Liz Truss schooled on live TV as she denies blame for mini-Budget catastrophe . hyn

Liz Truss was brutally schooled on economics on live TV as she tried to pass the blame for her mini-Budget catastrophe.

The flash-in-a-pan Prime Minister, who unleashed economic chaos four years ago, insisted she accepted “not very much” responsibility for the chaos that led to her resignation.

She sent markets into chaos by announcing £45billion of unfunded tax cuts without commissioning an independent forecast – but claimed no one told her of the risks.

In a punchy exchange with Sky News journalist Wilfred Frost, Ms Truss – who sensationally lost her seat in 2024 – snapped: “Are you suggesting that as Prime Minister I should go online and do my own research?”

She continued to blame the Treasury and the Bank of England for her downfall and claimed she did not know about the chaos her measures would cause. Ms Truss lasted just 49 days in office before she was thrown out by her own party as market chaos sent mortgage rates soaring and led to a sharp fall in the value of the pound.

Asked how much personal responsibility she took, Ms Truss responded: “It wasn’t the mini-budget that went wrong. I think this is very important.

“What there was was a spike in the gilt market. That’s what led to the chain of events that ultimately led to my resignation.”

When Mr Frost pressed again, she shot back: “Not very much is the answer.” The former PM went on to claim she and then-Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng were caught unaware of the dangers posed by liability-driven investment (LDI) banking strategies and quantative tightening (QT). But Mr Frost pointed out that she should “unequivocally have known” about the risks from QT.

Ms Truss hit back: “I was Prime Minister at the time. We had a myriad of issues that we were dealing with.” And in an angry exchange she then went on: “Are you suggesting that as Prime Minister I should go online and do my own research? Surely in our system you’re meant to be able to rely on the Treasury to tell you about what the risks are of making a particular announcement at a particular time?

“Otherwise, you’re making my case for me that all these people are not doing their job.”

Mr Frost responded: “With all due respect, former Prime Minister, I kind of am saying that, because the Prime Minister’s role is to be aware of all the risks out there and to make judgements.”

And he said Ms Truss should have known bond markets were volatile, saying: “It wasn’t just inflation picked up, it soared because of the Ukraine war.

“That would suggest to everyone: go cautiously, don’t go all at once. I don’t think it’s okay to say, ‘My lieutenant in the Treasury didn’t warn me about this’. You’re the captain of the ship. You went full steam ahead.”

As Ms Truss attempted to blame civil servants, the host pointed out that she had fired the head of the Treasury, Sir Tom Scholar, when she became PM, and did not consult the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

When this was pointed out to her, Ms Truss said: “I did fire the head of the Treasury, because this is somebody who did not share our views on how things should change. Are you saying there’s only one person at the Treasury who has any expertise? That’s not a credible statement.”

Liz Truss has faced renewed criticism over the economic turmoil that followed her mini-Budget after defending her decisions during a live television appearance. The former British prime minister has continued to dispute the idea that her government was solely responsible for the crisis, reopening an argument about tax cuts, financial markets and the consequences of her short time in Downing Street.

The mini-Budget, announced in September 2022 by then-chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng, included major tax-cutting measures intended to stimulate economic growth. However, the announcement triggered severe market turbulence, with borrowing costs rising and the pound coming under pressure. The turmoil created difficulties for pension funds and pushed up mortgage costs, while the government struggled to restore confidence.

During the latest television exchange, Truss’s defence of her record reportedly came under challenge as questions were raised about whether she accepted responsibility for the consequences. The confrontation reflects a dispute that has continued long after her premiership ended: whether the mini-Budget was a reasonable attempt to change Britain’s economic direction that was poorly executed, or a policy programme whose risks were underestimated from the beginning.

Truss became prime minister in September 2022 after winning the Conservative Party leadership contest. She promised to pursue economic growth through tax reductions and a smaller role for the state. Her government argued that lower taxes and changes to economic policy could encourage investment and improve Britain’s long-term prospects.

The difficulty was that financial markets wanted reassurance about how the measures would be funded. The package included substantial tax cuts, while the government did not initially provide a full independent assessment from the Office for Budget Responsibility alongside the announcement. Investors became concerned about the scale of additional borrowing and the absence of a clear plan to demonstrate how the policies would affect public finances.

Government borrowing costs rose sharply, and the pound fell against the US dollar. The Bank of England intervened temporarily in the gilt market to address risks to financial stability after turmoil threatened pension funds using liability-driven investment strategies.

