes capitalism work for everyone, particularly those who previously wouldn't have enjoyed the benefits of the cosy corporatist consensus of ever-increasing regulatory hoops. For anyone interested in this agenda of supply side economics, a copy of the would-be proposals was leaked to the Spectator Magazine late last year (for anyone who can’t find it, contact me as I have a printed copy of the contents of this agenda).

One more item which I believe is worthy of a mention is the proposed scrapping of earlier reforms to the IR35 rules. This is an admittedly complicated area, but I believe that tax relief for the self-employed is long-overdue. The changes would have increased red tape for contractors and toner service providers in a misguided and misery attempt to crack down on so-called bogus-self self employment. The extent of this problem is well-overstated and the lack of precision which the Treasury and HMRC can muster to pin-point abusers of the self-employment system means that genuine self-employed workers always get it in the neck. This is unsurprising given that the Treasury had a natural propensity or bias in favour of payroll employees because they're seemingly easier to collect tax from, and they collect more of it in total. It is, however, a terrible approach and Truss was right to have the measure scrapped in the Mini Budget.

This wasn’t ever to see the light of day, of course. We weren’t allowed to see these policies come into existence. Between dishonest and inaccurate forecasts by more experts, briefing against the Prime Minister by “fellow Conservative” MPs, and, unsurprisingly, her closest civil service advisers, it was said that her programme would destroy the British pension system and was causing an “economic crash”. Any initial instability caused to the pension markets was compounded by the specious claim by Truss’ political opponents that she had induced an economic crash, only to be gobbled up and reproduced word-for-word by the useful idiots who somehow present television programmes on the BBC and Sky News. An economic crash, as far as I am concerned, is something akin to a recession; i.e. a shrinking economy. But that is certainly not what happened. The UK economy grew by 0.5% in October 2022, right off of the bat of the “Mini Budget” which was an improvement on the figures for the previous quarters and months. I am happy to concede, however, that what happened was indeed a market crash, but this is not half as serious or existential as the broadcast media allowed the Labour Party, and the Tory wets, to claim it was.

On top of the idea of, heaven forbid, cutting our taxes and allowing us to keep more of our own hard-earned cash, the Truss ministry had more amazing ideas to get Britain booming. The Freeports she championed as Trade Secretary would be expanded, allowing so many more areas, including northern and former industrial areas, to share in more of Britain’s prosperity. Similarly, she championed the idea of “Opportunity Zones”; a mechanism that would make it easier for private firms to invest in chosen areas, and for infrastructure and housing projects to be more easily built. In this, Truss understood that so-called levelling up had to be just that, levelling-UP. Closing the gap between prosperous and disadvantaged parts of the country would only be achieved on a sustainable basis if growth and prosperity could be produced in the disadvantaged regions. The failed orthodoxy of boosting London’s financial sector alone and siphoning the proceeds to subsidise poorer areas has destroyed communities, undermined human potential and fulfilment and produced a depressingly unbalanced British economy.

To add to this, she understood as far too few British politicians have over the last fifty years, that energy is an issue which impinges on our economy, cost-of-living, foreign and defence policy, trade and our strategic position in the world. To that end, realising that being dependent on Russia, Iran et al. for our energy supply was a policy of impressively stupid proportions, she decided that we would get more of our energy supply from domestic sources. So, yes we will drill for whatever is left in the North Sea, and we will also crucially tap into our stores of shale gas beneath our feet. The shale gas revolution is something that has proved to be unbelievably successful in lowering energy bills for the ordinary American, and freeing-up America’s hand on the world stage. By the way, of course, her wonderful Business and Energy Secretary, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg was indeed correct to point out that so much of the anti-fracking propaganda was, as corroborated by a former NATO Secretary-General, much the work of the Russians who naturally do not want the west to be energy sufficient, because it diminishes their pernicious influence over
us.

If this was not enough for you, then consider that Truss has her head screwed on about the social and cultural issues which are corrupting too many, all-too-often young, minds. She rejects the evil of identity-politics which focusses on our differences rather than uniting us as British subjects. Crucially, she also knows what a woman is. But I also look at her Cabinet appointments. These too have been unfairly criticised as being too much from one side of the party, forgetting that Nadhim Zahawi, Kemi Badenoch, Suella Braverman, Tom Tugendhat and Penny Mordaunt all ran against Truss for leader, and yet all found themselves in Cabinet. Rishi, of course, threw his toys out of the pram and decided that stewing and wallowing was more pertinent than making a success of the government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Particularly, I want to focus on the appointments to the Health and Education briefs. Dr Thérèse Coffey and Kit Malthouse respectively are not, I hope it’s alright to say, exactly photographic or media-friendly in the conventional sense (I say this as someone who has a face for radio). But both are known for being good performers as ministers; as being competent. In addition, Coffey has a reputation for
suffering no fools, and Malthouse, pardon the pun, for compromise and being practical. Given that the health service is in a bit of a state, and both big public services (along with Transport and Justice) were in the midst of industrial unrest, inefficiency and failure to provide for their customers; the tax-paying public, it is heartening that Truss put good policy before what might be considered bad politics. Regardless of optics, I am confident that Coffey would have put the boot in, and got the health service into a good state before an election, and Malthouse would have been able to get some order and standards back into British classrooms.

