Truss. We are probably going to hear a pretty unapologetic difference truss. We are probably going to hear a pretty unapologetic difference of. A pretty unapologetic difference of her record in government, a shorter term in government, little more than 1. 5 months. A year ago. Thank you very much. It is great to be hit thank you very much. It is great to be hit at thank you very much. It is great to be hit at the thank you very much. It is great to be hit at the institute of government today. I am having a rather government today. I am having a rather more relaxing september than i did last rather more relaxing september than i did last year, and you might well ask, why i did last year, and you might well ask, why am i back talking about the same ask, why am i back talking about the same topic . Ask, why am i back talking about the same topic . It is one year ago that i launched same topic . It is one year ago that i launched my government and our economic i launched my government and our economic policy, and i am speaking here today, economic policy, and i am speaking here today, not because i want to relive here today, not because i want to relive the here today, not because i want to relive the events of last year. I certainly relive the events of last year. I certainly dont. And it is not because certainly dont. And it is not because im keen to be back in downing because im keen to be back in Downing Street, i am not. Because im keen to be back in Downing Street, lam not. It because im keen to be back in Downing Street, i am not. It is because Downing Street, i am not. It is because one year after seeing that the Economic Growth was the central issue for the Economic Growth was the central issue for our the Economic Growth was the central issue for our country, and since then issue for our country, and since then we issue for our country, and since then we have heard a lot of people say that then we have heard a lot of people say that right across the political spectrum. Say that right across the political spectrum, there still is not agreement on what has caused the Problems Agreement on what has caused the problems of a lack of Economic Growth, problems of a lack of Economic Growth, but also what on earth we are going growth, but also what on earth we are going to do about them. I think these are going to do about them. I think theseissues are going to do about them. I think these issues are only getting more urgent these issues are only getting more urgent. The reality is that over time, urgent. The reality is that over time, we urgent. The reality is that over time, we are not bringing in as much money time, we are not bringing in as much money as time, we are not bringing in as much money as a time, we are not bringing in as much money as a country as we are spending money as a country as we are spending. Our debt levels are close to 100 spending. 0ur debt levels are close to 100 of spending. Our debt levels are close to 100 of gdp. We have the highest debt Interest Payments in the developed world, and according to the growth commission, the average person the growth commission, the average person in the growth commission, the average person in the uk is now £9,100 worse off than person in the uk is now £9,100 worse off than the person in the uk is now £9,100 worse off than the average person in the united off than the average person in the united states. I believe the reason that we united states. I believe the reason that we have this problem is 25 years that we have this problem is 25 years of that we have this problem is 25 years of economic consensus that has led to years of economic consensus that has led to a years of economic consensus that has led to a period of stagnation, and i believe led to a period of stagnation, and i believe that we need to shatter that economic believe that we need to shatter that economic consensus if we are to avoid economic consensus if we are to avoid worse economic consensus if we are to avoid worse problems in the future. The fact avoid worse problems in the future. The fact is avoid worse problems in the future. The fact is the British Public know that the the fact is the British Public know that the consensus is not working. Lord ashcroft s poll on the state we released on september the 4th, revealed we released on september the 4th, revealed that 72 of people in britain revealed that 72 of people in britain agree that britain is broken. Britain agree that britain is broken, people are getting poorer, nothing broken, people are getting poorer, nothing seems to work, we need big changes nothing seems to work, we need big changes to nothing seems to work, we need big changes to the way the country is run, changes to the way the country is run, whichever party is in government. And yet, despite the dissatisfaction, the poll also reveals dissatisfaction, the poll also reveals that people dont agree on why we reveals that people dont agree on why we have got the problems, and what the why we have got the problems, and what the fundamental cause of the malaise what the fundamental cause of the malaise in what the fundamental cause of the malaise in which we are living is. Now, malaise in which we are living is. Now. There malaise in which we are living is. Now, there are some people who claim this is now, there are some people who claim this is a now, there are some people who claim this is a crisis now, there are some people who claim this is a crisis of capitalism, that we have this is a crisis of capitalism, that we have had too much free markets will stop we have had too much free markets will stop at we have had too much free markets will stop at quite the opposite is true will stop at quite the opposite is true the will stop at quite the opposite is true. The fact is that since labour was elected in 1997, we have moved towards was elected in 1997, we have moved towards being a more cooperative social towards being a more cooperative Social Democracy than we were in the 80s and Social Democracy than we were in the 80s and 90s. State spending. The uk s 80s and 90s. State spending. The uk s former 80s and 90s. State spending. Tie uk s former Prime Minister liz uk � s former Prime Minister liz truss giving a speech at the Institute For Government in central london. Defending her records and putting her case, or rather apportioning blame on the economic struggles that the uk has been facing. 