Liz Truss has beliefs. The former environment secretary is a fierce supporter of free markets, low taxes and a Britain outside of the European Union. She is also a self-described China hawk, having called the country "the largest threat, both to the world and to the United Kingdom, for freedom and democracy”.
Which is odd, because Truss recently lobbied the UK government to “expedite” the sale of defence equipment to China. The story did not garner widespread attention at the time, but in January this year, Politico reported that in a private letter dated August 2023, Truss had personally asked business and trade secretary Kemi Badenoch to help a defence manufacturer sell military equipment to China.
Richmond Defence Systems, based in Truss's Norfolk constituency, had been blocked by the UK government from exporting landmine disposal systems to China. This is the sort of kit that could conceivably be used in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, and runs counter to the former justice secretary's public statements about doing "all we can to ensure Taiwan is able to defend itself.”
Global flashpoints aside, is this such a big deal? I mean, aren't all MPs – even former chief secretaries to the treasury – supposed to lobby for their constituents? That's certainly what a spokesperson for Truss argued when they said: "Liz always takes up cases of constituents with government departments and follows up to get them the answers they need.”
But MPs are under no obligation to take up cases on which they fundamentally disagree or might run counter to the vital interests of the UK and our allies. Indeed, Alicia Kearns, a fellow Conservative MP who is chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the China Research Group, said that de-mining equipment was "subject to robust export controls for good reason," further noting:
“It is against our national interests, and most certainly those of our ally Taiwan, to actively lobby for the export of a dual-use technology to a Chinese business subject to Chinese Communist Party coercion.”
It is easy to make fun of the former trade secretary. For the flip-flopping on everything from Europe to immigration. For the vacant stares during television interviews, the lack of shame or contrition, the sheer weirdness. But what if it's worse than that? What if there is in fact 'no there there'?
The FT's Janan Ganesh once ascribed former chancellor Philip Hammond's rise in British politics to the "widespread but baseless hunch that people with little outward charisma must possess great depth by way of cosmic balance.”
No one, not even her strongest supporters, still argues that Truss possesses great depth. But beliefs? You betcha. And Truss's apparent ideological fervour lends her an air of credibility. The former foreign secretary, we are told, at least believes in things, unlike those dreadful careerist centrists. And she was right, they remind us, that Britain needs to grow its economy (as if no one had ever thought of that before).
The Richmond Defence Systems letter suggests otherwise. Instead, it indicates that, when you strip it all away, Truss is just another politician with a book to plug and allies to sell down the river.
