
The Tories must do more than apologise for Liz Truss
Photograph by Henry Nicholls - Pool/Getty Images.
Better late than never, and better something than nothing.
The Conservative Party should have distanced itself from Liz Truss at the first opportunity – emphatically, unequivocally and ruthlessly. On the steps of Downing Street on 25 October 2022, as his first act as Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak should have condemned the mini-Budget, apologised to the nation and made it clear that Truss would never be a Conservative parliamentary candidate again. It would have been a justified response to the chaos of the preceding few weeks and a signal that the party had changed.
It did not happen. Sunak acknowledged that 'mistakes were made' but left it at that. He was too cautious about splitting his party. The membership had voted for Truss (he should have announced his intention to remove their rights to elect the leader, too) and a large minority of the parliamentary party had backed her. It would have been a bold gamble, and the case for such a move becomes more persuasive when one knows for certain of the electoral obliteration that lies ahead.
Maybe we should not be too harsh on the last Conservative prime minister but we do now know how the infamous mini-Budget was brought up at every opportunity in last year's general election, and is continually referenced by Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves. This is not just out of habit but will be a consequence of extensive polling research. The public remain furious at the chaos and uncertainty that was unleashed. Mortgage-holders, in particular, will not be quick to forgive.
The Tories can survive many accusations, and still win elections. But they cannot win while being perceived as economically reckless.
Not only is it a political vulnerability, but the Truss experience prevents them from delivering effective criticism of their opponents. At a time when Nigel Farage is advocating turning on the spending taps while also implementing massive tax cuts, the Conservatives are right to say he is being fiscally irresponsible. But when they say he is 'Liz Truss on steroids', it sounds amiss coming from Truss's party (especially when the line is delivered by those who served her loyally). And if the fears that the bond market vigilantes will turn against the UK come to pass, the Tory attack on Labour will also lack real punch.
These factors resulted in the most substantial criticism of the mini-Budget from the Conservative frontbench. Shadow chancellor Mel Stride acknowledged that it had damaged the Tories' economic credibility, and that the party should show contrition. Stride – a reassuring figure who was critical of the mini-Budget at the time – was right to do so, but even then there was too much equivocation. Despite the advance briefing, there was no explicit apology. The language was characteristically measured and thoughtful, but what was needed was something a little more eye-catching and memorable.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Better still, the sentiments should have been expressed by the party leader, not the shadow chancellor. But when Kemi Badenoch was asked subsequently about the mini-Budget, she equivocated. She started to make the argument that the problem was the higher spending on energy support announced on 8 September, not the unfunded tax cuts set out on 23 September (she should check the dates of the market turmoil) and stated that she 'did not want to be commenting on previous prime ministers'. The strategy of distancing the Tory Party from Truss had been watered down after just a day.
It is not good enough. Having left any serious criticisms for too long (31 months too long), this is no time for half measures. If the Conservatives want the right to be heard again by those voters who prioritise economic stability, they need to do this properly. Emphatically, unequivocally and ruthlessly.
That means not just taking on Truss, but the thinking behind the mini-Budget. Contrary to the arguments made by the Trussites, tax cuts generally do not pay for themselves. Fiscal responsibility should come before tax cuts. Independent institutions such as the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility are not to blame for our economic difficulties. The events of autumn 2022 were not the result of a conspiracy but incompetence.
The leadership of the Conservative Party should be making and winning those arguments now. This means that it will be impossible to offer unfunded tax cuts at the next general election as part of a retail offer, but that is the price that must be paid to recover economic credibility.
While they are at it, there are other aspects of the party's recent history that should be addressed. The Conservatives were deeply damaged by the partygate scandal and the impression that the rules that applied to everyone else did not apply to them. According to a parliamentary committee on which there was a Tory majority, Boris Johnson misled the House of Commons about this matter and a 90-day suspension from the Commons would have been recommended had he not resigned as an MP. If the Tories want a reputation for economic competence and integrity (and that should not be too much to ask), they should make it clear that both Johnson's and Truss's days as Conservative parliamentary candidates are over.
When distancing themselves from those aspects of their past that alienate the voters they need, what is required from the Tories are confident strides, not small, tentative steps. They have at least made a start, but it would be a grave mistake to think that the job is done.