25 years of economic consensus. Theres also a growing burden of regulation. The cost of regulations introduced regulation. The cost of regulations introduced in 2022 alone is £10 billion. Introduced in 2022 alone is £10 billion, according to the government. I believe that is an underestimate. In the sectors that are key underestimate. In the sectors that are key arteries of the economy, whether are key arteries of the economy, whether it are key arteries of the economy, whether it is energy, housing, banking. Whether it is energy, housing, banking, there is less competition and more banking, there is less competition and more government involvement than there was and more government involvement than there was 25 and more government involvement than there was 25 years ago. The government still owns a 45 stake in natwest~ government still owns a 45 stake in natwest. The cost of energy in britain natwest. The cost of energy in britain is natwest. The cost of energy in britain is twice what they are in the us. Britain is twice what they are in the us, and we have a severe shortage the us, and we have a severe shortage of housing. The cost of Welfare Shortage of housing. The cost of welfare and pensions is balloon since welfare and pensions is balloon since the welfare and pensions is balloon since the turn of millennium and even since the turn of millennium and even on since the turn of millennium and even on an since the turn of millennium and even on an income of £50,000, it is still possible even on an income of £50,000, it is still possible to claim universal credit still possible to claim universal credit. 0urtax still possible to claim universal credit. 0ur Tax System has become more credit. 0ur Tax System has become more complicated, with many facing hih more complicated, with many facing high marginal tax rates when they seek to high marginal tax rates when they seek to earn more income. Somebody earning seek to earn more income. Somebody earning £100,000 with a student loan faces a earning £100,000 with a student loan faces a marginal tax rate of 71 . And we faces a marginal tax rate of 71 . And we have had cheap money for over a decade and we have had cheap money for over a decade with nearly £900 million pumped a decade with nearly £900 million pumped into the system by the Bank Of England through quantitative easing. Of england through quantitative easing, in an era of near zero interest easing, in an era of near zero Interest Rates, something that has been Interest Rates, something that has been completely unprecedented in 300 years of been completely unprecedented in 300 years of uk central banking. So how on earth years of uk central banking. So how on earth did years of uk central banking. So how on earth did we get to this situation on earth did we get to this situation is to mark well, my view is that situation is to mark well, my view is that after situation is to mark well, my view is that after the successful Monetary Policy and supply side reforms Monetary Policy and supply side reforms of the 1980s, and the Winning Reforms of the 1980s, and the winning of the cold war by the west, we were winning of the cold war by the west, we were all winning of the cold war by the west, we were all optimistic and upbeat about we were all optimistic and upbeat about our we were all optimistic and upbeat about our future, and we took our eye off about our future, and we took our eye off the about our future, and we took our eye off the ball. Free market economists went off to lucrative obs economists went off to lucrative jobs in economists went off to lucrative jobs in the city, allowing academic institutions and think tanks to be captured institutions and think tanks to be captured by the left. Demand management crept back in, alongside dici climate agenda companies, there has been a cultural shift across towards more been a cultural shift across towards more left wing policies. Despite the lon more left wing policies. Despite the long record of failure, of industrial policy, it is back in vogue industrial policy, it is back in vogue again. People are talking about vogue again. People are talking about was the basic belief by politicians that the good times. Sharing politicians that the good times. Sharing the proceeds of growth. It was about sharing the proceeds of growth. It was about general well being and happiness, ratherthan was about general well being and happiness, rather than gdp. Was about general well being and happiness, ratherthan gdp. The was about general well being and happiness, rather than gdp. The only question happiness, rather than gdp. The only question seem to be how we were going question seem to be how we were going to question seem to be how we were going to redistribute the pie, not about going to redistribute the pie, not about growing the pie a growing size and scope about growing the pie a growing size and scope of the state, and that growing and scope of the state, and that growing slowed Economic Growth itself~ growing slowed Economic Growth itself to growing slowed Economic Growth itself. To generate the amount of economic itself. To generate the amount of Economic Activity we need to help peoples Economic Activity we need to help peoples incomes get bigger, and to Fund Government services, and that means Fund Government services, and that means our Fund Government services, and that means our economy is now stagnating. People means our economy is now stagnating. People puzzle, but it is not a puzzle people puzzle, but it is not a puzzle. This is not enough and thats puzzle. This is not enough and thats a puzzle. This is not enough and thats a problem. People are delaying thats a problem. People are delaying starting a family because housing delaying starting a family because housing and the cost of bringing up children housing and the cost of bringing up children is housing and the cost of bringing up children is so high. Public sector productivity is woeful. The uk is third productivity is woeful. The uk is third after productivity is woeful. The uk is third after russia and china for the departure third after russia and china for the departure of High Net Worth individuals. And despite that these incentives individuals. And despite that these incentives have a major impact. There incentives have a major impact. There has incentives have a major impact. There has been a that these levels of growth there has been a that these levels of growth in britain are inevitable. And the of growth in britain are inevitable. And the economic models of the. They are overly and the economic models of the. They are overly static and short termist. That tax are overly static and short termist. That tax and are overly static and short termist. That tax and regulation have a peoples that tax and regulation have a peoples behaviour, and they tend to, or at most peoples behaviour, and they tend to, or at most five years, of the effects or at most five years, of the effects of or at most five years, of the effects of policy. Abacus economics. The failure effects of policy. Abacus economics. The failure to act in the dynamic effects the failure to act in the dynamic effects of the failure to act in the dynamic effects of policy stores up risks and problems