Liz Truss has broken the first political rule. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer

There are many reasons why Liz Truss has had such a scorching few days. Her government’s so-called mini-budget has caused mortgage woes for thousands of ordinary people and has so scared the markets that some polls Labor a 33 point lead.

But whatever you think of her policies — and there are plenty who agree and are willing to argue vigorously in their favor — she has an underlying problem that is far more serious and far more difficult to address.

It simply lacks the support of the parliamentary party. Only a third of Conservative MPs approved her election as leader, even though she was a favorite among MEPs.

And this is a big problem. Without the parliamentary party behind her, not only does it become increasingly difficult for her to carry out her ideas, however clever they may be; it will be impossible for her to control dissenters.

And as we have seen in recent days, there are plenty of them.

The party is teeming with what political anthropologists might call “charismatic megafauna.” Huge, daring beasts with voracious egos and appetites roam the Tory tundra that, if left unchecked, can do serious damage, especially to a fledgling government taking its first tentative steps.

These beasts were in turmoil at the party conference this week, causing a stampede from the media and MPs that has left some of the prime minister’s most talked-about plans in the dust.

Chief among them, of course, is my ex-husband Michael Gove, but also Grant Shapps and others, who have expressed reservations about the Chancellor’s mini-Budget, finalized plans to cut the 45p higher tax rate, and successfully deal with a humiliating U. force -turn.

It only took them a few days to torpedo the measures, and they may still manage to sink more. To say the party is confused would be an understatement; the mood in Birmingham is beyond despondent.

Truss supporters are quick to blame the rebels. But in the end it comes down to her. The first task of any new leader, especially one with such a small mandate, is to firmly establish himself as the apex predator, the unquestionable Alpha.

She emphatically failed to do this. Admittedly, she might have felt like she had stamped her authority by freezing her rivals and appointing many of her longtime supporters to cabinet. But she forgot a very important rule. ‘Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer’. It’s a worn-out cliché, but for a very good reason. It functions.

The leadership contest that brought her to No. 10 was particularly unpleasant, not only in terms of personal but also political differences. Inevitably, whoever won would face internal opposition from defeated rivals and their allies.

Containing rebels by any means necessary – whether through threats or through promises – should have been an absolute priority.

Truss didn’t see this, or if she did, she didn’t act on it. Unlike her predecessor Boris Johnson (and indeed his predecessor Theresa May), she formed her cabinet almost entirely from her loyal supporters. Praiseworthy… loyalty in politics is a good thing that should be rewarded. But in reality problematic.

Because as talented as people like Deputy Prime Minister Therese Coffey are, they themselves don’t have much support outside their immediate environment. As good as they are at their jobs, politically they bring little else to the table than their moral support, and I’m afraid that isn’t enough in the current climate.

Especially if you are going to pursue such a radical agenda as that of the Prime Minister. If she had chosen Continuity Johnson in the beginning, she wouldn’t have encountered so much opposition. But to take such daring measures, and at such speed, you need some serious muscle.

You need tough political shelters, experienced battle-worn generals who can rally the troops and convince ministers and MPs to risk their own political capital for you – while keeping the trouble firmly at bay.

Johnson understood this and that’s why – I suspect – he gave my ex a job, despite their occasional differences. Michael was more used to him in the tent than outside. The same was true for Theresa May. Both understood that when it comes to someone as smart and politically astute as MG, you should either wear him your colors, or lock him up in a box.

Truss didn’t do this, not to Michael, not to any of them. Instead, she rejected everyone associated with the previous incumbent, from Grant Shapps to Priti Patel to Rishi Sunak, and only offered jobs to those she deemed acceptable, such as Tom Tugendhat and Kemi Badenoch.

The same is true below the cabinet level, in terms of special advisers and other support staff: for example, there’s hardly anyone left in issue 10 who has any real practical understanding of running a government, let alone one that comes with so many challenges. faced like this.

Not only does that mean she has a very inexperienced cabinet, both in terms of policy implementation and media management (boring, but crucial), she’s also created some very powerful, extremely politically competent internal enemies who really don’t like her agenda, and – crucial – over whom she has absolutely no influence whatsoever.

Fair or unfair, this makes her extremely vulnerable. What’s more, once the cracks start to show, they quickly get bigger. She is now beginning to see her power being challenged from her closest ranks, something that should be unimaginable at this stage of her premiership.

Yesterday, three Cabinet ministers, including Penny Mordaunt, challenged her over her welfare cuts, while her own Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, expressed her disapproval of the 45p U-turn (and was echoed by Secretary of State Simon Clarke for raising of the benefit). Her own cabinet members, for God’s sake. If I was in charge, they’d be sitting on their ears.

There’s only one way out of this mess for Truss, and it’s not to get her supporters to ask for sympathy, as some have done, by talking about how badly she’s been treated and how unfair it all is. Of course it’s horrible what happens to her: how can you not sympathize with the woman? Someone who spent time with her yesterday told me they just wanted to put my arm around her.

But they added astutely, “You shouldn’t think like that about a prime minister.” And it is true. It’s not.

If she really wants this, she can show no more weakness. No more compromises, no more U-turns. She has to fight, not only in public, but also behind the scenes. She needs an enforcer, and she needs one soon. Someone who is really mean and terrifying, ideally a sinister figure on the edge of honor, one of those iron fist-in-velvet gloves.

Or maybe just an iron fist in an iron glove.

But above all, she has to lasso one or two of those big beasts, and tie them to her chariot with a hook or a crook.

It won’t be easy, and it will no doubt be very painful, not to mention humiliating. But if she can appeal to their greater love for the party to which they have in many cases devoted their entire career, if she can appeal to their loyalty and devotion to duty, then she may succeed.

If she does, she will not only bring vital experience into her government and restore a degree of confidence (vital to the economy); she will also neutralize enough opponents to give herself a chance to get her agenda through Parliament.

And if she doesn’t? Well, I’m afraid this only ends one way. With Keir Starmer getting the keys to No 10 – and the Conservative Party in the wilderness for years to come.