In the middle of this, let us not forget, Truss was the nation’s premier during maybe the most momentous event to befall Britain since the end of the War in Europe in 1945. On the 8 September, the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and indeed the world, lost their Queen; our Queen. Her seventy years of unrivalled, dedicated service to us as her subjects was something that we, naturally, could only fully comprehend when we lost her. Her constancy as our Head of State and Sovereign meant that her absence was deeply felt by each of us. While Truss may not have received the plaudits for her tribute, being eclipsed by Boris’ admittedly very moving statement, or Theresa May’s personal anecdote about being driven around in a Range Rover or dripping cheese on the floor, I genuinely think that Truss got the most salient message of all: “she was the rock on which modern Britain was built.” She certainly was, and as the King’s First Minister during those days of national mourning, Truss conducted herself with the utmost dignity and appropriateness. She rightly accompanied His Majesty the King on his tour of the Kingdom, but never sought to eclipse him like other politicians would no doubt have attempted. Instead, her presence was another poignant symbol of the seamless succession, and the Prime Minister’s
rightful constitutional place as having power which exists only through the sovereign, and as being his adviser. It was one of many signs during that fateful ten-day period that the British constitution and system of government is unsurpassed by any other.

In the end, however, it was not to be. I still maintain that unpopularity, a somewhat awkward, non-flashy public persona and a media filled with bile (and with Labour Party talking-points) would have been overcome by the cold hard evidence of rising incomes, increased prosperity, improved public services and lower energy bills by the time we went before the public at a general election. Nonetheless, the experts disagreed, and she was soon out of Downing Street, an act I believe to be the second mistake made by “conservative” MPs in a year. But I digress.

Anyway, after over a year since her leaving frontline politics, and relatively few public appearances since, including a wonderful speech before the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom in Washington where she lambasted the unsustainable position of almost half of every pound sterling in Britain being spent by the state, and rightly spoke firmly against the threat of the Chinese Communist Party, Truss came to OUCA.

I will not rehash a news report of the successful event in the Town Hall, but she did repeat a number of themes we have become happily familiar with over the years. For me, she did add slightly to the perception that she stands against the awful culture of “woke” ideas than I was aware of when she was a minister, which was deeply heartening. In addition, she confirmed her opposition to affirmative action policies in higher education, and also confirmed support for the besieged state of Israel.

At the dinner afterwards, I was further encouraged by her attitude to human rights reform and the Windsor Framework sell-out, which she pointed out that she voted against. I must admit here some severe embarrassment on this one. I pride myself, as someone with few traits of note, on an encyclopaedic knowledge of politics, but I omitted to remember that she did in-fact stand for the unity of the Kingdom by voting against the wretched Framework. For that I am very grateful, if, as I say, a little ashamed that I didn’t already know it. In addition to all this, she continued throughout the evening to espouse more and more good, old-fashioned sound conservative virtue. I knew I had been vindicated entirely in my admiration for her.

A sticky moment did occur however. In the midst of a discussion about how conservative, or sound, the university’s Conservative Association was, someone thought it appropriate to take the wind right out of my sails and point out that I, in a very un-conservative fashion, abstain from drinking. As you can imagine, and keen observers of OUCA will already be acutely aware, this is a lifestyle choice which is much shamed upon in OUCA circles. I am afraid to report that, my political hero, who from my first encounter of her on television in 2014 through to her unapologetically based speech that afternoon had not once, as best remember, made a single comment which I didn’t agree with entirely, responded to news of me being teetotal with the quick retort in my direction; “oh very unsound”.

Naturally, dear reader, I will take this under advisement and consider my choices. But that aside, and discounting the fact that I was unable to get my A3 self-designed poster signed by the former Prime Minister, I counted it a great privilege to hear her speak in person again, and to meet her at close proximity.

However she, and the wonderful Growth Group of MPs like Ranil Jayawardena, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Sir Simon Clarke, Priti Patel and Sir Brandon Lewis will, I hope, continue to prosecute the case for free market economics, supply-side reforms, lower, simpler, flatter taxes, more house-building, more British energy production, public service efficiency, high-standards and sound values in education, and a foreign and defence policy with Britain’s, and the West’s best interests at heart. Liz Truss’ absence from the top of British politics is a personal loss for her (and, it will come as no surprise, to me too) but one more reason that makes her so worthy of our support and admiration is that she remains committed to the ideas, because the ideas are what mattered to her. She will happily vacate the political spotlight to ensure that the policies which make Britain a better country to live, work, do business and build a home life are put into practice. That, in my estimation is not a politician; that is a leader and a patriot.

Conor Boyle (The NEO for the CPF) is a third year undergraduate reading PPE at The Queen’s College.