for the future, so what we see and problems for the future, so what we see is and problems for the future, so what we see is parts of the country that need we see is parts of the country that need investment the emphasis is on saving need investment the emphasis is on saving time need investment the emphasis is on saving time and money the conditions for growth saving time and money the conditions for growth the costings are based on yesterday for growth the costings are based on yesterday and not on future energy securitv~ yesterday and not on future energy security. And the treasury is always allergic security. And the treasury is always allergic to security. And the treasury is always allergic to giving up its levers of control allergic to giving up its levers of control so allergic to giving up its levers of control. So it objects to more local decision making, and more this pattern decision making, and more this pattern of decision making, and more this pattern of high spending, high tax and high pattern of high spending, high tax and high regulation and low growth is not and high regulation and low growth is notjust and high regulation and low growth is notjust taking place in the united is notjust taking place in the united kingdom. It is taking place across united kingdom. It is taking place across Western Europe and across the united across Western Europe and across the united states. When we look at the counter united states. When we look at the counter examples of high growth in places counter examples of high growth in places like counter examples of high growth in places like poland, the Baltic States places like poland, the Baltic States of florida and texas, they are largely places with low regulation and low tax. In poland, Corporation Regulation and low tax. In poland, Corporation Tax is 19 . Income taxes are flat Corporation Tax is 19 . Income taxes are flat and Corporation Tax is 19 . Income taxes are flat. And yet, despite all this evidence. Are flat. And yet, despite all this evidence, the global left want to double evidence, the global left want to double down on this strategy. In fact. Double down on this strategy. In fact. They double down on this strategy. In fact, they appear to be meeting at the moment in canada. That is what bidenomics the moment in canada. That is what bidenomics is. It is about reducing debt and bidenomics is. It is about reducing debt and trying to reduce competition by levelling up taxes across competition by levelling up taxes across the left. More regulation by the Environmental Protection agency and to the Environmental Protection agency and to fund this, federal spending is 40 and to fund this, federal spending is 40 more than pre coronavirus levels is 40 more than pre coronavirus levels and is 40 more than pre coronavirus levels and it is 40 more than pre coronavirus levels and it is set to go up even more levels and it is set to go up even more this levels and it is set to go up even more this year. Soon the us will be spending more this year. Soon the us will be spending more money financing its debt than spending more money financing its debt than it spends on its entire defence debt than it spends on its entire defence budget. Wall street has clocked defence budget. Wall street has clocked onto this and recently they downgraded us debt, which is meant to be the downgraded us debt, which is meant to be the safest in the world. Despite to be the safest in the world. Despite the fact it is clear that the west despite the fact it is clear that the west cant go on borrowing for evei. The west cant go on borrowing for ever. The the west cant go on borrowing for ever, the labour party have said that they ever, the labour party have said that they want to copy and paste biden that they want to copy and paste biden s that they want to copy and paste biden s policies onto the uk Statute Biden s policies onto the uk statute book. They are calling their version statute book. They are calling their version of statute book. They are calling their version of biden s policies at the green version of biden s policies at the green prosperity plan. It is a green degrowth green prosperity plan. It is a green de growth plan and it isjust a new name de growth plan and it isjust a new name for de growth plan and it isjust a new name for the failed subsidies and hih name for the failed subsidies and high taxes of the past. Real Economic Security would mean incentives, so oil and Gas Producers want incentives, so oil and Gas Producers want to incentives, so oil and Gas Producers want to come to the north sea, and so people want to come to the north sea, and so people want to invest in the united so people want to invest in the united kingdom. Above all, Real Security united kingdom. Above all, Real Security means controlling Public Spending. Last autumn, i sought to take on spending. Last autumn, i sought to take on this spending. Last autumn, i sought to take on this consensus and try to et take on this consensus and try to get the take on this consensus and try to get the british economy on a better trajectory get the british economy on a better trajectory through a three pronged approach trajectory through a three pronged approach of targeted Tax Increases and reductions, supply side reform, and reductions, supply side reform, and holding and reductions, supply side reform, and holding down Public Spending. It was clear and holding down Public Spending. It was clear that Interest Rates were going was clear that Interest Rates were going to was clear that Interest Rates were going to go up, and they would go up further~ going to go up, and they would go up further we going to go up, and they would go up further. We had had artificially low rates further. We had had artificially low rates for further. We had had artificially low rates for too long, and they were rising rates for too long, and they were rising across the world. Therefore, in order rising across the world. Therefore, in order to rising across the world. Therefore, in orderto dampen rising across the world. Therefore, in order to dampen depression and stave in order to dampen depression and stave off in order to dampen depression and stave off recession was to do all we could stave off recession was to do all we could to stave off recession was to do all we could to fix stave off recession was to do all we could to fix the supply side of the economy could to fix the supply side of the economy and increase our productive capacitv economy and increase our productive capacitv as economy and increase our productive capacity. As far as i was concerned, this was capacity. As far as i was concerned, this was an capacity. As far as i was concerned, this was an urgent task, and the growth this was an urgent task, and the growth plan which subsequently came known growth plan which subsequently came known as growth plan which subsequently came known as the mini budget sought to do this known as the mini budget sought to do this through targeted tax cuts, supply side reform and spending restraint~ supply side reform and spending restraint~ i supply side reform and spending restraint. I felt we needed to reform restraint. I felt we needed to reform our tax system with measures to make reform our tax system with measures to make it reform our tax system with measures to make it more business friendly, and to to make it more business friendly, and to make the uk a more attractive place and to make the uk a more attractive place to and to make the uk a more attractive place to invest. We need to reverse the impending hike in Corporation Tax. The impending hike in Corporation Tax we the impending hike in Corporation Tax. We needed to cut the top rate of income tax. We needed to cut the top rate of income tax to show that britain was open of income tax to show that britain was open for talent, Reforming Woodcuts was open for talent, Reforming Woodcuts read tape for businesses and a woodcuts read tape for businesses and a return to vat Free Shopping would and a return to vat Free Shopping would make our cities more attractive. Independent calculation is suggested that cutting the higher rate of is suggested that cutting the higher rate of income tax and the Terrorist Attacks rate of income tax and the Terrorist Attacks would have increased, rather than decreased revenues within five years than decreased revenues within five years than decreased revenues within five years tourist tax. So when my policies years tourist tax. So when my policies are years tourist tax. So when my policies are described as unfunded tax cuts. Policies are described as unfunded tax cuts, that is not accurate. Quite tax cuts, that is not accurate. Quite the tax cuts, that is not accurate. Quite the opposite of being underfunded, these tax cuts could have increased funding for our public have increased funding for our public services. The cbr also say for the public services. The cbr also say for the cost of freezing Corporation Tax was for the cost of freezing Corporation Tax was much less than the treasury suggested tax was much less than the treasury suggested. Theyre costing off the measures suggested. Theyre costing off the measures was £25 billion over five years. Measures was £25 billion over five years. Not measures was £25 billion over five years, not 45 billion. And regrettably, the static models used by the regrettably, the static models used by the 0br failed to acknowledge this. By the 0br failed to acknowledge this the by the 0br failed to acknowledge this. The second part of the plan was supply side reform with some of the biggest constraint to growth in the biggest constraint to growth in the uk the biggest constraint to growth in the uk economy being in energy, housing the uk economy being in energy, housing and the labour market. On Energy Housing and the labour market. On energy there was a risk of Household Bills going energy there was a risk of Household Bills going up to £6,000, due to decades bills going up to £6,000, due to decades of short term Estate Energy policy decades of short term Estate Energy policy that decades of short term Estate Energy policy that had failed to ensure our securitv~ policy that had failed to ensure our security. Thats why we introduced the energv security. Thats why we introduced the energy price guarantee, while we worked the energy price guarantee, while we worked to the energy price guarantee, while we worked to open up fracking and the north worked to open up fracking and the north sea worked to open up fracking and the north sea to make the uk Energy Independent again, including by abolishing the windfall tax. Again due to abolishing the windfall tax. Again due to static costing, the cost of this was due to static costing, the cost of this was vastly overestimated. It will actually cost £27 billion, less than half will actually cost £27 billion, less than half the £55 billion forecast by the than half the £55 billion forecast by the obr in the autumn of 2022. On planning by the obr in the autumn of 2022. On planning we by the obr in the autumn of 2022. On planning we instituted canary wharf Style Investment Zones with Planning FreedomsStyle Investment Zones with Planning Freedoms and tax breaks for a decade that would freedoms and tax breaks for a decade that would help Drive Newjobs and opportunities in left behind areas. We sought to make Property Ownership a reality we sought to make Property Ownership a reality for we sought to make Property Ownership a reality for young people again by reducing a reality for young people again by reducing costs on developing that et reducing costs on developing that get passed on to renters and buyers, whether get passed on to renters and buyers, whether it get passed on to renters and buyers, whether it be through planning reform. Whether it be through planning reform, reduced regulation, ought speeding reform, reduced regulation, ought speeding up planning decision. We also wanted to cut red tape on child care to also wanted to cut red tape on child care to make it more affordable for families care to make it more affordable for families. The third part of the plan was about families. The third part of the plan was about Public Spending restraint. Now. Was about Public Spending restraint. Now. We was about Public Spending restraint. Now, we were deliberately careful about now, we were deliberately careful about discussing Public Spending. Given about discussing Public Spending. Given the about discussing Public Spending. Given the very difficult politics of it. Given the very difficult politics of it what given the very difficult politics of it what i given the very difficult politics of it. What i tried to do as Prime Minister it. What i tried to do as Prime Minister was navigate between the Economic Minister was navigate between the economic reality and what realistically we could get support for in realistically we could get support for in parliament. Having been chief secretary. For in parliament. Having been chief secretary. I for in parliament. Having been chief secretary, i know it is difficult to cut spending and it is often counter productive. In the past we have counter productive. In the past we have cut counter productive. In the past we have cut things like capital and then have cut things like capital and then it have cut things like capital and then it has come back to bite us later then it has come back to bite us later. Therefore, what i tried to do was change later. Therefore, what i tried to do was change the trajectory of spending by holding spending down. Now in spending by holding spending down. Now in an spending by holding spending down. Now in an inflationary environment, not reopening the Spending Review represents a tough approach. I also wanted. Represents a tough approach. I also wanted. As represents a tough approach. I also wanted, as was widely publicised at the time. Wanted, as was widely publicised at the time, to increase Welfare Benefits the time, to increase Welfare Benefits by wages, not prices. These two measures would have meant that, compared two measures would have meant that, compared to two measures would have meant that, compared to what we are spending now. Compared to what we are spending now. We compared to what we are spending now, we would have saved £35. 