I have finished reading “Ten Years to Save the West: Lessons from the only conservative in the room” by Liz Truss.
Liz Truss is a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
“We have Ten Years to Save the West. We Must Start now”.
Liz Truss.
One thing I have come to understand is that characters like Liz Truss are honest in their own way. Right from the start she promised at the start of her book that what I would read wouldn’t be a typical political memoir. She was right about that.
This book is half a political memoir and half a call for political action, the type of which means the word “compromise” is seen as a dirty word. As far as the author is concerned one cannot compromise what is true, which has to be what the believe in.
Anger and resentment is so present in the book, I can almost feel it radiating out of the ink. The case that Liz Truss makes is that while she made some minor mistakes in implementation, what she tried to do was correct, justified but ultimately fatally undermined by a divided Conservative party and a manipulative “establishment”.
Who are the “establishment”? The answer to that question can vary depending on whose political viewpoint you are calling on. For Liz Truss it is pretty much the entire British administrative state and the administrative state in most Western democracies, including the US. This interpretation of political reality is especially relevant to her version of events with the mini-budget debacle.
In her telling of the mini-budget saga, market volatility in the US helped undermine the pound around the same time as the release of the mini-budget. Simultaneously, the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) and Treasury officials undermined this mini-budget by offering doom laden projections of how it would increase public debt. Liz Truss cast doubt on any institutions said to be “independent” but especially, the OBR, she cites it and the Treasury being populated by staff who are essentially ideologically biased against ideas guided by supply sided economics.
How much of this do I buy into? It is difficult to say, because the author has the convincing confidence of an extremist. Even when what she says on one page seems to contradict or not sit well with another. For instance, I found it bizarre how she used stronger language to denounce the European Union than she did Iran and China. She literally said that her attitude when negotiating with our allies was “the only thing they understand is pain”. Somewhat undermining the chapter which featured the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, she said that “the UK’s decision to leave was always going to be seen as an act of war by the EU”. Perhaps Ukrainians, who are also pushing for EU membership, are better qualified to show us what actual acts of war look like?
In the interests of full disclosure, it is safe to say that myself and the author’s political views are very different. Although, I will admit with the exception of our views on the EU there was a surprising amount of crossover on foreign policy and defence matters (I admit to being quite centre right on both areas). It is also hard to keep level-headed when my mortgage is still suffering from the ripple effects of the mini-budget.
This book’s main aims are basically a call for a particular vision of conservative purity which leans towards right wing libertarianism. It is by no means a consistent vision either. I do not know if Liz Truss fully understands the ideological inconsistency in backing Trump. Liz Truss wants to expand free trade. Trump represents a anti-free trade part of the right in which all international trade is basically either a sign of weakness or a zero sum game in which his country is bound to lose.
The chapter on “Wokery”? That was probably the lowest point out of a challenging read. It is basically a wholesale denunciation of liberal social attitudes mixed with J.K Rowling style transphobia.
Like many extremists and populists in contemporary politics, one can find some truth in what Liz Truss says if we look close enough. The No 10 operation is a shambles. Running a modern government out of a crumbling Georgian house built by a con man (the irony is strong in that building). No 10 should have a more professional operation complete with a dedicated medical team. It is effectively the presidency of this country, in form if not in title, so it needs to be resourced as such. Myself and the author both have concerns about the functioning of the Civil Service too, which we could probably find some common ground on, if she didn’t hate compromise so much.
The author argues for more democratic accountability by giving elected politicians more power. This is to counter balance what she terms the “administrative state”. I found this most problematic when she was talking about judicial reform, where she seemed to be arguing for a more politically directed judiciary in the US style. Frankly I can think of little worse, apart from the situation in Hungary or China with effectively government controlled judiciaries. She talks about her contact with the Conservative Party’s grassroots members, making her more convinced that government needs to be on the side of ordinary people. However, she leaves aside the glaring fact that Conservative Party members are a minority of the British population and are not representative demographically of them. She also seems to give short shrift to Human Rights, the post-war conception of which was supported by her party. Politicians like her have a worrying tendency to dismiss this conception of Human Rights as outdated, when the very idea of them is to stand the test of times, especially when there is instability.
Liz Truss openly denounces compromise, domestic or international; “The road to hell is paved with compromise and triangulation”. But the truth is one often has to compromise to grow or overcome obstacles. Not all problems can be tackled with her trademark “full frontal” approach or should be. Obviously, this depends on what you may be compromising. I compromised by reading this book. If I took a Liz Truss’ attitude I would never have picked it up. I would still be the Revolutionary Socialist I saw myself as nearly 20 years ago. But I have learned a lot since then. It depends on why one is engaging in compromise, because the difference matters. Is one compromising to appease someone else because they feel coerced or aren’t sure of their position? Are they compromising just to get ahead? Or are they compromising because they are honestly learning a new truth that challenges what they believe in? I am not sure if Liz Truss is able to distinguish between any of them. Liz Truss equates compromise with being weak. I would say it is context sensitive. But then one would be pressed to find anything “sensitive” in this book.
I compromised and read this book. Now I am returning it to the library.