The consequences were felt beyond the City of London. Mortgage lenders withdrew some products as market conditions changed, and the increase in borrowing costs affected expectations for future mortgage rates. Homeowners approaching the end of fixed-rate deals faced uncertainty about how much their monthly payments might rise.

For many households already struggling with higher energy and food bills, the episode reinforced concerns about the cost of living and the government’s ability to manage the economy. Although several factors influence inflation and interest rates, the market reaction to the mini-Budget became closely associated with Truss’s brief premiership.

The government’s response came quickly. Kwarteng was removed as chancellor, and Jeremy Hunt was appointed to replace him. Hunt subsequently reversed most of the tax measures announced in the mini-Budget, seeking to reassure investors and restore confidence in the government’s fiscal plans.

Truss resigned in October 2022, after approximately 49 days as prime minister. Her time in office became the shortest premiership in modern British political history. The speed of her departure reflected the combination of market instability, a loss of political authority and growing opposition within her own party.

Despite these events, Truss has continued to argue that her economic programme was not given a fair opportunity to succeed. She has pointed to the influence of established institutions and questioned whether the policy choices available to her government were properly understood by critics. Her position has kept the debate alive among Conservative supporters who favour lower taxes and more radical economic reforms.

Her critics, however, argue that a government introducing large fiscal changes must explain how they will be funded and assess how financial markets are likely to respond. They maintain that the turmoil was not simply an unavoidable consequence of pursuing growth, but a result of the way the measures were announced and the lack of sufficient reassurance about public finances.

The television confrontation matters because it brings these competing interpretations into a public setting. When a former prime minister is questioned about a major economic episode, audiences often want direct answers about what went wrong, who made the decisions and what lessons were learned.

However, the responsibility for the mini-Budget cannot be reduced to a single exchange on television. The policy package was developed by the government, announced by the chancellor and supported by the prime minister. Its consequences were shaped by financial-market reactions, existing economic pressures and decisions taken in the days that followed.

It is also important to distinguish between the stated objectives of the policy and its actual effects. Truss and Kwarteng said they wanted to increase growth and improve incentives for businesses and workers. Those objectives are separate from the question of whether the particular measures were financially credible or whether the government managed the announcement effectively.

The episode also demonstrated how quickly confidence can deteriorate when investors believe that fiscal plans lack sufficient detail. Governments rely on the ability to borrow at sustainable rates, and changes in market expectations can affect the cost of financing public spending. A loss of confidence can therefore influence household finances even before new policies have had time to take full effect.

For the Conservative Party, the mini-Budget became a lasting political liability. It deepened divisions over economic strategy and made it harder for the party to persuade voters that it could provide stability. Subsequent leaders faced the challenge of rebuilding confidence while making decisions about taxation, public services and government borrowing.

The Labour Party has also used the episode to criticise Conservative economic management. Labour politicians have argued that the crisis demonstrated the risks of announcing major tax changes without a credible fiscal framework. Conservatives who continue to support Truss’s approach have responded that Britain’s wider economic difficulties cannot be attributed entirely to her short time in office.

Both arguments form part of a wider discussion about Britain’s economic performance. The country has faced weak productivity growth, pressure on public services, high housing costs and changing international conditions. These problems developed over many years and cannot be explained by one Budget alone.

Nevertheless, the mini-Budget remains a significant example of how economic announcements can affect confidence. The reaction showed that the presentation of policy, the availability of independent scrutiny and the credibility of financing plans can be as important as the political ambition behind a proposal.

For Truss, defending her record presents a difficult challenge. She continues to have supporters who believe her agenda was intended to address Britain’s long-term economic problems. At the same time, the rapid reversal of her policies and the market turmoil remain central facts in any assessment of her premiership.

The latest television exchange is unlikely to settle the argument. Political interviews can expose disagreements, but they cannot replace a detailed examination of the decisions, economic evidence and consequences involved. Viewers may interpret the confrontation differently depending on their existing views of taxation, public spending and the role of government.

The most important lesson from the mini-Budget is that economic policy requires both ambition and credibility. Promises of faster growth must be accompanied by a clear explanation of how measures will be financed, how risks will be managed and how the government intends to maintain financial stability.

Truss may continue to reject the idea that she alone should carry the blame for the crisis. Yet her government introduced the programme at the centre of the market turmoil, and she was ultimately responsible for its overall direction as prime minister. That political responsibility remains a major part of the historical record.

As the debate continues, the mini-Budget serves as a reminder that decisions made in Westminster can have immediate consequences for businesses, borrowers, pension funds and households. For politicians seeking to reshape the economy, the challenge is not only to persuade voters that change is necessary, but also to convince financial markets that their plans are sustainable.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.