The day after Conservative MPs removed Boris Johnson from Downing Street, this newspaper’s front page asked, “What the heck did they do?”
This morning, this despondent inquiry has never been more prescient and pertinent.
The Mail has argued for months that Mr. Johnson’s dismissal was ludicrous and out of context. Here was a proven leader — an election victor and a man of decisive action — who was removed from office by subordinate colleagues for a series of relatively insignificant infractions.
And how much more inconsequential they appear when seen in light of the current status of the government and the nation.
We believed that removing Mr. Johnson from office would be an enormous error, not least because there was no obvious choice to replace him. Mr. Johnson was one-of-a-kind in modern British politics, a man of size and charm who was able to reach individuals who were not members of his party and who were not generally interested in politics.
Undoubtedly, he had his share of flaws, as his enemies never failed to point out, but whose historical person was flawless? Numerous of our greatest men and women have been profoundly flawed, yet they have accomplished tremendous good. This has always been understood by adults.
To their permanent disgrace, though (as many of them may now realize), Tory MPs and ministers worked together to get rid of him, and they are now paying a harsh price.
Due to their actions, a country with more pressing concerns, such as a European war, an energy crisis, and the worst bout of inflation in nearly four decades, was forced to endure an uninspiring and bizarre leadership contest, during which the people of the United Kingdom felt reasonably ignored and excluded.
Tory lawmakers indulged in a series of irrational outbursts of support for one candidate or another, followed by equally capricious shifts in support.
In the end, they delegated the choice to the unrepresentative and out-of-touch Tory Party membership, which was all too easily disregarded as unrepresentative. They opted for Liz Truss.
The Mail backed this decision for obvious reasons. First and foremost, because we believed in her tax-cutting objective, which is core to Conservative ideology. We also believed that she was personally opposed to the disastrous Blairite consensus that has left this country with low economic growth and high taxes, undoing the successes of the Margaret Thatcher era.
But regrettably, no one can pretend that Miss Truss’s few hectic weeks in Downing Street fulfilled the potential she appeared to display. On the contrary, it is indisputable that her premiership to date has been a failure.
Yet it need not have been. The infamous mini-Budget that derailed Hillary featured numerous completely fair and justifiable provisions. The reversal of tax increases on corporations was prudent and advantageous. Likewise, the cancellation of projected increases in National Insurance was a significant development. This publication had advocated for both of these measures for many months. The reduction in tax rates was also correct in theory.
However, Miss Truss and her then-Chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, committed three significant errors. First, they came up with ideas out of thin air, which spooked the markets and triggered a series of unintended economic effects — particularly an increase in mortgage rates — that will be extremely detrimental to the government for years to come.
Second, Miss Truss and Mr. Kwarteng drafted the document without consulting the wiser heads who could have cautioned them about the broader implications of their plans and the political hazards implicit in some of them.
Thirdly, they planned its rollout and timing so poorly that they were unable to adequately explain or defend it before it was immersed in harsh criticism, along with themselves.
Since then, catastrophe has followed catastrophe. Discipline among Conservatives has gone out the window. Conservative MPs, sensing the rising fragility of Miss Truss’s leadership, have reverted to their old bad habits of self-aggrandizement and pushing their own personal ambitions, forgetting that a party that does not work together quickly loses public support.
Downing Street has lost its authority, leaving Miss Truss in office but without any power. And yesterday, the shrinking of her government advanced with the harsh resignation of the Chancellor and a bizarre U-turn on company tax. This was one of the few aspects of the mini-Budget that enjoyed widespread approval from Conservatives and the business community.
How could anyone praise Kwasi Kwarteng’s dismissal, which was undeniably the case? Liz Truss terminated Mr. Kwarteng for adhering to her own policies. How does this make sense?
Can the procedure conclude here? Once the knives are drawn in the highest levels of politics, the first person to wield the blade risks being the next victim.
It is difficult to imagine how Jeremy Hunt’s appointment as chancellor will reverse this tragedy. Certainly a safe pair of hands with a wealth of ministerial experience, he does not, however, share Miss Truss’s beliefs and is a figure from the Tory past who has twice failed to become leader.
Yesterday’s news conference by the Prime Minister was extremely depressing for everyone who cares about the excellent governance of this country. It would be cruel not to sympathize with a person in her grave situation, but it was degrading to observe Miss Truss cautiously stumbling through an attempt to justify the enormous mess she has gotten herself, the Government, the Tory party, and the country into.
Then, she submitted to a series of difficult but ultimately legitimate questions regarding the viability of her own stance, despite the fact that it may have been prudenter not to.
She must have foreseen this eventuality, yet she simply answered with trite platitudes about “riding out the storm,” which are all the more worrisome when the ship’s bridge is practically submerged and the sea is rising.
Even Liz Truss’s most devoted allies, viewing the situation through the most rose-colored lenses possible, must now question how she will survive. However, what are the alternatives? Another protracted leadership contest like the one we just through would be impossible, and would likely have the same stupid results as the last one.
Where there is life, there is hope, and Miss Truss, one of the Tory party’s greatest survivors, still has a slim chance of making a miraculous recovery.
But if she doesn’t get her act together — and quickly — word will definitely travel within the Conservative party that the only realistic chance of winning the next election lies in an intelligent, speedy, and universally recognized settlement of this situation.
This is the only option to despair, and as the past teaches us, we must never allow despair to take hold. There must be members of our ruling party with sound judgment and common sense, who are not prone to panic and have the nation’s best interests at heart.
There may come a point when they must establish themselves and the adults must assume leadership.