Who is Liz Truss? And how will she govern?

Read Trafalgar’s profile of Liz Truss and analysis of what her premiership will look like below: Who-is-Liz-Truss-and-how-will-she-govern

Blue on blue – how can Truss reunite the party?

The Tory leadership contest has been bitterly fought. The final weeks have seen Rishi Sunak continue to fight on aggressively, with some accusing him of adopting a ‘scorched earth’ policy in response to Liz Truss’ seemingly unassailable poll lead. At the same time, Boris Johnson loyalists are whispering about comebacks and buyers’ remorse. If Truss triumphs, she can’t afford to focus solely on the challenges facing the country. Instead one of her first tasks will be to reunite the party. 

Having spent six weeks charming the Tory party membership, Truss and her team will need to return their attention to MPs. Sunak and his allies could make for formidable enemies from the backbenches, something Truss could do without. Similarly, the majority of Tory MPs did not back Truss at the final round of the parliamentary voting stage. Admittedly many have backed her since, with the hope of a job or carrying favour with the next regime, but fickle fair weather support will only last so long. The typical poll bounce of a new leader may ensure the Truss train gets off to a good start but with the cost of living crisis, rising energy bills, the Northern Ireland protocol and the ongoing Ukraine conflict, political volatility could easily knock it off course. 

How then, can Truss go about becoming the unifying figure that her party badly needs? Policy will be important. But Truss’ premiership will also live or die by the effectiveness of its communications strategy. Thankfully for Truss, she has the opportunity to learn from some of her predecessors’ mistakes. 

Take party management. Boris Johnson made no secret of the fact he didn’t particularly enjoy wining and dining backbench MPs in the tearooms of Westminster. At the same time, the Tory party has become increasingly factionalist under successive governments. Caucuses of MPs including the European Research Group, Northern Research Group and the One Nation Tories now hold significant sway over swathes of backbenchers. A concerted effort to show she is listening to MPs’ often competing policy aims won’t solve everything, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Truss has also got to find an opponent for the Tories to unite against. During Johnson’s period in government the enemy changed by the week. One minute it was the civil service, the next the EU, the next unions, the next the media. Although Truss’ government will undoubtedly clash with many of the same organisations and people as Johnson’s regime, she should focus her party’s attention on the 2024 election. Labour’s knives have been sharpening for some time and during the leadership contest, Tory infighting has been doing that for them. The opposition looks increasingly like a government in waiting. The prospect of ten years in the wilderness, sat across from a Starmer/Sturgeon coalition, may yet keep even the most rebellious of Tories in line. 

To film or not to film?

The UK is frequently compared to its younger sibling across the pond when it comes to policies and culture. Most recently, the contrast between British and American legal procedures came into focus following the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial.

An issue which was initially pursued by Depp in the private UK courts migrated over the Atlantic where Depp initiated a new suit in the American justice system. The experience of these two trials, not to mention the outcomes, could not be more different. This can be attributed in part to the contrasting role of cameras in UK vs US courtrooms and the ways in which televised legal battles can be sensationalised.

While trials and sentencing in the UK is traditionally kept behind tightly closed doors, certain US courts permit extensive publicisation. When the defendants or plaintiffs are household names, such as Johnny Depp or OJ Simpson, the ‘open justice’ approach can quickly devolve into a media frenzy. Indeed, it is the risk of creating a media circus that can often be seen as the drawback of the US approach; however, it seems as though the UK justice system may be following in the footsteps of its American counterpart.

Just last month, after a legislational change pursued by British media giants, cameras were allowed into the crown courts for the first time to film a manslaughter sentencing. Unlike the more animated litigation scenes filmed in American trials, Judge Sarah Muro QC gave a solemn and measured speech, laying out the reasoning behind the sentencing and the laws at play.

This is the first of many televised sentencing remarks following the revised regulations which Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab argues will ‘improve transparency and reinforce confidence in the justice system.’ While some see this change as a positive turning point with great potential for increasing public understanding of the law, others question if this move will open the doors for the dramatisation of legal matters and put privacy at risk, akin to what has occurred with high-profile cases in the States.

Currently, only the decision announcement, as spoken by the judge, is allowed to be filmed. Yet, the presence of cameras poses the question of televising further aspects of trials–if the aim is to increase transparency and promote open and honest justice, then maybe a US-approach to filming all aspects of a case is more beneficial? On the other hand, when considering the mob-mentality media backlash faced by Amber Heard in the wake of her legal battle, is the right to personal privacy more important than the promotion of open justice?

These are the kinds of debates which the UK government and public must reckon with as the impacts of cameras in courts become more clear in the coming months. To film or not to film, that will be the question.