Related
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Sky News
25 minutes ago
- Sky News
The spending review: Five things you need to know
Even for those of us who follow these kinds of things on a regular basis, the spending review is, frankly, a bit of a headache. This is one of the biggest moments in Britain's economic calendar - bigger, in some respects, than the annual budget. After all, these reviews, which set departmental spending totals for years to come, only happen every few years, while budgets come around every 12 months (or sometimes more often). Yet trying to get your head around the spending review - in particular this year's spending review - is a far more fraught exercise than with the budget. In large part that's because the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the quasi-independent body that scrutinises the government's figures, is not playing a part this time around. There will be no OBR report to cast light, or doubt, on some of the claims from the government. Added to this, the data on government spending are famously abstruse. So perhaps the best place to start when approaching the review is to take a deep breath and a step back. With that in mind, here are five things you really need to know about the 2025 spending review. 1. It's not about all spending That might seem like a strange thing to say. Why would a spending review not concern itself with all government spending? But it turns out this review doesn't even cover the majority of government spending in the coming years. To see what I mean you need to remember that you can split total government spending (£1.4trn in this fiscal year) into two main categories. First there's what you might call non-discretionary spending. Spending on welfare, on pensions, on debt interest. This is spending the government can't really change very easily on a year-to-year basis. It's somewhat uncontrolled, but since civil servants wince at that idea, they have given it a name that suggests precisely the opposite: "annually managed expenditure" or AME. Then there's the spending the government has a little more control over: spending in its departments, from the Ministry of Defence to the NHS to the Home Office. This is known as "departmental spending". This is what the spending review is about - determining what departments spend. The key thing to note here is that these days departmental spending (actually, to confuse things yet further, the Treasury calls it Departmental Expenditure Limits or DEL) is quite a bit smaller than AME (the less controlled bit with benefits, pensions and debt interest costs). In short, this spending review is actually only about a fraction - about 41p in every pound - of government spending. You can break it down further, by the way. Because departmental spending can be split into day-to-day spending (Resource DEL) and investment (capital DEL). But let's stop with the acronyms and move on to the second thing you really need to know. 2. It's a "zero-based" review. Apparently The broad amount the government is planning to spend on its departments was set in stone some time ago. The real task at hand in this review is not to decide the overall departmental spend but something else: how that money is divided up between departments. Consider: in this fiscal year (2025/26) the government is due to spend just over £500bn of your money on day-to-day expenditure. Of that, by far the biggest chunk is going to the NHS (£202bn), followed by education (£94bn), defence (£39bn) and a host of other departments. That much we know. In the next fiscal year, we have a headline figure for how much day-to-day spending to expect across government. What we don't have is that breakdown. How much of the total will be health, education, defence and so on? That, in a sense, is the single biggest question the review will set out to answer. Now, in previous spending reviews the real debate wasn't over those grand departmental totals, but over something else: how much would they increase by in the following years? This time around we are told by Rachel Reeves et al that it's a slightly different philosophy. This time it's a "zero-based review". For anyone from the world of accountancy, this will immediately sound tremendously exciting. A zero-based review starts from the position that the department will have to justify not just an annual increase (or decrease), but every single pound it spends. It is not that far off what Elon Musk was attempting to implement with the DOGE movement in US government - a line-by-line check of spending. That's tremendously ambitious. And typically zero-based reviews tend to throw out some dramatic changes. All of which is to say, in theory, unless you believed government was run with incredibly ruthless efficiency, if this really were a zero-based review, you'd expect those departmental spending numbers to yo-yo dramatically in this review. They certainly shouldn't just be moving by small margins. Is that really what Whitehall will provide us with in this review? Almost certainly not. 3. It's the first multi-year review in ages What we will get, however, is a longer-range set of spending plans than government has been able to provide in a long time. I said at the start that these reviews are typically multi-year affairs, setting budgets many years in advance. However, the last multi-year review happened in the midst of COVID and you have to look back to 2015 for the previous multi year review. That certainty about future budgets matters for any government department attempting to map out its plans and, hopefully, improve public sector productivity in the coming years. So the fact that this review will set spending totals not just for next fiscal year but for the next three years is no small deal. Indeed, for investment spending (which is actually the thing the government will probably spend more time talking about), we get numbers for four successive years. And the chances are that is what the government will most want to talk about. 4. It's not "austerity" One of the big questions that periodically returns to haunt the government is that we are heading for a return to the austerity policies prosecuted by George Osborne after 2010. So it's worth addressing this one quickly. The spending totals implied by this spending review are nothing like those implemented by the coalition government between 2010 and 2015. You get a sense of this when you look at total public spending, not in cash or even inflation-adjusted terms (which is what the Treasury typically likes to show us), but at those figures as a percentage of GDP. Day-to-day spending dropped from 21.5% of GDP in 2009/10 to 15% of GDP in 2016/17. This was one of the sharpest falls in government spending on record. By contrast, the spending envelope for this review will see day-to-day spending increasing rather than decreasing in the coming years. The real question comes back to how that extra spending is divided between departments. Much money has already been promised for the NHS and for defence. That would seem, all else equal, to imply less money for everyone else. But overshadowing everything else is the fact that there's simply not an awful lot of money floating around. 5. It's not a big splurge either While the totals are indeed due to increase in the coming years, they are not due to increase by all that much. Indeed, compared with most multi-year spending reviews in the past, this one is surprisingly small. In each year covered by the 2000 and 2002 comprehensive spending reviews under Gordon Brown, for instance, capital investment grew by 16.3% and 10.6% respectively. This time around, it's due to increase by just 1.3%. Now, granted, that slightly understates it. Include 2025/26 (not part of this review but still a year of spending determined by this Labour government) and the annual average increase is 3.4%. Even so, the overall picture is not one of plenty, but one of moderation. While Rachel Reeves will wax lyrical about the government's growth plans, the numbers in the spending review will tell a somewhat different story. If you can get your head around them, that is.


BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Spending review: New stations in £445m rail plan for Wales
Chancellor Rachel Reeves will use her spending review on Wednesday to announce £445m for new rail projects in north and south details are expected on Wednesday, but plans for five new stations in Cardiff, Newport and Monmouthshire, as well as upgrades in north Wales, are on the follows years of complaints of underinvestment in the Welsh railway Treasury said the package had "the potential to be truly transformative". But the Conservatives criticised the lack of support for a new M4 relief road, while Plaid Cymru said the cash was "merely a drop in the ocean compared to the billions Wales is owed". The spending review will set out Reeves' plans for how public services will be funded for years to was not clear on Tuesday evening what the impact of the announcement might be for the Welsh government's day to day spending, with cuts to budgets other than health, schools and defence Wales gets to spend is determined by a calculation based on how England-only departments - such as health and local government - are follows weeks of rows between Welsh and Westminster Labour, as concerns grew over the next Senedd election as polling suggested the party could lose its dominant role in Welsh politics. According to the Treasury, the £445m will be spent on fixing level crossings, building new stations and upgrading existing lines, and is a combination of direct funding and cash for the Welsh said it was the "cornerstone of the UK government's plan to address decades of underinvestment in critical infrastructure that has held back the Welsh economy".Rail funding has become a totemic issue in Welsh politics, with the lack of knock-on funding for Wales from High Speed 2 repeatedly raised with the First Minister Eluned first minister has publicly called for more rail spending from the UK government - one of a list of calls she has made on Sir Keir Starmer in recent say if High Speed 2 had not been classified as an England and Wales project, Wales would be owed between £431m - according to finance secretary Mark Drakeford - or multiple billions, according to Plaid Cymru and previous sums used by senior Labour figures including Welsh Secretary Jo extra money is not connected to HS2, although Labour was keen to make a symbolic sources, and former transport minister Lee Waters, said the sum is more than Wales would have had from the high speed rail project. Welsh Transport Secretary Ken Skates and others have lobbied the UK government figures on a range of projects recommended by transport reviews looking at north and south include new stations at Cardiff East, near the city's Newport Road, and in the west of are hopes for a station in the eastern Newport suburbs of Somerton and Llanwern, and one that will serve the Monmouthshire villages of Magor and Undy, along with improvements to the mainline to allow local services to stations were proposed by a review to boost rail transport in a region that has seen an increase in house building in recent years, but is connected via the congested M4 motorway and has a limited local railway work is estimated to cost £ north Wales, the Welsh government has been pushing for work on the Wrexham to Liverpool route to enable metro-style services, and upgrades on the north Wales mainline to boost the frequency of also wants to commence development work to increase capacity at Chester - a hub for trains from north Wales. Rachel Reeves could also commit more funding to help make coal tips in Wales first minister has previously said that £25m allocated to Wales at last year's October budget was not enough. Looking ahead to the next Senedd election, a senior Labour figure said: "Labour's delivered what the Tories wouldn't, what Plaid can't and what Reform have no interest in."Former transport minister Lee Waters said: "Civil servants calculated that we lost out £431m in Barnett formula funding by the way the high-speed rail project was categorised by the Treasury. This £445 million makes good on that."We will have to wait to see what exact schemes the Chancellor is agreeing to but that figure would allow the priority schemes that the Welsh government and the UK Department of Transport had been working on to go ahead."Taken together this is a very significant package of rail investment, much more than we ever got from the Tories, and will make a real difference to people."We now need to make sure we get a change to how funding works for rail so that this is the beginning of a pipeline of investment into the future"Another Labour source said the "historic investment" was down to the "work of the Welsh Secretary, Jo Stevens, who has delivered Labour's promise to right the chronic underfunding of Welsh rail by the Tories". Welsh Conservative Senedd leader Darren Millar called it a "kick in the teeth", complaining of no extra cash to enable an M4 relief road or for upgrades to the A55 and A40 trunk roads."The promised rail investment falls well short of the £1bn plus in rail funding planned by the previous UK Conservative government for the electrification of the North Wales line."Plaid Cymru's finance spokesperson Heledd Fychan said: "£445m is merely a drop in the ocean compared to the billions Wales is owed on rail, and what Labour – up until they came into power – used to agree with us on."The people of Wales have seen this injustice for what it is – Wales being short-changed by successive Westminster governments. This announcement won't change that."Additional reporting by Gareth Lewis


Powys County Times
4 hours ago
- Powys County Times
MPs call for UK to recognise Palestine after Government sanctions ministers
