Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
For Britain’s PM, Chaos Has Consequences
For Britain’s PM, Chaos Has Consequences
Apr 25, 2026 2:33 AM

After a mere 45 days, Liz Truss is out as prime minister. Given the contradictions in Conservative Party policies, no one should be surprised.

Read More…

Boris Johnson, though deeply flawed, was the glue that held the British Conservative Party together. His electoral reach, charisma, mitment to deliver Brexit put together a huge majority of 80 seats over all other bined in the 650-seat House of Commons.

But that glue came unstuck owing to Boris’ character flaws, and now, in the resulting chaos, the Conservative Party itself e apart at the seams, squandering the largest parliamentary majority in recent times. Cabinet ministers fell like stones, Members of Parliament demanded the reversal of the vote of the membership, the prime minister herself changed policy on issues by the day, by the hour.

Unable to mand her party or deliver on her electoral mandate, Liz Truss resigned on October 20, after just 45 days in office, the shortest premiership in British history.

The consequences, however, are profound. The coalition that Boris Johnson built had three major elements. First, there were the Thatcherite low-tax, small-state conservatives. Second, there were socially conservative, anti-immigration Brexit voters, who in certain parts of the country had traditionally voted Labour but flocked to the Boris Johnson banner. There is some overlap, but it is, as we will see, by no means universal. Both these groups were minorities; together, however, they formed a majority, albeit an unstable one. The third group consisted of those Conservatives who just wanted to win and recognized Boris Johnson’s electoral appeal. Many big-government big spenders were hidden within this last group. What is even more bizarre is that Boris himself appeared to belong to neither of those first two groups at all, just the third one—he wanted to win and, despite some innate instincts for liberty, too often saw government as the answer rather than part of the problem.

Both of the two main parts of the coalition that is the Conservative Party have been blown out of the water and consigned to the trash can for the foreseeable future. They have been replaced by economic globalists and advocates of big government. This is the disastrous consequence of electing the inept and failing to argue, and win, the case. The party elected the least-disliked candidate in Liz Truss from a motley collection. The membership made clear, at least in polling, that they wanted Kemi Badenoch, bined those first two groups of party constituents. The Members of Parliament, however, wanted Rishi Sunak, the chancellor (equivalent to treasury secretary), who was more of an economic globalist. Both ended up with their second choice—the MPs explicitly, the members because they were not even offered their preferred option. And there were serious doubts about the basic capability of the successful candidate.

Liz Truss represented, at least in part, that first group: low tax, small state, but not the second, the socially conservative and anti-immigration voters. What is more, she proved a poor advocate even of the first group.

Let’s deal first with that second group. According to the BBC, nearly 34,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the English Channel from France so far in 2022. Every one of them goes onto the state welfare budget. Suella Braverman, appointed home (interior) secretary by Liz Truss, resigned on October 19 after a blazing row with the prime minister, who wished, for economic reasons, to further relax restrictions on immigration. That second group of voters, who delivered so many new districts for the Conservatives, won’t be doing so a second time.

Surely, though, we could at least place some hope in the low-tax, small-state agenda? The so-called mini-budget, a little over two weeks after Liz Truss took up office, contained some seriously hopeful agenda items. These included canceling a proposed rise in corporate tax; reversing a previously imposed tax rise on both employees and employers; reducing from next April the standard rate of e tax from 20% to 19%; abolishing the highest rate e tax band (45%) altogether; removing the cap on bonus payments in the banking sector; and supply-side reforms such as building even more low-tax investment zones, reducing regulation on entrepreneurs, and planning zone freedoms (intended to reduce regulations to make it easier to build new houses). Phew! Great stuff. Polling showed that, apart from bankers’ bonuses and the 45% rate abolition, the measures all had public support.

Why, then, did they fail so spectacularly and in a way that exposed Prime Minister Truss as so weak, effectively forcing her resignation?

