24 October
Dear Sir Anthony Seldon,
[color=rgb(34, 34, 34)][highlight=transparent]Thank you very much. I gratefully accept your suggestion that I know about Mrs Thatcher, but you easily outrank me in knowing so much about so many prime ministers, and therefore being able to make such telling comparisons. [/highlight][/color] [color=rgb(34, 34, 34)][highlight=transparent]I strongly agree with your idea of 'landmark' prime ministers, but I would add Disraeli and Lord Salisbury to your list. Each, in very different ways, understood how the extension of the franchise could benefit patriotism and conservatism. They helped prevent a situation in which the rise of the working class would mean the inevitable triumph of socialism. Indeed, they looked through the whole socialist idea of the united, collective working class towards what eventually came about - bourgeois modern society with its much wider distribution of prosperity. The modern world thus broke liberalism (in its Victorian sense), but not conservatism. [/highlight][/color] [color=rgb(34, 34, 34)][highlight=transparent]Certainly Margaret Thatcher remains the landmark prime minister of your lifetime and mine, although I would give a bit more credit to Tony Blair than you do. He did modernise the British state (although in ways that, personally, I dislike) and he did rescue the Labour Party as a party of government. I even think - contrary to almost everyone else - that he would have been in a worse position if he had opposed the war in Iraq. [/highlight][/color] [color=rgb(34, 34, 34)][highlight=transparent]Conservative leaders since Mrs Thatcher have usually had a bad time defining themselves in relation to her. John Major, example, won the leadership by acting as if he were a Thatcherite while actually disliking her personally and longing to get out of her shadow. He never resolved these tensions. The only one who succeeded was Boris Johnson (though this did not save him from other errors). He so clearly admired her, and shared many of her feelings about the European Union, that he could get away with ignoring her economic legacy without enraging her supporters in party and country. He could be her heir, but be profligate too - a striking example of his famous 'cakeism'. [/highlight][/color] [color=rgb(34, 34, 34)][highlight=transparent]You are right that Liz Truss is a strong and genuine disciple of Mrs Thatcher, but before I say more about where that might lead, one needs to consider her circumstances. [/highlight][/color] [color=rgb(34, 34, 34)][highlight=transparent]No prime minister since Winston Churchill in the extraordinary circumstances of 1940 has done well out of coming to power without first winning a general election (Harold Macmillan being an arguable excpetion). In this century, both Theresa May and - more surprisingly - Gordon Brown were all at sea, and never won electoral redemption, although the former did technically 'win' in 2017 despite her disastrous performance. Liz Truss comes to power dangerously late in the Parliament and, thanks to the Tories' uneasy way of electing each leader, without a strong mandate among her fellow Conservative MPs. [/highlight][/color] [color=rgb(34, 34, 34)][highlight=transparent]In her leadership campaign she made good progress among party members by advocating broadly Thatcherite solutions to common problems and boldly expressing her readiness to take on 'the Blob' in order to return fast to growth. This was not a stupid idea or, in principle, sectarian or right-wing. The overhang of EU membership and the unique circumstances of Covid had made Britain much more bureaucratised than in the past, so the constituency of people wanting more liberty and growth is strong. The country is clogged by statism, regulation and tax. Her phrase about the 'anti-growth coalition' has some resonance. [/highlight][/color] [color=rgb(34, 34, 34)][highlight=transparent]However, she may not have considered hard whether circumstances permit. With such a jittery economic situation, the return of inflation and the world crisis of the invasion of Ukraine and related market turmoil have made it extremely hard for her to achieve what she wants in the time she has set herself (the next election). When her Government put out its 'mini-budget', the markets spooked because they had not been shown the Chancellor's working and therefore did not know how the tax cuts would be paid for. [/highlight][/color] [color=rgb(34, 34, 34)][highlight=transparent]She also faced the adamantine, though not directly stated opposition of the Treasury and the Bank of England. This was partly her fault for alienating them with her rhetoric, but also theirs for having presided over the wrong policies. It became convenient for 'the Blob' to blame her administration for changes most of which were inevitable before she became prime minister. In particular, the rise in interest rates, essential to restoring economic reality, was coming anyway. The pain it must cause is now, largely unfairly, blamed on her. [/highlight][/color] [color=rgb(34, 34, 34)][highlight=transparent]Truss has suffered from being careless of how little room for manoeuvre she had on winning. In this, she is quite different from Mrs Thatcher - by temperament, but also in her situation. As Leader of the Opposition for more than four years before becoming PM, Mrs Thatcher had the time and space to work out what was wrong with the economic policies of Labour and develop coherent plans of her own. Even so, when she won in 1979, her economic reforms came close to being swamped by hostile colleagues and initial problems, including very high interest rates. It was only after the 1981 Budget that the markets truly realised Mrs Thatcher would not 'U-turn', but was charting a course which might succeed. She believed in restoring market confidence and balancing the books as a prerequisite of supply-side reform (though she did begin some supply-side reform at once e.g. the abolition of exchange controls and of the Price Commission). She took nothing for granted. [/highlight][/color] [color=rgb(34, 34, 34)][highlight=transparent]I fear Liz Truss, despite being an experienced cabinet minister, did not immediately recognise the difference between campaigning and governing and is being punished accordingly. All is not lost, but her first step made the next ones much more difficult. Mrs Thatcher never claimed that economic success was easy or instant, but emphasised pain before gain. Liz Truss is more Reaganite than Thatcherite. Unlike Reagan, she lacks the power of a mighty economy and a reserve currency to enable her to take risks. [/highlight][/color] [color=rgb(34, 34, 34)][highlight=transparent]Has she got the space or ability to be a landmark PM? I wouldn't rule it out, but it does not feel like it at this point. Besides, she comes after more than 12 years of Tory-led government. When Mrs T first came in, Conservatism was refreshed. Hard to manage that just now. [/highlight][/color] [color=rgb(34, 34, 34)][highlight=transparent]Best wishes[/highlight][/color]
Lord Charles Moore
Lord Charles Moore