5 million now, we would have saved £35. 5 million over two years. 18. 4 p and pounds million over two years. 18. 4 p and pounds in million over two years. 18. 4 p and pounds in 2023 24, and £70 billion in 24 pounds in 2023 24, and £70 billion in 24 pounds in 2023 24, and £70 billion in 24 25~ pounds in 2023 24, and £70 billion in 24 25. But pounds in 2023 24, and £70 billion in 24 25. But even these modest savings in 24 25. But even these modest savings did in 24 25. But even these modest savings did not command the support of the savings did not command the support of the conservative parliamentary party~ of the conservative parliamentary party. And of the conservative parliamentary party. And it is a very serious issue party. And it is a very serious issue for party. And it is a very serious issue for us, who want to see smaller issue for us, who want to see smaller government, that is making significant smaller government, that is making significant changes to spending simply significant changes to spending simply does not have enough political simply does not have enough political support. So those were the three political support. So those were the three key political support. So those were the three key parts of the plan. Targeted tax reductions, supply side reform. Targeted tax reductions, supply side reform. And targeted tax reductions, supply side reform, and Public Spending restraint~ reform, and Public Spending restraint. Of course, the growth plan restraint. Of course, the growth plan was restraint. Of course, the growth plan was a restraint. Of course, the growth plan was a starting point. A signal of direction, further changes were needed. Of direction, further changes were needed, given the scale of the challenge we faced. Cbr analysis at the time challenge we faced. Cbr analysis at the time suggest that if those policies the time suggest that if those policies had been kept in place, gdp growth policies had been kept in place, gdp growth would be 2 higher than otherwise by 2030, and investment would otherwise by 2030, and investment would have been up 10 and could have been would have been up 10 and could have been even stronger. These impacts have been even stronger. These impacts were even greater in the lon impacts were even greater in the long term impacts were even greater in the long term. The 20 year gdp impact is normally long term. The 20 year gdp impact is normally 34 long term. The 20 year gdp impact is normally 3 4 times bigger. I think we can normally 3 4 times bigger. I think we can see normally 3 4 times bigger. I think we can see from the evidence on the ground we can see from the evidence on the ground the we can see from the evidence on the ground the impact the policies would have had ground the impact the policies would have had Stop Investment would not have had Stop Investment would not have faltered in the north sea, were it not have faltered in the north sea, were it not for have faltered in the north sea, were it not for the windfall tax. We would it not for the windfall tax. We would have got moving on fracking and lower would have got moving on fracking and Lower Energy Bills would be on the horizon. A more competitive rate of Corporation Tax would have persuaded the likes of astrazeneca to locate persuaded the likes of astrazeneca to locate in the uk. And there would have been to locate in the uk. And there would have been more Duty Free Shoppers and a have been more Duty Free Shoppers and a boom have been more Duty Free Shoppers and a boom in the number of self employed. The policies were welcomed by Business Groups and voters welcomed by Business Groups and voters like them as well, and since last year. Voters like them as well, and since last year, virtually all of the policies last year, virtually all of the policies in the mini budget have been policies in the mini budget have been called for. 38 councils want to proceed been called for. 38 councils want to proceed with full fat Investment Zones proceed with full fat Investment Zones. City firms are demanding more freedom zones. City firms are demanding more freedom to zones. City firms are demanding more freedom to invest. Companies have called freedom to invest. Companies have called for freedom to invest. Companies have called for lower Corporation Tax. There called for lower Corporation Tax. There is called for lower Corporation Tax. There is an called for lower Corporation Tax. There is an entire campaign in the daily there is an entire campaign in the dailymail there is an entire campaign in the daily mailfor there is an entire campaign in the daily mail for tax Free Shopping, so why didnt daily mail for tax Free Shopping, so why didnt it happen . Why didnt these why didnt it happen . Why didnt these policies, which people wanted and would these policies, which people wanted and would have resulted in Economic Growth. And would have resulted in Economic Growth. Not and would have resulted in Economic Growth, not happen . The reality is it was growth, not happen . The reality is it was the growth, not happen . The reality is it was the reaction. So, although i did get it was the reaction. So, although i did get rid it was the reaction. So, although i did get rid of the health and social care levy. Did get rid of the health and social care levy. A did get rid of the health and social care levy, a new tax which would have care levy, a new tax which would have no care levy, a new tax which would have no doubt expanded over time, unfortunately most of the policies were not unfortunately most of the policies were not implemented. And they werent were not implemented. And they werent implemented because there was a werent implemented because there was a reaction from the political and Economic Establishment which fed into the and Economic Establishment which fed into the markets, markets that were already into the markets, markets that were already destabilised by the Bank Of England already destabilised by the Bank Of England s slowness to hike Interest Rates england s slowness to hike Interest Rates and england s slowness to hike Interest Rates and the failure to regulate ldi. Rates and the failure to regulate