Janet Daly, an American-born, sensible, petent columnist for the Daily Telegraph, wrote that nobody “is being truthful about the depth and breadth of this crisis which mon to all the Western nations who have been perpetrating an economic lie since 2008.” In other words, we have e addicted to cheap money and big government, and the two are connected. This was one of the consequences of both the economic crisis of 2008 onward and the COVID catastrophe. Governments bailed out business with cheap (low-interest) money. And since money is made “cheap” for a reason, more can (and will) always be borrowed. It’s a vicious circle of spending and debt that bursts when interest rates return to more normal levels. With COVID, the government will restrict liberty and, once again, bail out business from the fallout. The principal consequence is that a high-tax, high-spend government paradigm is now baked in for the foreseeable future,irrespective of which party runs the government.

A program of reform needs planning and careful execution. Even more important, however, is to make the case and win the argument. We simply cannot assume that people understand the basic principles that make a moral case for a low-tax, small-state economy. In this instance, the pro-growth argument was not even attempted, simply announced. The markets were ready for part of the agenda but not the speed and, also, not the inherent contradiction at the heart of the program. Economic growth! preached the prime minister. Lower taxes, encourage investment, economic freedom! Oh, and continued government spending at the highest levels in living memory. It is that contradiction of low tax but high spend and high borrowing that sank the budget proposals. The PM was too weak and the Conservative Party too addicted to cheap money for the plan to work.

The media bayed and the markets tanked. The pound dropped, worried, of course, by debt, and interest rates on government bonds rose sharply, exposing also a number of fallacies in the market itself—overreliance on bonds and opportunities to short the currency to make a profit. In the wake of this chaos, the chancellor resigned, and his successor (who gained so few votes even among Members of Parliament in the leadership election that he was eliminated in the first round) reversed nearly everything. Markets, of course, are fickle and should be careful what they wish for. Low tax wedded to low debt has been abandoned. A Labour government is unlikely to operate with lower levels of government debt. The market should, perhaps, have been more cautious in its response.

Needless to say, the media loved it. They helped bring Boris down (with assistance from the man himself), and they hate anything related to Brexit and populism and, indeed, anything remotely conservative. Another opportunity to bring down a government. They now have succeeded. Every day, the plained about “unfunded tax cuts.” There is no such thing; there is only unfunded government expenditures, the solution to which is either to borrow more (so our children pay), to tax more, or to spend less. Alas, this last option was never on offer from Liz Truss. You see the contradictions. Never once did the media cry out that the British tax burden is the highest for 70 years and that government expenditure was at unsustainable levels.

The current debacle had thus ended in the only way that was ever possible. The e will be, undoubtedly, that one of the losers is installed. The coalition of the Conservative Party is broken. Since the Second World War, there have been approximately 29 years of Labour governments, and 42 years of Conservative government. We are probably headed for a leftist government. Oh well, one leftist government under the Labour banner replacing another leftist government under the Conservative banner. The biggest loss is that intellectual vision for small-state conservatism. We will need to return to the drawing board and make the basic moral arguments again. As no small aside, Scripture reminds us that government should be limited in its reach (Deut 17:14-20).

What happens now? As we understand it, within a week there will be a leadership election. Will the membership be asked their views? Apparently so, but the bar for nominations will be set so high among MPs (most likely 100 nominations to stand, last time it was 20) that there will likely be a maximum of three candidates even in the first round. Perhaps there will be online membership voting or, even more likely, there will remain but one candidate standing, so the membership will not be asked at all. There is talk of Boris returning, but surely that has to be unrealistic, and certainly not wise. Lord, help us.

