With more spins than a child’s gyroscope
on a Christmas morning, Liz Truss’s premiership is looking decidedly revolutionary,
but only in relation to the number of its U-turns. There are, however, two changes of heart that
she has not yet made, which are a worrying sign of what may follow given her adherence
to a flawed ideology.
The first is her bizarre decision to intervene on King
Charles’ appearance at COP27. The King is
a life-long advocate for green issues, to prevent him from attending the
conference is an unnecessary interference and, to paraphrase the words of her
predecessor, is spaffing Britain’s soft power up the proverbial wall. As Prime Minister Truss sets about dismantling
the power that the UK enjoys, you’d think she’d at least want to preserve some of
it with an easy win. What one doesn’t
know is whether the intervention stems from the influence of lobbyists or her ideological
position for maintaining small government.
Possibly I am being unkind. Perhaps
she is simply worried that Charles will talk to delegates in the same way that
he talks to his plants, or worse, those who fill his fountain pens.
The second issue is of far greater concern. In the seemingly endless Tory leadership hustings,
Liz Truss was adamant that she was the strongest advocate of minimal government
intervention, a laudable argument when exercised judiciously. A government that permits its citizens unfettered
choices in day-to-day activities is welcome, most of us like our freedoms
preserved. Equally, entrusting decisions
to devolved administrations or local authorities to reflect what best suits each
community is a preferable state. However,
dogmatically sticking to such principles, when arguably an intervention is
warranted, is not the demonstration of strength that Liz Truss appears to believe.
Truss has intervened to prevent a public information
programme designed to encourage responsible energy use and practical tips to
reduce consumption. That Jacob
Rees-Mogg, Honourable Member for the 18th Century, proposed the
initiative, makes it even more remarkable that Truss should think it too ‘woke’
to proceed, especially given his previous role in government as Minister for
Rogering the Peasantry. Having announced
the plan, the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy had to
immediately withdraw the initiative on the basis that our Prime Minister believes
“the country does not need its government telling it what to do.” While libertarians may consider the policy commendable,
it points to a wider concern – the rigid adherence to a dogma, rather than
introducing a communication strategy that will benefit the country. In these straightened times, when fuel bills
are advancing at unprecedented rates and energy security is at risk, it is a
sensible measure to provide information to the citizenry that will lessen
energy demand. Notwithstanding, it is a
communication exercise, not a statutory directive, we will still have the freedom
to make our own decisions regarding energy use.
A public information campaign is a responsible action for
our government to take. Not issuing
guidance misses the opportunity to educate the nation in practical measures to
ease the pressure on energy resources for the sake of appearances (which as her
Instagram account illustrates, is singularly important). Truss will argue that it is what she promised
in her leadership campaign, albeit she’s rapidly developing a track record of dispensing
with commitments faster than Elon Musk can change his mind about Twitter
ownership. Not that we should be
surprised, her history demonstrates a politician with a chameleonic character.
Her dogmatism in limiting government intervention does lead
to concerns as it relates to recent history.
We are emerging from a global pandemic in which government intervention
was critical to addressing the spread of the virus. Those governments that were more interventionist
were considerably more successful in containing the disease. By contrast, those countries whose leaders
preferred a more libertarian approach, including Trump, Modi, Bolsonaro, and Johnson,
presided over some of the worst death tolls on the planet. Of course, ‘libertarian’ is being kind, it
was arrogance and apathy that prevailed in their administrations, and vast
numbers paid the ultimate price for their hubris.
With Truss adopting a rigid policy of non-intervention during
the energy crisis, what can we expect from her in the event of another pandemic
– a rigid belief that the public would know best what to do and should not
suffer dictate from Government? I would
hope not, but it is a worrying prospect.
It makes sense that a responsible government would act appropriately to
protect its citizens in the event of a pandemic. Equally, one could argue that a responsible
government would inform its people of measures to reduce fuel consumption
during an energy crisis. Truss clinging
to her ideology demonstrates an astonishing lack of responsibility and a disregard
for the most vulnerable. Let us remember
that we are discussing a public relations exercise as opposed to a policy directive. At the end of it, we are still at liberty to
choose what we do – she hasn’t yet curtailed that right. If Liz Truss’s dogma prevents her from making
coherent decisions regarding measures to avoid excess energy use, God help us if
she is still in office should another pandemic hit.
Twitter: @GOMinTraining
Copyright © Craig Brown, 2022
12 October 2022
