6th October 2022
The speech of the new Prime Minister Elizabeth Truss to her party conference in Birmingham yesterday was a short and fairly unmemorable affair.
To the extent it will be remembered it will be because nothing untoward happened, which is in contrast to the fiasco of the conference as a whole.
But.
The speech was perhaps significant for what it did not say.
There was little of the infantile “anti-woke” culture war stuff.
Brexit was also hardly referred to – just four insubstantial mentions.
There was no explicit mention of the Northern Irish Protocol, let alone any renewed threat to break international law – either by “necessity” or otherwise.
And human rights had no mention, other than a snippet about stopping “European judges” doing things which they probably cannot do anyway.
Lawyers were not mentioned expressly, though accountants were.
From a law and policy perspective there was little in the speech of substance.
And given we are now in the second half of the maximum term of this parliament, with the next general election nearer to us in time than the last one, then there is little opportunity for the Truss administration to do something fundamental to our constitutional arrangements.
Of course, an economics and policy blogger would have a different view.
And economics punditry will benefit from the government’s “growth” policies, even if the economy does not.
Perhaps there is still more constitutional drama – and perhaps even constitutional crises – ahead.
And we seem to do now have a de facto hung parliament – and they are always fun.
The current period of constitutional excitement may not yet be over.
But.
You would not know it from that lacklustre conference speech.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
The comments policy is here.
I laughed out loud at the hypocrisy of her lamenting the sight of boarded-up shops and the like, given that their sorry condition is unequivocally the direct consequence of the policies of a government she has been a (nominally) important part of for ten or more years.
Bellowing “growth, growth, growth” neither changes that, nor does it solve the problem.
She’s gaslighting the country, just like Johnson. The problems are someone else’s fault, not us. It was left wing bankers. And remainers. And anyone woke. Definitely not us. You can trust us, we have the solution (but you’ll have to pay for it).
We have been stagnating since 2010, not technically in a recession but getting poorer as wages have not risen in real terms. The Tories strangled growth with austerity. They added Brexit, reducing trade and GDP. Now they want to create a Year Zero style new economic policy to fix problems they caused.
A useful distinction between the rollback of the madder elements of the culture war including attacks on the rule of law by Truss if not by Braverman are welcome but quite overshadowed by the other issue, the gratuitous economic harm being inflicted on so many in the UK including some lawyers.
“the gratuitous economic harm being inflicted on so many in the UK including some lawyers.”
Sorry, could you clarify, Kyrl – are you saying that “some lawyers” are victims of the harm; or that they’re perpetrators?
We could well be in the second half of Truss’s premiership. And there will not be extra time, just penalties.
Truss is consistent in this respect at least.
Completely unmemorable and incident free. Even the anti growth demonstrators had the good sense to bring a duplicate banner.
A word repeated three times does not make a slogan.
30 minutes of calmness before the storm next week.
I rarely comment on here, others are much better at it, but in passing I note the FT reported from on Conservative MP after the conference “I went back to my office and cried”.
I only popped out for a couple of hours to avoid listening to Miss Trust, and found she had inducted me into an “anti-growth coalition”. I’m not anti-growth. I’m anti-your-conception-of-growth, Liz.
“I’m not anti-growth. I’m anti-your-conception-of-growth, Liz.”
Indeed – as are most (if not all) of those in her list, I imagine.
What is particularly ironic is that – looked at objectively, and based on observable outcomes – Truss’ actions so far (including but not limited to her support for the self-inflicted imposition of obviously anti-growth trade barriers that is Brexit) would put her at the head of any such list.
Unfortunately “Nothing” may well “come of nothing” though it could be entertaining to see Liz Dross assailed by “all-shaking thunder”.
Curiously the Greens were not mentioned as members of the “ant-growth coalition”. This is from their policy document dated 2019 (I doubt that their position has changed much since then):-
“EC201 To this end, Universal Basic Income (see EC730) will allow the current dependence on economic growth to cease, and allow zero or negative growth to be feasible without individual hardship should this be necessary on the grounds of sustainability. (see PB104-106) ”
https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ec.html
Perhaps the Maggie Barbie Doll thought it best not to give these eco-terrorists the oxygen of publicity. Good God! You wouldn’t want them to end up in Parliament!
While bigger ants are always desirable,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmMouSQXJpg
anti-growth is the bug-bear at issue on this occasion.
Edit button, please!
