Liz Truss Resigns, Tories In Crisis
Liz Truss Resigns, Tories In Crisis
Lasts just 4.1 Scaramuccis
What an unreal scene at No 10.
Kara Kennedy at The Spectator:
Nobody in British politics really thought things could get worse than last night. Conservative MP Charles Walker told the BBC that the day was a “pitiful reflection” of the party; he added that there was “no coming back from it.”
Seasoned political editors described Wednesday as the most catastrophic day of their careers. The government victory on fracking — with 326 votes opposing the Labour motion to 230 backing it — was tarnished by claims of intimidation and bullying in the House of Commons. The home secretary, Suella Braverman was fired for sending official documents from her personal phone, something which is likely now a relief for her. Two other figures were said to have quit, but remained in their posts when questioned twelve hours later.
This was just the start. As more and more Conservative MPs called for Liz Truss to stand down after losing confidence, it finally happened. In an official statement minutes ago, Truss told the British public that she was resigning as prime minister, a mere forty-four days since she met with the Queen at Balmoral and was asked to form a government. This makes her the shortest serving PM in British history.
The rot began after Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng released plans for the mini-budget, an attempt to jumpstart the British economy, which included £45 billion in unfunded tax cuts over five years. This was the first test of what’s been dubbed “Trussonomics” in the UK. Global markets responded by selling off British-backed assets: following the budget, the British pound fell to its lowest ever level against the US dollar. Kwarteng was fired three weeks later, with Jeremy Hunt appointed in his place.
Kwarteng, a close Truss ally, had been appointed to the role only thirty-eight days before, making him the second-shortest serving chancellor after Iain Macleod, who died a month after being handed the job by Edward Heath.
As the UK, once again, descends into political chaos, there are calls by Labour and the Liberal Democrats for a general election. Both parties claim that the Conservative Party no longer has a mandate from the British people. Truss claimed there will be a Tory leadership election “to be completed within the next week,” adding that she will remain as prime minister until a successor has been chosen.
Who will succeed her? Well, one Tory MP claimed that Boris Johnson should return, as he is the only one with a mandate, adding that “it’ll look better than having three different PMs.” Others are pushing Rishi Sunak, Boris’s chancellor who came runner-up to Truss in the last leadership election, believing that he is the only candidate that can sort out the economy.
Get three months free of The Spectator with a special offer here.
Related:
Today’s Transom
Wasserman Warns Democrats
Dave Wasserman thinks major Democrats could go down.
Biden’s approval ratings have sucked all year. That hasn’t changed much. Democrats have come home a bit to him since Dobbs, gas prices have come down a little bit, and he’s been able to pass an agenda during an election year, which is impressive — but that’s only gotten him to between 42 and 43 percent. Historically, that’s still a very rough place to be. The silver lining for congressional Democrats is that their approvals are still outpacing Biden’s. And the main reason is that the Democratic incumbents had the luxury of stockpiling cash all year while Republicans were locked in bitter primaries. That allowed Democrats a head start to communicate what benevolent bipartisan people they were, and to run as moderates, whereas the Republicans were stuck running to the right.
That dynamic applies in the House as well as the Senate?
Yes. And now, as we see Republican super-PAC dollars kicking into high gear, Democrats aren’t defying gravity by as much as they were in the summer. But they’re still overperforming Biden — or, I would argue, Biden is underperforming them. We’re seeing the more typical midterm dynamic assert itself in the homestretch.
You tweeted a couple of weeks ago that Democrats need to win about 80 percent of the seats you deem tossups at Cook in order to retain their majority. Has the situation worsened since then for the party?
We’re still in a similar place, where Republicans only need to win about one in every five tossups to win the majority, and Democrats would need to win more than four out of five. That’s a really tall order. It’s true that in most years, tossups break heavily in one direction or another. But I would also point out we have a bunch of races — 17 to be exact — in our Lean Democratic column, which means there are a lot of races teetering right on the edge, and we wouldn’t be shocked to see some of them fall to Republicans. And those races include some pretty prominent names. I don’t think Katie Porter is out of the woods, despite her ridiculous fundraising numbers.
I hadn’t realized she was in any danger.
Well, keep in mind that about three-quarters of that district is new to her because of redistricting. The same is true for Sean Patrick Maloney — about three quarters of his district is new. The DCCC chair is not out of the woods.
Is there a House race that encapsulates the headwinds Democrats are facing right now?
The most emblematic House race might be Oregon’s sixth congressional district. This is a new seat that Democrats drew last year, and it’s a terrific pickup opportunity in a Portland suburb. Democrats were downright gleeful when Republican Mike Erickson won the nomination in May, because there were allegations from an old race that he had paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion. And they figured, “All we need to do is point out his position and his baggage on this issue and the race is over.” Well, Erickson’s a wealthy logistics and supply-chain consultant. He has spent lavishly on this race using his personal resources, and the Democrat, Andrea Salinas, is tied at best against him.
Classical Liberalism vs. The New Right
Using this kind of contrast, just about every classical liberal view can be redone along New Right lines. The policy emphasis then becomes learning how to use the government to constrain the Left and its cultural agenda, rather than ensuring basic liberties for everyone. The New Right view is that this obsession with basic liberties leads, in reality, to the hegemony of a statist Left, and a Left that will use its power centers of government, media and academia to crush and cancel the New Right.
There is also a self-validating structure to New Right arguments over time. You can’t easily persuade New Right advocates by pointing to mainstream media reports that contradict their main narrative. Mainstream media is one of the least trusted sources. Academic research also has fallen under increasing mistrust, as the academy predominantly hires individuals who support the Democratic Party.
