MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: Radical Liz Truss ideas still have their value
Many people will be more than a little surprised to find that Liz Truss is still contemplating some sort of political comeback.
Surely, they will argue, she was defeated and removed, failed in her endeavours and must therefore take the consequences of her fall.
Perhaps, in time, through think-tanks and quangos, and by dogged hard work, she might make her way back into active politics.
Iain Duncan Smith did this after an experience nearly as humiliating, when he was ejected as Tory leader.
And yet an important doubt remains. Ms Truss, unquestionably, mishandled the politics of her time in office.
Many people will be more than a little surprised to find that Liz Truss is still contemplating some sort of political comeback
She did not secure her flanks before making a risky, bold advance towards properly Tory radical economic policies.
MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: Freedom to think is a right worth defending with all our might – READ MORE
And so her enemies and rivals, as enemies and rivals will do, saw her political weakness and defeated her.
The Tory Party was, at that stage, in a state of heightened excitement and navel-gazing, feverish and unstable.
Having destroyed – for no good reason – its best leader for years, Boris Johnson, it plunged into an experiment which it then lacked the nerve to follow through.
And now, under the calm but not very Tory leadership of Rishi Sunak, it struggles to work out what to do to save itself.
Well, for sure, punishing its supporters with the highest taxes in three generations is unlikely to do the trick.
If people want to pay a lot of tax, and not get very much in return, then the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats are the people to go to.
Nothing so far in this government suggests that the orthodox ultra-caution of Mr Sunak and his Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, is bearing much fruit.
Ms Truss as a politician may have a long, hard walk back ahead of her, before she sees a ministerial red box again.
But the ideas she stands for may be due for serious re-examination.
It’s wiser to wait than follow advice of militant trans lobby
Civilised people understand that the transgender issue is complicated.
They do not wish to hurt or distress young people who are genuinely troubled by what can plainly be a severe and harrowing problem.
At the same time, even very strong feelings about such matters can change.
And if they do, those involved may later come to regret irreversible surgical and medical procedures which they once keenly sought.
Many believe that those under 18 are simply too young to take such huge, permanent decisions.
So the growing conflict between Home Secretary Suella Braverman (pictured) and Education Secretary Gillian Keegan is an important one. Ms Braverman, when she was Attorney General, said teachers were not under a legal obligation to treat children according to their gender preferences
A person who believes he or she is born into the wrong body should therefore be treated with sympathy, discretion and kindness at all times.
Schools, especially, should make sure that such individuals are firmly and decisively protected from bullying and similar unpleasantness.
But this does not mean that schools should take sides with the most militant part of the transgender movement.
The young must be given time and peace to decide how to live the rest of their lives.
So the growing conflict between Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Education Secretary Gillian Keegan is an important one.
Ms Braverman, when she was Attorney General, said teachers were not under a legal obligation to treat children according to their gender preferences.
But Ms Keegan, who thinks 16-year-olds are mature enough to choose their genders, appears to have ditched this rule.
This leaves teachers in difficulty, likely to be accused of ‘transphobia’ if they do not endorse their students’ choices.
Perhaps Ms Keegan would care to explain how this position is conservative, and how it protects children, parents and teachers from undue pressure.
And why it would not be wiser to wait and think, rather than to follow the advice of zealous lobby groups.
But Ms Keegan (pictured), who thinks 16-year-olds are mature enough to choose their genders, appears to have ditched this rule
Source: Read Full Article