ldi and rates and the failure to regulate ldi and i rates and the failure to regulate ldi. And i was effectively forced into a ldi. And i was effectively forced into a Policy Reversal under threat of a uk into a Policy Reversal under threat of a uk meltdown. Now some people say we of a uk meltdown. Now some people say we were in too much of a rush, and it say we were in too much of a rush, and it is say we were in too much of a rush, and it is certainly true that i didnt and it is certainly true that i didntjust try to and it is certainly true that i didnt just try to fatten the pig on market didnt just try to fatten the pig on market day, i tried to rear the pig, fat and market day, i tried to rear the pig, fat and the market day, i tried to rear the pig, fat and the pig and slaughtered a pig on fat and the pig and slaughtered a pig on market day. I confess to that pig on market day. I confess to that but pig on market day. I confess to that. But the reason we were in a rush that. But the reason we were in a rush is that. But the reason we were in a rush is that that. But the reason we were in a rush is that voters had voted for change rush is that voters had voted for change. They voted for change in 2016. Change. They voted for change in 2016. And change. They voted for change in 2016, and they voted for change again 2016, and they voted for change again in 2016, and they voted for change again in 2019. I wanted to deliver that change and i knew we had limited that change and i knew we had limited time. I knew with a level of resistance limited time. I knew with a level of resistance and a lack of preparation that things resistance and a lack of preparation that things were not going to be perfect that things were not going to be perfect. However, given the situation perfect. However, given the situation in the uk was in, it was important situation in the uk was in, it was important to take action and not to do nothing important to take action and not to do nothing because i went into politics do nothing because i went into politics to get things done, not to do public politics to get things done, not to do public relations. In add to all the people who said that if we had spent the people who said that if we had spent more time rolling the pitch, or had spent more time rolling the pitch, or had done things in a different way. Or had done things in a different way. Or or had done things in a different way, or delayed things, we would have way, or delayed things, we would have been way, or delayed things, we would have been able to deliver our programme, i ask them to look at what programme, i ask them to look at what has programme, i ask them to look at what has happened since. By october seven. What has happened since. By october seven. The what has happened since. By october seven, the obr were already licking their calculation is that there was a £70 their calculation is that there was a £70 billion hole in the budget leaking a £70 billion hole in the budget leaking. These numbers subsequently proved leaking. These numbers subsequently proved wrong. But the league would have made proved wrong. But the league would have made delivery of the Corporation Tax freeze untenable. Since Corporation Tax freeze untenable. Since last Corporation Tax freeze untenable. Since last year, no major supply side reforms or tax cuts have been supply side reforms or tax cuts have been allowed to happen. Whether it is of financial services, childcare, planning. Is of financial services, childcare, planning. Or is of financial services, childcare, planning, or on the environment. In fact. Planning, or on the environment. In fact. 150 planning, or on the environment. In fact, 150 conservative mps have written fact, 150 conservative mps have written to fact, 150 conservative mps have written to the Prime Minister saying there written to the Prime Minister saying there should be no change in net zero there should be no change in net zero legislation. So, although there is no doubt zero legislation. So, although there is no doubt that the communication could is no doubt that the communication could have is no doubt that the communication could have been better and the operation better homes, i think we all have operation better homes, i think we all have to operation better homes, i think we all have to acknowledge in the room that this all have to acknowledge in the room that this was not just a process problem~ that this was not just a process problem. It was unquestionably a reaction problem. It was unquestionably a reaction to problem. It was unquestionably a reaction to the policies themselves. And the reaction to the policies themselves. And the fact is that Supply Side Economics and a belief that the size of the economics and a belief that the size of the state needs to be reduced are that no of the state needs to be reduced are that no longer command widespread support that no longer command widespread support and understanding. The anti Growth Coalition is now a powerful anti Growth Coalition is now a powerful force, comprising the economic powerful force, comprising the economic political elite, parts of the media, and even part of the conservative parliamentary party. The policies i advocate simply are not fashionable on the London Dinner Party circuit~ not fashionable on the London Dinner Party circuit. In fact, what is interesting is when you look at the polling interesting is when you look at the Polling Evidence of the people who want change and support these policies want change and support these policies are less likely to be comfortably off in london and the south east. The Lord Ashcroft shows very clearly south east. The Lord Ashcroft shows very clearly those who want to see lower very clearly those who want to see lower taxes and smaller government, and who lower taxes and smaller government, and who are lower taxes and smaller government, and who are tougher on welfare, tend to live and who are tougher on welfare, tend to live in and who are tougher on welfare, tend to live in less and who are tougher on welfare, tend to live in less affluent areas. Many of those to live in less affluent areas. Many of those are people who started voting of those are people who started Voting Conservative in 2019. In addition Voting Conservative in 2019. In addition to that, there are some policies addition to that, there are some policies i addition to that, there are some policies i advocate that just dont have policies i advocate that just dont have much policies i advocate that just dont have much public support at all. Such have much public support at all. Such as have much public support at all. Such as cutting the top tax rate, building such as cutting the top tax rate, building more homes, getting rid of process building more homes, getting rid of process when