Most classical liberals are uncomfortable with the New Right approaches, and seek to disavow them. I share those concerns, and yet I also recognize that hard and fast lines are not so easy to draw. The New Right is in essence accepting the original classical liberal critique of the state and pushing it a few steps further, adding further skepticism of elites, a greater emphasis on culture, and a belief in elite collusion rather than checks and balances. You may or may not agree with those intellectual moves, but many common premises still are shared between the classical liberals and the New Right, even if neither side is fully comfortable admitting this.
The New Right also tends to see the classical liberals as naïve about power (the same charge classical liberals fling at the establishment), and as standing on the losing side of history. Those aren’t the easiest arguments to refute. Furthermore, the last twenty years have seen 9/11, a failed Iraq War, a major financial crisis and recession, and a major pandemic, mishandled in some critical regards. It doesn’t seem that wrong to become additionally skeptical about American elites, and the New Right wields these points effectively.
While I try my best to understand the New Right, I am far from being persuaded. One worry I have is about how it initially negative emphasis feeds upon itself. Successful societies are based on trust, including trust in leaders, and the New Right doesn’t offer resources for forming that trust or any kind of comparable substitute. As a nation-building project it seems like a dead end. If anything, it may hasten the Brazilianification of the United States rather than avoiding it, Brazil being a paradigmatic example of a low trust society and government.
I also do not see how the New Right stance avoids the risks from an extremely corrupt and self-seeking power elite. Let’s say the New Right description of the rottenness of elites were true – would we really solve that problem by electing more New Right-oriented individuals to government? Under a New Right worldview, there is all the more reason to be cynical about New Right leaders, no matter which ideological side they start on. If elites are so corrupt right now, the force corrupting elites are likely to be truly fundamental.
The New Right also overrates the collusive nature of mainstream elites. Many New Right adherents see a world ever more dominated by “The Woke.” In contrast, I see an America where Virginia elected a Republican governor, Louis C.K. won a 2022 Grammy award on a secret ballot and some trans issues are falling in popularity. Wokism likely has peaked. Similarly, the New Right places great stress on corruption and groupthink in American universities. I don’t like the status quo either, but I also see a world where the most left-wing majors – humanities majors – are losing enrollments and influence. Furthermore, the internet is gaining in intellectual influence, relative to university professors.
The New Right also seems bad at coalition building, most of all because it is so polarizing about the elites on the other side. Many of the most beneficial changes in American history have come about through broad coalitions, not just from one political side or the other. Libertarians such as William Lloyd Garrison played a key role an anti-slavery debates, but they would not have gotten very far without support from the more statist Republicans, including Abraham Lincoln. If you so demonize the elites that do not belong to your side, it is more likely we will end up in situations where all elites have to preside over a morally unacceptable status quo.
The U.S.-U.K. Divergence on Gambling
In a famous short story by Damon Runyon, the gambler Sky Masterson sums up a sucker’s bet when he says: “Someday, somewhere . . . a guy is going to come to you and show you a nice brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is never broken, and this guy is going to offer to bet you that the jack of spades will jump out of this deck and squirt cider in your ear. But, son . . . do not bet him, for as sure as you do, you are going to get an ear full of cider.”
Americans should keep that image in mind as they consider their deepening embrace of gambling. Though some form of sports betting is now legal in nearly three dozen states, the biggest prize of all—California—has eluded the industry. That may change in this November’s elections, though, as industry advocates and opponents wage a $300 million political battle over whether to bring legalized sports betting to the Golden State, where the annual betting pool could reach $3 billion, say supporters. That would cap a remarkable, and troubling, rise in legalized sports gambling in the U.S. since just 2018, when the Supreme Court knocked down a federal law prohibiting the activity in all but a few grandfathered locations.
Even as the industry heads toward the $80-billion-a-year betting mark in the U.S., however, the U.K., which has had forms of sports betting for decades, is taking a pause. A British government commission is about to recommend strict new limits on gaming and on the marketing of it, amid a significant rise in compulsive gambling, especially among the young. The contrast between the U.S. and the U.K. is striking.
Feature
Items of Interest
Will Iran’s protests lead to regime change?
U.S., Europe struggle to keep Iran’s drones from Russian military.
At Heritage, Mike Pence warns of ‘unprincipled populists,’ ‘Putin apologists’.
White House spreads suggestion Kevin McCarthy will back away from Ukraine.
Domestic
Hispanics like what the GOP is selling.
Poll: Latino voters turn to Republicans in midterms.
Wes Moore hasn’t won yet, but Democrats look at presidential potential.
Biden snaps at Fox’s Peter Doocy over abortion vs. inflation.
Pro-abortion GOPers are fighting to hang on.
Judge: Trump signed court documents with false voter fraud stats.
Trump deposed in E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit.
College enrollment falls for third straight year.
LA Council: de Leon refuses to resign.
The supply chain was never fixed in time for the holidays.
Health
CDC votes to add Covid vaccine to recommended childhood schedule.
Tech
Inside The Online Community Encouraging Kids To Transition.
TikTok is turning into OnlyFans.
Ephemera
Ari Emanuel: People should stop working with Kanye West.
Kyrie Irving tells Biden to get Brittney Griner home.
Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft get heated at NFL owners’ meeting.
Judi Dench decries the sensationalism of “The Crown”.
“Andor” finally becomes Star Wars: Episode 7 recap.
Podcast
Quote
“The European talks of progress because by the aid of a few scientific discoveries he has established a society which has mistaken comfort for civilisation.”
— Benjamin Disraeli