Dear Editor,
Finn McRedmond’s most recent article investigates claims that Liz Truss is fighting against prejudice regarding her role as a middle-aged woman, even after her not-so-successful tenure as prime minister. However, it is pertinent to ask why people refrain from giving her a fair opportunity.
Perhaps the answer lies in Truss’ inability to show her competence to others. It’s not about her being a middle-aged woman; it’s more about her being Liz Truss herself.
Liz Truss is attributed with undertaking a perilous and disastrous economic policy, refusing wise counsel, and ignoring warnings about its potential disaster (Rishi Sunak predicted it as “fairytale economics”). Dismissing the expert opinions of the UK treasury, turning a blind eye to the widespread usage of liability-driven investments in pension schemes, and ignoring independent advice from the Office for Budget Responsibility further emphasized her recklessness.
I am unconvinced that the markets’ deemed “lunatic premium” on UK gilts stem from gender-bias in risk assessment or pricing gilts.
Ms. Truss’ incompetence has left millions of people grappling with its consequences and made the United Kingdom a mockery in global markets. Her politically motivated recklessness triggered immense chaos unseen from any previous British prime minister in such a brief tenure.
Her leadership loss was swift and unanimous, her party, the electorate, and the markets lost faith in her, making her position untenable. Deflecting blame on others for her failing and propounding implausible conspiracy theories only verifies the necessity of her hasty exit. Her recent book and demeanor have only heightened the reasons for her widespread mockery.
I’m certain that Finn McRedmond isn’t suggesting that a male counterpart would have encountered a softer reaction under identical circumstances.
Yours Faithfully,
CRAIG DOUGLAS,
Belfast.