MPs have called for the Government to recognise the state of Palestine at a summit next week, hours after the Foreign Secretary confirmed the sanctioning of two Israeli government ministers. Foreign minister Hamish Falconer faced repeated cross-party calls from MPs to recognise Palestine at the meeting in New York. In response, Mr Falconer did not rule out the move, saying he had 'no doubt' he would return to the Commons to update MPs. It came as the UK imposed an asset freeze and travel ban on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's security minister and finance minister, respectively. The move came alongside Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway. When asked about the recognition of Palestine by Liberal Democrat foreign spokesperson Calum Miller, Mr Falconer said: 'The two-state solution conference next week is an important moment we're discussing with our friends and allies our approach to that conference and no-doubt I will return to this house, with your permission Mr Speaker, to discuss further.' Mr Miller had said: 'The time has also come to listen to members on all sides of this House and officially to recognise the independent state of Palestine. Will the Government commit to taking this vital step at next week's summit in New York? 'Recognition will demonstrate the UK's commitment to self-determination but also make clear that, building on today's announcement, the UK will do all it can to wrest control away from the extremes and give both Israelis and Palestinians hope of a lasting peace.' Conservative MP for Herne Bay and Sandwich, Sir Roger Gale, had chastised the Government for not taking more action. He said: 'When the minister came to the despatch box, I had expected to hear something constructive. What we've heard is the sanctioning of two people. The United Kingdom Government could unilaterally recognise Palestine. The United Kingdom Government could show the world and lead.' He added: 'When is the Government going to do something?' Labour MP Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central), who was denied access to the occupied West Bank earlier this year, agreed with the calls. She said: 'Annexation is real. It is happening. Partners in the region are calling for recognition before it's too late.' Ms Mohamed continued: 'Does the minister agree with me that we must not throw recognition into the long grass? That failure to recognise next week at the UN conference implies that Israel does have a veto, and that the Israeli government will continue to annexe and terrorise Palestinians in the West Bank. If we do not recognise now, there will be no Palestinian state to recognise.' Mr Falconer said: 'Recognition is right at the centre of any discussion of a two-state solution.' The minister had earlier told MPs the two-state solution between Israel and Palestine was in critical danger. He said the rhetoric of Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich did not represent the majority of Israelis. He said: 'This is an affront to the rights of Palestinians, but it is also against the interests of Israelis, against their long-term security and democracy.' Later in the session, Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) accused the Government of doing the 'bare minimum' while Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse further pressed the minister on whether recognition at the summit is now 'off the table'. Mr Falconer said 'we are doing everything we can', adding: 'We are so incredibly frustrated by the scenes that meet us, meet everybody behind me, and I would say gently to (Mr Malthouse), he has no monopoly on the morality of this situation.' The minister went on to say settler expansion had increased hugely in recent years, and last year had seen the worst settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank on record. He added that this year is on track to be just as violent. 'This is an attempt to entrench a one-state reality,' he told MPs. He continued: 'The gravity of this situation demands further action. The reality is that these human rights abuses, incitement to violence, extremist rhetoric comes … from individuals who are ministers in this Israeli government.' Mr Falconer added: 'We have told the Israeli government that we would take tougher action if this did not stop. It still did not. The appalling rhetoric has continued unchanged. Violent perpetrators continue to act with impunity and with encouragement. 'So, let me tell the House now, when we say something, we mean it. Today we have shown, with our partners, two extremists we will not stand by while they wreck the prospects for future peace.' Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said: 'The situation in the Middle East and the suffering we are seeing is serious and completely intolerable. Dame Priti added: 'We all want to see a better future for the Israeli and Palestinian people, and the UK must continue to play a leading role in achieving this.' She told MPs the previous Conservative government considered sanctioning the two ministers. 'The minister will be aware that the sanctioning of individuals is always under review, that is the right policy,' she said. 'And in the case of Israel, this has been previously considered even by Lord Cameron, who has spoken of that in the last government.' DUP MP Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) suggested Mr Falconer is 'pandering to the increasingly loud anti-Israel voices on his backbenches', adding: 'The minister must know that this will not bring peace to Gaza.' Mr Falconer replied: 'I have spoken about the perilous decline of the situation in the West Bank, and indeed events of the last two weeks, and I've also spoken about the importance of co-ordinating with allies. So, I don't think I have anything further to say.'