Building Infrastructure projects process when Building Infrastructure projects. But frankly we need to find a projects. But frankly we need to find a way projects. But frankly we need to find a way of doing these things. Otherwise we are not going to get the prosperity and the opportunity that people want. And we can see the policies that people want. And we can see the policies i that people want. And we can see the policies i advocate working right now in policies i advocate working right now in places like texas, florida and the now in places like texas, florida and the czech republic. Even germany is now and the czech republic. Even germany is now cutting corporate taxes and reducing is now cutting corporate taxes and reducing regulation. If the situation was urgent last year, it is even situation was urgent last year, it is even more urgent now. The uk is in a serious is even more urgent now. The uk is in a serious and precarious position. In a serious and precarious position, and there is a real risk of a position, and there is a real risk of a downward spiral. The National Debt was of a downward spiral. The National Debt was £525 billion in 2005. By 2022 debt was £525 billion in 2005. By 2022 it debt was £525 billion in 2005. By 2022 it was £2. 5 trillion and it is set to 2022 it was £2. 5 trillion and it is set to top 2022 it was £2. 5 trillion and it is set to top £3 trillion within four years set to top £3 trillion within four years i set to top £3 trillion within four years. I believe we can get out of this. Years. I believe we can get out of this. But years. I believe we can get out of this, but the only way to get out of the debt this, but the only way to get out of the debt spiral is to get a grip on is public the debt spiral is to get a grip on is Public Spending while implementing policies to grow the economy implementing policies to grow the economy. I urge the government to be bold and economy. I urge the government to be bold and to economy. I urge the government to be bold and to set out a clear vision of how bold and to set out a clear vision of how the bold and to set out a clear vision of how the uk can get to a sustained 3 of how the uk can get to a sustained annual of how the uk can get to a sustained 3 annual growth within a decade. This should 3 annual growth within a decade. This should set out a clear ten year trajectory this should set out a clear ten year trajectory for reducing the size of the state trajectory for reducing the size of the state as a proportion of our economy the state as a proportion of our economy through a combination of growth economy through a combination of growth and spending control. We should growth and spending control. We should aim to get that ratio we achieved should aim to get that ratio we achieved at the turn of the millennium before tony blair and gordon millennium before tony blair and gordon brown turned on the spending tax and gordon brown turned on the spending tax and excess regulation made us uncompetitive. We need to give people uncompetitive. We need to give people hope that things can get better people hope that things can get better. We need to spell out what 3 growth better. We need to spell out what 3 growth would mean in terms of improved growth would mean in terms of improved standards of living and opportunities for an average family. A new opportunities for an average family. A new car. Opportunities for an average family. A new car. A opportunities for an average family. A new car, a holiday abroad, more support a new car, a holiday abroad, more support for a new car, a holiday abroad, more support for your children. Ministers need support for your children. Ministers need to support for your children. Ministers need to go support for your children. Ministers need to go out and explain the why as well need to go out and explain the why as well as need to go out and explain the why as well as the house. We need to make as well as the house. We need to make the as well as the house. We need to make the case for free market economics, and admit the state has ot economics, and admit the state has got too economics, and admit the state has got too big. Economics, and admit the state has got too big, partly as a result of excess got too big, partly as a result of Excess Spending during coronavirus. We need Excess Spending during coronavirus. We need to Excess Spending during coronavirus. We need to show an Enterprise Economy we need to show an Enterprise Economy is good for everyone. Conservatives cant just assume people conservatives cant just assume people have read milton friedman, we need to people have read milton friedman, we need to spell out our philosophy and that would need to spell out our philosophy and that would contrast with labour s lack of that would contrast with labour s lack of ideas and force them to defend lack of ideas and force them to defend the sale economic consensus started defend the sale economic consensus started under gordon brown and tony blair started under gordon brown and tony blair in started under gordon brown and tony blair. In orderto started under gordon brown and tony blair. In order to deliver this, theres blair. In order to deliver this, theres going to be big change required theres going to be big change required. We need a new Supply Side Revolution required. We need a new Supply Side Revolution. The Supply Side Revolution. The Supply Side Revolution in the 1980s was all about revolution in the 1980s was all about taking on unproductive industry about taking on unproductive industry in the unions which held the Whip Industry in the unions which held the whip hand over the elected government of today of the day. The Supply Side Revolution now has to take the Supply Side Revolution now has to take on the Supply Side Revolution now has to take on the burden of regulation and an to take on the burden of regulation and an overlarge, over powerful bureaucracy which has the whip hand over the bureaucracy which has the whip hand over the elected government. This Supply Side Revolution has to encompass changes to tax, regulation and the encompass changes to tax, regulation and the size encompass changes to tax, regulation and the size of the state. The government needs to take on the obr over the government needs to take on the obr over the impact of tax policy, and we need over the impact of tax policy, and we need to over the impact of tax policy, and we need to see much more sophisticated levels of analysis from sophisticated levels of analysis from the sophisticated levels of analysis from the treasury of our long Term Economic from the treasury of our long term Economic Growth. This needs a wide variety Economic Growth. This needs a wide variety of Economic Growth. This needs a wide variety of thinkers, including supply side is. We cant afford to be uncompetitive internationally. We need Corporation Tax back at 19 , and we need Corporation Tax back at 19 , and we should also refuse to implement the oecd minimum Tax Agreement which i previously labelled a cartel of complacency. It wont labelled a cartel of complacency. It wont be labelled a cartel of complacency. It wont be implemented in the us, and even if wont be implemented in the us, and even if it wont be implemented in the us, and even if it was, it would make the entire even if it was, it would make the entire west uncompetitive. We also need to entire west uncompetitive. We also need to produce marginal tax rates to make need to produce marginal tax rates to make it need to produce marginal tax rates to make it worthwhile to work at every to make it worthwhile to work at every income level. Further changes like abolishing the tourist tax, abolishing the windfall tax, and sorting abolishing the windfall tax, and sorting out ir 35 need to be made. We also sorting out ir 35 need to be made. We also need to get a grip on the Ballooning Welfare and pensions bill. Ballooning welfare and pensions bill~ this Ballooning Welfare and pensions bill. This means slowing the rate of increase bill. This means slowing the rate of increase to bill. This means slowing the rate of increase to benefits and tougher work increase to benefits and tougher work requirements. It means raising the Retirement Age further. And as a party the Retirement Age further. And as a party we the Retirement Age further. And as a party we have to deal with the difficult party we have to deal with the difficult issue of the increasing costs difficult issue of the increasing costs of difficult issue of the increasing costs of pensions. The current trajectory costs of pensions. The current trajectory is not sustainable. We need trajectory is not sustainable. We need more competition and less corporatism in key sectors of the economy corporatism in key sectors of the economy like energy and finance. I favour economy like energy and finance. I favour a economy like energy and finance. I favour a single Utilities Regulator to get favour a single Utilities Regulator to get rid favour a single Utilities Regulator to get rid of the balkanisation and capture to get rid of the balkanisation and capture that we have seen under organisations like ofwat. The governor organisations like ofwat. The governor needs to withdraw from micromanagement in sectors like Transport Micromanagement in sectors like transport and in the Energy Sector we need transport and in the Energy Sector we need to transport and in the Energy Sector we need to get on with tracking and abolish we need to get on with tracking and abolish the we need to get on with tracking and abolish the windfall tax. In the housing abolish the windfall tax. In the Housing Market there should be tax breaks Housing Market there should be tax breaks in Housing Market there should be tax breaks in return for having new developments and homes in your area. A much developments and homes in your area. A much simpler zoning process, and speeded a much simpler zoning process, and speeded up a much simpler zoning process, and speeded up infrastructure projects. Thats speeded up infrastructure projects. Thats what the original Investment Zones thats what the original Investment Zones are thats what the original Investment Zones are proposed for about. We should zones are proposed for about. We should diverge properly from the eu so we should diverge properly from the eu so we can should diverge properly from the eu so we can increase competitiveness in areas so we can increase competitiveness in areas like so we can increase competitiveness in areas like financial services. Finally. In areas like financial services. Finally. We in areas like financial services. Finally, we should, as many other western finally, we should, as many other western countries are already doing, Delay Implementing Net Zero Commitments such as a ban on new petrol commitments such as a ban on new petrol and commitments such as a ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030 petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030. Other environmental regulations which are the cost of hiking regulations which are the cost of hiking living, like enforcing the replacement of gas and oil boilers, should replacement of gas and oil boilers, should also be abandoned. Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, there is a growing gentlemen, in conclusion, there is a growing consensus that we need to grow. Growing consensus that we need to grow. But growing consensus that we need to grow, but although people will the ends. Grow, but although people will the ends, they dont necessarily will the means. In orderto ends, they dont necessarily will the means. In order to grow, we need to change the means. In order to grow, we need to change and the means. In order to grow, we need to change and that starts with acknowledging that we have a problem. It means abandoning the stale problem. It means abandoning the stale economic consensus stop it means stale economic consensus stop it means politicians doing the right thing. Means politicians doing the right thing, even if it is unpopular. This will not thing, even if it is unpopular. This will not be thing, even if it is unpopular. This will not be easy, but it will worth doing will not be easy, but it will worth doing. With determination to turn things doing. With determination to turn things around, we can make britain grow things around, we can make britain grow again~ things around, we can make britain grow again. Thank you. That was the former Prime Minister liz truss speaking in central london, urging the rishi sunak government to change course on economic policy. Our Political Correspondent has been following what she has been saying. What has she said . She what she has been saying. What has she said . ,. , � what she has been saying. What has she said . ,. , �. ,. ,. , she said . She hasnt attacked the current prime she said . She hasnt attacked the current Prime Minister she said . She hasnt attacked the current Prime Minister directly. She said . She hasnt attacked the| current Prime Minister directly but she has attacked quite a lot of his policy. She was Prime Ministerfor about six weeks, this time last year, a couple of weeks into her time at number ten Downing Street and a lot of policies that have been pursued since she denounced in the speech. She says the way to get Economic Growth is to abolish the windfall tax on oil and gas companies, rishi sunak supports that, to cut Corporation Tax, he increased it. She called for further measures to control Public Spending including raising the State Pension Age and increasing benefits less steeply than the current chancellor jeremy hunt or the current