“Curiously the Greens were not mentioned as members of the “ant-growth coalition”.”
She did mention “people like” the Greenpeace ladies who protested – I imagine that was enough to capture the Greens in the minds of the zealots at the conference.
It wasn’t what Liz Truss did say that matters, it is what she didn’t say that counts. For example, she didn’t say:-
Other things the speech failed to mention:-
1. That the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members – and how she would ensure fairness and justice for all… by ensuring that the wealthiest pay the most…
2. That corruption in office – “PartyGate” – was completely unacceptable, and that the government would bring forward legislation to hold both elected officials and civil servants to account with real penalties…
3. That corruption in office extended to second jobs, post-service directorships and more, so in order to give the nation the assurance that these practices would not be tolerated, a fully independent watchdog, with *teeth* would be set up to ensure that those entrusted with running the nation did so with scrupulous honesty and candour…
4. That the endless claims of “being tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” have been shown to be completely and utterly ineffective at reducing repeat offences and/or the number of people detained at His Majesty’s pleasure, so she would launch a root-and-branch review of justice – and rehabilitation – in the UK…
5. That for far too long foreign companies had been sucking wealth out of the UK through tax loopholes and sleight-of-hand accounting and this would be stopped, with a series of simple laws that require that taxes be levied “at the point of the click” and not at some remote, arbitrary location chosen for its corporate tax friendliness… That foreign-owned companies pay their *full* share of corporation tax on profits.
6. That obfuscation in interests and ownerships of UK assets had brought about a level of criminality that was totally unacceptable, such that the reported activities of one former Prime Minister [who acquired an office in London by purchasing an off-shore company, thereby avoiding Stamp Duty and other taxes] would be rendered illegal…
I could go on, but you get the point.
Same old party politics.
Same old corruption.
We deserve better than this.
“how she would ensure fairness and justice for all”
She has pretty much explicitly ruled out any such nonsense (not my opinion, I’m channelling Truss here) by arguing that too much time and effort has been expended on redistribution, which bu any Real World measure is an essential for fairness (especially for fairness) and justice for all.
Arguing instead for a bigger cake, so that everyone gets a bigger slice (more likely a few more crumbs for those at the back of the queue) conveniently ignores the fundamental(ly unfair) imbalance of distribution – that stays the same in her approach – so no, she’s actively demonstrating that fairness isn’t part of her agenda.
It’s a bit like an expanding universe – yes, it’s getting bigger, but all of the interesting stuff is getting further away.
Truss does of course self-declare that she espouses “the values of the Christian faith” – but I don’t remember “consistently screwing over the most unfortunate in society” coming up in my short-lived Sunday school lessons…
The aspect of this which I find most surprising is that the one demographic which seems to vote Conservative more reliably than any other – pensioners – are the group hardest hit by these policies.
It’s like the “pay rise” trick – everyone gets 3%… but if your salary is £30,000 to start with, your 3% (£900) is a lot less than mine if my salary is £150,00 (£4,500). And the gap between rich and poor gets ever wider…
“The aspect of this which I find most surprising is that the one demographic which seems to vote Conservative more reliably than any other – pensioners – are the group hardest hit by these policies.”
Bizarre, isn’t it? But then again, the Tories pulled a similar trick with the “Red Wall”: nobody with even the smallest amount of political nous and awareness of history would fall for the lies that got them those seats, yet get them they did.
Maybe things are changing, though. I am extremely gratified to see that support for the Tories in rural areas – their literal heartlands – is dropping like a stone. And dropping in favour of Labour, not the Lib Dems, which you might think would be the obvious alternative.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/10/06/conservatives-are-now-13pts-behind-among-rural-vot
Taking votes for granted might not be A Thing anymore…
It’s possible they haven’t thought it through. However its more likely they have cynically calculated that most of their “grey” support comes from those with workplace pensions who don’t rely on the state pension. Thus they can freeze pensions and not lose many votes.
They have said the pensions can be frozen because a period of deflation made them worth more. I haven’t noticed any price decreases making my pension go further, and the current high inflation rate is biting hard. Their unrealistic attitude to people on low incomes is despicable. They aren’t fit to govern.
Freezing pensions means freezing pensioners.
Liz Truss has found her feet – as a leading conspiracist and No 10 whiner-in-chief | Marina Hyde, Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/07/liz-truss-no-10-prime-minister-britain?CMP=share_btn_link