Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
For Britain’s PM, Chaos Has Consequences
For Britain’s PM, Chaos Has Consequences
Jan 18, 2026 3:22 PM

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 They have been replaced by economic globalists and advocates of big government.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
Lamenting loss
The Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD), and the broader munity, has lost two leaders within the space of a few months. President Diane Knippers, “an intellectual heavyweight who rallied opposition to the liberal drift of mainline churches,” passed away Monday at the age of 53. Ed Robb, co-founder of the IRD in 1981, also died recently, passing away on December 14. ...
washingtonpost.com – Live online
Join Rev. Robert Sirico for a live chat at 11 am ET this morning hosted by Live Online at , “Insight on the New Pope.” ...
Too poor to be Catholic?
Reporting on an act of vandalism on the cathedral of Buenos Aires, Reuters asserts that Latin America is a region “whose poor and hungry often cannot afford to follow Roman Catholic doctrine.” How’s that??? Reuters does not expand on its theology, but we can take a guess at what this all implies. The poor and hungry cannot be expected to follow the Catholic Church’s teachings on abortion and contraception, because we all know that poverty and hunger are alleviated by...
Acton staff on Pope Benedict XVI
Rev. Robert Sirico has been mentary in a number of media outlets. Today Rev. Sirico appeared on BBC America and The Laura Ingraham Show. Research fellow Kevin Schmiesing wrote an op-ed appearing in the Detroit News, “New pope starts debate on direction of Catholic Church”. Director of research Samuel Gregg also wrote a short reflection for the Detroit News, “Reaction on the streets of Rome”. ...
C. S. Lewis on American public education
Some might be acquainted with the argument about education that C. S. Lewis makes in his The Abolition of Man, especially his idea of “men without chests.” If you haven’t read it, please do, it’s well worth the time. But many are probably not familiar with Lewis’ view of the specifically American educational system. To this end, I’ll share some representative sections from a pair of Lewis’ works below. First, we have the Preface to Lewis’ “Screwtape Proposes a Toast,”...
God, man, and the environment
On the occasion of the Earth Day celebrations this year, Dr. Samuel Gregg reflects on the role of people of faith in environmental discussions. The exercise of legitimate human dominion over creation “must be actualized in accordance with the requirements of God’s divine law,” he writes. Read the full text here. ...
IRS cash assistance problems – mine and theirs
The days following April 15 (and our tax bill, again) I question the government behemoth and how it takes so much of MY money to feed it. My parents struggled financially; they couldn’t send me to college. But I received a great debate scholarship, worked year round and went to grad school too. That self-sufficiency, success model that my husband and I followed means that by 2004 we were increasingly penalized for our success. We can’t make all we can...
Benedict XVI and freedom
Acton adjuct scholar Alejandro Chafuen argues that the new pope places the concept of freedom centrally to his thinking. And “with es an incalculability — and thus the world can never be reduced to mathematical logic,” writes Chafuen. Read the full text here. ...
Economics of martyrdom
Although purporting to be a post about the “economics of religion,” EconLog’s Bryan Caplan discusses what is really the “economics of martyrdom,” or, to be even more accurate, the “economics of a particular type of ‘martyrdom,’ suicide terrorism.” ments are in reaction to a paper by Lawrence Iannaccone, “The Market for Martyrs.” The pressing question, according to Caplan, is e American opponents of abortion engage in almost no terrorism, much less suicidal terrorism?” And his answer is, “Despite their fiery...
Europe in a crisis of cultures
Excellent and ments from Cardinal Ratzinger from the conference held on April 1, 2005, at the Monastery of St. Scholastica, Subiaco, Italy. The entire text will be published by Cantagalli Editore, Italy. Full text of the extract available from the Seattle Catholic : The true contrariety which characterizes the world of today is not that among diverse religious cultures, but that between the radical emancipation of man from God, from the roots of life, on the one hand, and the...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved