14 October 2022 — Truss’ Future: 3 Options for the Conservative Party

14 October –In her first month in office, Liz Truss has succeeded in convincing voters that she is both unlikable and incompetent. This toxic cocktail has alarmed Conservative backbenchers, who have started to seriously consider whether Britain can have a second Prime Minister and fourth Chancellor in one year.

For the governing party, the options are bleak. The first choice is to do nothing and keep Truss on. Under the now infamous rules of the 1922 Committee, any newly elected leader is safe from a leadership challenge for twelve months. There is also the question of whether party activists and MPs have the interest and energy in another leadership contest. With the possibility of an early (and tough) general election in 2023, few MPs will want to wear out their core set of campaign volunteers on yet another bitter internal democratic squabble.

At the party conference in Birmingham, the Prime Minister declared her three priorities to be “growth, growth and growth”. Unfortunately for the party faithful in the room, few realised she was referring to Labour’s national lead in the opinion polls. Prime Ministers have never outperformed their initial ratings. Four weeks in and Liz Truss has already beaten Boris Johnson’s low-point during Partygate and is on track to outdo John Major in the aftermath of the Black Wednesday sterling crisis thirty years ago.

The second option is a coronation. Before triggering a contest, backbench MPs could agree on a unity ticket and simply nominate one candidate unopposed. The twelve month rule can be removed by a simple majority of the 1922 executive and given the governing party are now in the high teens in the opinion polls, what better motivation to crack on with a little constitutional adjustment? Although this option would lead to the smoothest transition possible, the scale and complexity of the political choreography required is enormous. First, waring party factions would have to establish a truce and agree on the best candidate or ticket to hold the team together. Second, that unity candidate/ticket would have to guarantee that the Conservative Right wouldn’t produce a unity candidate of its own, refuse to back down and force a full leadership contest on its party members. Whoever emerged as the new Prime Minister would find it impossible to justify why Conservative members should be allowed to decide who runs the country twice in one year, without calling a general election — which under the circumstances, the Conservatives would be guaranteed to lose.

For many years, Liz Truss has made it known to reporters and fellow MPs that her dream political job is to work in №11, rather than №10. It is no surprise therefore, that the first major crisis of her premiership concerned the Treasury. Had this whole fiasco involved the health service, education or immigration, it may have been possible for Truss to resign as Prime Minister and be appointed Chancellor in her successor’s cabinet. Afterall, in 2021, Austria’s Schallenberg resigned as leader of the government after less than two months and was immediately re-appointed to his previous position as Foreign Minister. Twelve years ago, ousted Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was appointed as Foreign Minister by his successor, Julia Gillard. There is president. Unfortunately for Truss, the fallout has been so big and the climbdown so limp, that at least three of the four Great Offices of State appear unavailable for her to occupy. This makes it harder for party grandees to try and tempt the Prime Minister to depart voluntarily, whilst minimising her personal humiliation.

The third option is perhaps the biggest risk — let’s call it “Operation Return Big Dog”. Like the second option, this route requires the 1922 executive to lift the twelve month honeymoon period on challenges. But rather than propose a unity candidate, the party arrange for Boris Johnson to challenge Liz Truss directly.

Wait.

Hear me out.

In a Times Radio interview recently, Charles Walker described how the mood of many Conservatives has changed from winning the next election to losing well. The majority of the 2019 intake of Conservative MPs owe their positions to Johnson’s appeal and campaigning style. They know it and so does he. If Truss is already polling lower than her predecessor, then a Johnson comeback wouldn’t, at least in the short term, further dampen their election prospects. Truss marketed herself to Conservative members as continuing Johnson’s levelling-up agenda and bring growth to the whole of the United Kingdom. A Third Johnson Ministry would also quieten calls for an early election on the basis that the same person is returning to №10 in the parliament formed after they achieved a majority in 2019.

Johnson is passionate about two things: his popularity and his legacy. He knows he underperformed, failed to build a team, let voters down and angered millions. At fifty-eight, he’s younger than Theresa May was when she was selected party leader in 2016. Unfortunately for voters, the man still has a passion for conflict, to appear as the showman protagonist and an enormous energy for the job. He would of course very likely lose the next election as leader, but when faced with the sudden and unexpected prospect of joblessness, backbench Conservatives may we willing to try anything to make it over the line in their constituencies. This option is neither the easiest to execute, nor the most likely. It is certainly not compatible with the national interest. But the fact Johnson may well lose his own seat, or resign following election defeat to Labour, could convince MPs that the risk is worth taking and that they — and the British public — wouldn’t be saddled with Johnson as leader in the next parliament until 2027/28.

Tom Parkin (@tompjparkin) is a foreign affairs commentator, former Liberal Democrat candidate and incoming PhD researcher at the School of Journalism, Media and Communication at The University of Sheffield.