Liz Truss wrote to the Cabinet Secretary . .

. . complaining that a briefing document published prior to the King's Speech describing her infamous 2022 mini-budget as "disastrous" breached civil service standards of impartiality. The document was swiftly amended.

This got me thinking about when an opinion ceases to be a political statement and becomes an objective fact. The "disaster" was the immediate and unambiguous reaction of the financial markets to her rash and unfunded policies, which undermined sterling, reduced government bonds to near junk status, and added about £30bn to public debt. That was as much an objective fact as putting your arm in the mouth of a lion.

"Plain speaking" Conservatives can be so sensitive 😌

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

OldBrit · 61-69, M

Yep. On reading that story I was "That wasn't an opinion but a statement of fact".

You don't need hindsight of history to come to that conclusion. The day after told you all you needed to know. It was a disaster.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@OldBrit I'm glad the civil service didn't argue the point though. There is no winning such a debate.

OldBrit · 61-69, M

@SunshineGirl nope. Having a family member who works at the heart of Whitehall they can't win an argument like that.
I fear though in a few years we'll see another Cummins attack on the civil service like the USA project 2025 threatens and our (mostly) excellent civil service will be dismantled by the right.

MartinII · 70-79, M

It's a matter of clarity, something which the civil service, in which I spent my whole working life, used to be very good at. Clearly the mini-budget was in fact disastrous as you say, though only temporarily because Truss and Kwarteng were unceremoniously shafted in short order by their former colleagues. But was the underlying cause of the disaster the substance of the mini-budget, or the inept failure of the government to explain it, seek support for it, or delay the proposed tax cuts until they had a strategy for reducing expenditure and implementing supply side reforms in place? And did the authors of the briefing document make it clear which of those alternative interpretations they had in mind?

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@MartinII Well that is what the Tory party has been agonising over ever since. If the Truss administration had not completely sidestepped their own civil service, perhaps the policy could have been more positively presented. Unorthodox economic policies need a strong advocate to avoid spooking the financial markets. Truss was incapable of explaining what she was doing to her own party, let alone the rest of the world.

Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M

The whole Truss tenure will not doubt be cast as rogue insanity ten ears from now.
Just as large swathes of Thatcherism or Blairites are maligned today.

It was an extraordinary thing to do.
I don't doubt the intent was 'well meant' but to not even have the backing of the people who employed you before you did it.....

And the effects of what happened as a result might have long lasting effects for a long time to come.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@Picklebobble2 Exactly. A well-intentioned mistake can be forgiven. By-passing constitutional norms and ignoring advice in order to implement what was essentially a personal vanity project, is unforgiveable.

MartinII · 70-79, M

@SunshineGirl I agree. I don't know exactly what advice the civil service gave. But I'm sure sacking Tom Scholar when Truss did was a huge tactical error. He would have given authoritative and confident advice. His surviving subordinates may have been less forthright. Indeed, one could hardly blame them if some had taken the view that Truss and Kwarteng should be left to stew in their own juice - as they did, very soon!

JimboSaturn · 51-55, M

The problem is that people can't even agree on what is a fact anymore.

SomeMichGuy · M

Excellent points!

DunningKruger · 61-69, M

Snowflakes.

Add a comment...