I know we’ve all wondered over the past few weeks as to how on earth Truss ever made it to be prime minister, but it looks like some very serious questions are going to be asked about her over the coming days.
Two articles published today which are entirely damning, again questioning her suitability for high office and, more worryingly, highlighting the lack of checks and balances around her appointment.
The first is in The Times about the run-up to the mini-budget. Again, it paints a picture of an arrogant incompetent promoted well above her station, but one feature in particular which stood out - apart from how see sidelined any official advice from the Treasury, and conducted most meetings in secret - relates to a little known economist appointed as chief economic advisor to No. 10, and who apparently had full control over the fiscal plans. Matt Sinclair is the economist in question - I looked him up on LinkedIn and he has zero experience in financial markets or indeed fiscal policy. Zero. Frankly, if he applied for a job on a gilt trading desk he wouldn’t even get a reply, let alone an interview, but somehow Truss was allowed to ignore all the official advice and dance instead to his tune. How could this be allowed to happen when the country spends many millions funding a Treasury department and Debt Management Office, all with the aim of avoiding any sharp increase in debt funding costs (the rise of which had already cost the taxpayer billions)?
The other story is of course this evening’s news about her using her private phone to discuss critical meetings with our allies with regard to Ukraine - including shipments of arms and other military support - all while it had unknowingly been hacked by Russian spies.
Obviously the juicy stuff will be the private messages she exchanged with ‘close friend’ Kwarteng, but the scandalous part is how all of this was covered up by the government when the security breach was discovered during this summer’s leadership campaign. Not only did we allow somebody stupid enough to use an non-secure phone to discuss top secret discussions around Ukraine to become PM, but news of the breach - surely a matter of genuine public interest during a leadership campaign - was covered up to allow her to win the contest. It really doesn’t smell right at all.
The more you read about her, the more you realise what an incompetent, arrogant and frankly deluded nutcase she is. But that’s common knowledge now. The real issue is how this all of this was allowed to happen. I’m no lawyer, but I do wonder whether any charges with regard to misconduct in public office could be levelled both at her and the people in government who facilitated all of this?