A final point. I genuinely feel sorry for Liz Truss. One potential candidate at the time of the Conservative leadership election declined to stand because of the impact on his family. Politics is brutal; I would say too brutal. It is almost impossible to make the intellectual arguments necessary for specific policies because you are immediately classified as either partisans or traitors. Liz Truss has two teenage daughters. Pray for her and her family at this difficult time. Our leaders need our prayers always; indeed, as Christians we are enjoined by Scripture not only to submit to our leaders (Rom 13: 1-7; Pet 2:13-25) but also to pray for them, irrespective of whether we voted for them or agree with them (1 Tim 2:1-2). Government is a godly institution for our good and well-being. Pray for those in government, pray for those called to serve. Pray that the Lord will raise up new and godly leaders. Pray for our nation-states.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Growth miracles and growth disasters
Note: This is post #76 in a weekly video series on basic economics. Because of differences in national growth rates there can be large disparities in economic wealth among different countries. A poor country can not only grow, but it can do so quickly. It can catch up with developed countries at an astonishing rate. That’s the good news, says Alex Tabarrok in this video by Marginal Revolution University. The bad news is, while growth can skyrocket in some countries,...
Themelios reviews Kuyper translation series
In the latest edition of the theological journal Themelios, Logan Dagley, Dennis Greeson, and Matthew Ng review all five volumes in the English translation series of Abraham Kuyper’s works on public theology: As the North American church moves out of a place of cultural dominance and into the cultural margins, we are faced with an important question: What is the church’s public calling? This question drove Kuyper’s life and writings, and his answers provide pelling and constructive path forward for...
Beyond vocational hierarchies: Evangelism, social justice, and Christian mission
Throughout my conservative evangelical upbringing, I was routinely encouraged to follow the call of the “five-fold ministry,” whether from the pulpit in weekly church services or the prayer altars of summer youth camps. The implications were clear: entering so-called “vocational ministry” was a higher calling than, well, everything else. Later, in my college years at a leftist Christian university, I witnessed a lopsidedness of a different sort. Instead of being prodded into global missions, I was now encouraged to “make...
Alfie Evans and the UK’s paternalistic subversion of parental rights
Alfie Evans’s father wanted his son to remain on life support and be allowed to go to the Bambino Gesù Hospital in Rome for additional treatment. Earlier today, though, the UK’s Court of Appeal—the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales—denied that request and upheld a previous ruling removing life-support for the British infant. (Rev. Ben Johnson wrote about “The trial of Alfie Evans” yesterday.) In this story sounds eerily familiar, it’s because it’s similar to the...
What is the Catholic Church’s teaching on the size of government?
What is the Catholic Church’s teaching on the size of government? And what is the principle of subsidiarity? Our friends atCatholicVote.orghave put together a brief video to help answer these questions. ...
Macron’s speech offers thin gruel on Western ‘values’
For one fleeting moment in Emmanuel Macron’s speech to Congress, it seemed as though he would connect the transatlantic alliance on the firm basis of mon values. “The strength of our bonds is the source of our shared ideals,” he told lawmakers. Since 1776, the United States and France “have worked together for the universal ideals of liberty, tolerance, and equal rights.” The use of the phrase “universal values,” an ersatz substitute for Western values, preceded his assessment of the...
Emmanuel Macron and the problem with ‘European values’
Last weekFrench President Emmanuel Macron came to the United States for a two-day summit with President Trump and an address before Congress. As Acton senior editor Rev. Ben Johnson notes at The American Spectator, Macron’s speech before Congress reveals a deep fissure within the West about its most fundamental values—a fracture es as the West faces powerful challenges from outside its borders: Macron’s speech to Congress represents one set of values: the statist orientation of the bureaucratic EU elite. Leaving...
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom releases 2018 report
Yesterday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) released itsInternational Religious Freedom Reportfor 2018.A wide range of U.S. government agencies and offices use the reports for such efforts as shaping policy and conducting diplomacy. The Secretary of State also uses the reports to help determine which countries have engaged in or tolerated “particularly severe violations” of religious freedom in order to designate “countries of particular concern.” “Sadly, religious freedom conditions deteriorated in many countries in 2017, often due to...
James Cone and the Marxist roots of black liberation theology
Rev. Dr. James Hal Cone died last week at the age of 79. Cone was a professor of systematic theology at Union Theological Seminary and the father of black liberation theology. In a 2008 Acton Commentary, Anthony Bradley provided a brief explanation of Cone’s system of black liberation theology and its roots in Marxism: Black liberation theologians James Cone and Cornel West have worked diligently to embed Marxist thought into the black church since the 1970s. For Cone, Marxism best...
Loving cities well: Chris Brooks on the church’s role in economic restoration
What would happen if local churches came together to love and serve our cities? Upon hearing such a question, our minds are prone to imagine an assortment of “outreach ministries,” from food pantries to homeless shelters munity events to street evangelism.But while each of these can be a powerful channel for love and service in munities, what about the basic vision that precedes them? Before and beyond our tactical solutions to immediate needs, how can the church truly work together...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved