Truss’s government of extremists is a perversion of Conservative values

Having appointed a cabinet of fellow contrarians, fanatics and sycophants in all but name, Truss now governs by regal fiat. Cabinet government – representative government – is being buried by the certainties of arrogant and contemptuous political adolescents who have no mandate at all for their actions.

These are the behaviours, not of radicals, but of extremists. So much for the Tory party as the “natural” party of government, the governors of “one nation”.

Truss, Kwarteng, Braverman, Badenoch and their ilk seek to divide and rule, seeking out those who challenge their behaviour and branding  them as enemies of “right” ways of thinking, enemies of their shrivelled state.

This is the ultimate perversion of Conservatism and its traditions, deserting the pragmatism of Thatcher and Major and the genuine big beasts in their cabinets. Never, in my lifetime, has the epithet “be careful what you wish for” seemed more apposite then when a cabinet minister states that welfare benefits should be cut during a cost of living crisis.

Perry Gardner

Wolsingham

I’ve just spoken to my SIP pension provider. They assure me that only 3 per cent of my savings are invested in the UK. Phew! That’s a relief.

David Smith

Taunton

We are repeatedly told that the much-vaunted energy price cap will result in a relatively moderate average bill for domestic power. But the actual bill will depend on how much energy is used, and could be much greater. Many people could be unaware of this.

A government that understood or cared about the poorest members of society would have spelled out that the cap referred merely to a cap on the price of every kilowatt-hour used, not on the total bill to be paid. The failure to do so smacks of either dimness or deceit. Or both.

Susan Alexander

South Gloucestershire

Whilst the removal of Truss is presently against Tory party rules, we are told that in response to the obvious turmoil “the rules can always be changed” – something that in recent years has become a Tory party go-to option to facilitate a policy.

It is suggested that a new leader can be appointed by the parliamentary party, a body of 357 MPs (or perhaps, in reality, some fraction of it) and completely unopposed – as with Michael Howard in 2003.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

There is a significant difference between a parliamentary party selecting a leader of the opposition and the selection of a prime minister. If that selection fails, who will be dragged onto the roundabout next and how will they be chosen? If convenient to the party, could the rules could be changed again?

The fact that Truss herself was “elected” at the whim of just over 80,000 Tory party members would appear to be almost democratic in comparison. It seems reasonable to expect a very much larger constituency to be involved in the selection of the occupant of the highest elected office in the land. We are not appointing the chairman of the local bowls club.

Perhaps in these circumstances, a general election should be mandatory. This and other anomalies in the processes of government suggest that big changes are needed. Is a written constitution the answer?

David Nelmes

Newport