Liz Truss had to quit because she went with tax cuts without taking public finance into account
The race to succeed British Prime Minister Liz Truss is heating up in the United Kingdom, with the Indian-origin Rishi Sunak said to be leading the pack and her predecessor Boris Johnson reportedly contemplating a comeback. Some senior leaders like new Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt have decided not to run for the top office, but others, including Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, are non-committal. Any candidate wanting to get elected will need at least 100 nominations from the party MPs. Since there are 357 Conservative MPs, no more than three candidates can participate in the race. If there is only one candidate, he will become the new prime minister without any election. In any case, the country will have a new leader on October 28. The fall of Truss, who was in 10 Downing Street for just 45 days, suggests that impatience is a defining feature of British democracy. In our country, every elected government feels entitled to ‘a honeymoon period’—that is, the span of time when neither the Opposition nor the media shows any harshness towards it. ‘Abhi to aaye hain. Kuchh time to do inko’—this is the prevailing mood in the first 100 days, or even longer. And look at the poor Truss; she didn’t get even half of that time. Even after over eight years in power, the Bharatiya Janata Party still accuses the previous ‘Congress misrule’ of everything that is wrong; and before the BJP, the Congress blamed the British for all the country’s problems.
The fact is that impatience is a virtue of democracy; it keeps the political class on their toes—and on the ground. It also forces them to explain how they would keep their promises. Truss’ mini-budget last month slashed taxes; her government, however, could never explain how the revenue shortfall would be met. People, public intellectuals, and politicians, including that of the ruling party, in the UK and other developed countries always ask ‘how’; this is the reason that they are not as much fooled by election promises as we are. In India, all kinds of promises are made—doubling farmers’ income, making India a developed country, etc.—but it is rarely, if ever, explained how these would be kept. Not so in the UK; Truss presented herself as an admirer of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, but could not show the mettle the iron lady was famous for. For one, she was too hasty. Tax cuts are good, but they can’t be carried out without taking other factors into consideration; they have to be in consonance with the fiscal situation; one can’t go on a tax-cutting spree when public finance is strained. In cricketing analogy, she tried to begin her innings with a glory shot—and got out early, much before the nation could witness her skill and capabilities. Her successor would do well to remain grounded and on their toes. For the British public are not as forgiving as Indians are.