Liz Truss ‘lacked self-awareness needed to be PM', says former lover
Mark Field, a former Tory minister under Theresa May, said that his 18-month affair with Ms Truss in 2003 ended his marriage.
He described her as 'exhilarating' and said that she had a 'manic energy' that he found 'intoxicating, disconcerting and exhausting'.
But Mr Field also listed a number of character traits that he said did not make her a suitable candidate for prime minister.
In an extract of his memoir, The End of an Era, published in the Mail on Sunday, he said: 'She lacked the self-awareness to realise the need for trusted advisers, whose outlook would have helped temper her over-confident excesses.
'Having made it to 10 Downing Street against the odds, she was determined to do it her way. In her mind, she had been pragmatic for long enough, and now no one was going to stop her.'
He added: 'Unfortunately, there was startlingly little to suggest that Liz had either the powers of inspirational leadership or the capacity to focus on the implementation of her policies.'
Mr Field said that he met Ms Truss at the 2002 Conservative Party Conference in Bournemouth in a hotel bar, when she was not yet a Tory MP.
They went on to meet in London for lunches and coffees to prepare her for the seat selection process, and then would be in contact every single day.
'She was, I found, always exhilarating to be around. She could turn on a sixpence from being a wide-eyed wannabe, hanging on my every word, to an opinionated, stubborn and somewhat belligerent know-it-all.'
Ms Truss had married three years before the affair began. The affair put an end to Mr Field's marriage, but the former prime minister remains married to Hugh O'Leary.
'Every three or four months, beset by what I took to be a mixture of guilt and indecision, Liz would try to cool things down,' he wrote.
'I quickly worked out that the best response to this was to step back and make no attempt to contact her. Within a week or so, she would apologetically get back in touch and we would very soon be carrying on as before.'
The former minister said that she had 'many of the qualities that are essential to reaching the highest rank in politics'.
'Limitless ambition and self-belief, raw intelligence, resilience and an overwhelming sense of personal destiny.'
He added: 'All her years of hard graft as a party activist, association chairwoman, three-time council and parliamentary candidate now stood her in the best possible stead.
'She alone understood what made the ageing party membership tick, so it came as no surprise to me when she wiped the floor with Rishi Sunak.'
'Liz's tenure will be calamitous'
However, he criticised her for 'talking a good game' about cutting taxes and promoting economic growth, 'but actually delivering next to nothing'.
He cited an email that he had sent to a friend in August 2022, when Ms Truss was days away from becoming prime minister.
'Strewth, I guess I now know how the first line of my obituary will read, but the likeliest scenario is that Liz's tenure will be calamitous.
'I reckon it is by no means impossible that we shall have to go through the whole process of choosing a new leader again within six months.'
Ms Truss was only in No 10 for 49 days after her ill-fated mini-budget, which was seen to spook the markets and led to her sacking her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng.
The former prime minister went on to lose her seat in South West Norfolk at last year's general election, having been an MP since 2010.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Starmer defends welfare reform package despite climbdown over Pip
The Prime Minister was forced to scrap plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) to avoid a Labour rebellion which could have led to him losing a crunch Commons vote. The change could force Chancellor Rachel Reeves to raise taxes in order to balance the books without the expected savings in the welfare budget. But at Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir defended what was left of the welfare reform package, telling MPs it will be 'better for individuals, better for the taxpayer and better for the economy'. Ms Reeves, sitting next to Sir Keir, appeared to be crying on the front bench. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Ms Reeves looked 'absolutely miserable' and challenged the Prime Minister to say whether the Chancellor would keep her job until the next election. Sir Keir dodged the question about whether Ms Reeves would be in place for the remainder of the parliament, saying Mrs Badenoch 'certainly won't'.
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
No 10 says Starmer backs Reeves after Chancellor's tears in Commons
The Chancellor was visibly tearful in the Commons, as her position came under intense scrutiny after the welfare U-turn which put an almost £5 billion black hole in her plans. But allies said she was dealing with a 'personal matter' and No 10 said she had Sir Keir's 'full backing'. Sir Keir, who stumbled on his way out of Downing Street for Prime Minister's Questions, faced questions over his handling of a welfare reform package which has been stripped of key elements to limit the scale of a Labour revolt. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Ms Reeves looked 'absolutely miserable' and challenged the Prime Minister to say whether she would keep her job until the next election. Sir Keir dodged the question about whether Ms Reeves would be in place for the remainder of the Parliament, saying Mrs Badenoch 'certainly won't'. Changes to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) were abandoned on Tuesday just 90 minutes before MPs voted on them, wiping out the savings that Ms Reeves had counted on to help meet her goal of funding day-to-day spending through tax receipts rather than borrowing. Mrs Badenoch said: 'Today the Prime Minister refused to back his Chancellor, leaving her humiliated. 'She is the human shield for his expensive U-turns. How can anyone be a chancellor for a man who doesn't know what he believes and who changes his mind every other minute?' As the Chancellor left the Commons after Prime Minister's Questions her sister, Ellie Reeves, took her hand in an apparent show of support. Asked about her tears, a spokesman for the Chancellor said: 'It's a personal matter which, as you would expect, we are not going to get into. 'The Chancellor will be working out of Downing Street this afternoon.' Reports suggested Ms Reeves had been involved in an altercation with Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle shortly before Prime Minister's Questions. A spokeswoman for the Speaker said: 'No comment.' Asked why Sir Keir did not confirm in the Commons that he still had faith in Ms Reeves, the Prime Minister's press secretary told reporters: 'He has done so repeatedly. Govt was planning to save ~£5bn in 2029-30 through welfare cuts – would have risen to ~£11bn in long run Now, govt will save nothing this parliament (2029-30 savings from cutting health element of UC (£1.7bn) roughly offsets cost of raising basic UC (£1.8bn)) — Helen Miller (@HelenMiller_IFS) July 2, 2025 'The Chancellor is going nowhere. She has the Prime Minister's full backing. 'He has said it plenty of times, he doesn't need to repeat it every time the Leader of the Opposition speculates about Labour politicians.' Asked whether the Prime Minister still had confidence in Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, the press secretary said: 'Yes.' Labour has promised that income tax, employee national insurance contributions and VAT will not be increased, restricting Ms Reeves' options for raising money if she does look to hike taxes. The Institute for Fiscal Studies' incoming director, Helen Miller, said: 'Since departmental spending plans are now effectively locked in, and the Government has already had to row back on planned cuts to pensioner benefits and working-age benefits, tax rises would look increasingly likely. 'This will doubtless intensify the speculation over the summer about which taxes may rise and by how much.' Sir Keir declined to rule out tax rises later this year, telling MPs: 'No prime minister or chancellor ever stands at the despatch box and writes budgets in the future.'
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Rachel Reeves' tears in Commons were 'personal matter'
The Chancellor was visibly tearful in the Commons, as her position came under intense scrutiny after the welfare U-turn which put an almost £5 billion black hole in her plans. But allies said she was dealing with a 'personal matter' and No 10 said she had Sir Keir's 'full backing'. Sir Keir, who stumbled on his way out of Downing Street for Prime Minister's Questions, faced questions over his handling of a welfare reform package which has been stripped of key elements to limit the scale of a Labour revolt. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Ms Reeves looked 'absolutely miserable' and challenged the Prime Minister to say whether she would keep her job until the next election. Sir Keir dodged the question about whether Ms Reeves would be in place for the remainder of the Parliament, laughing as he said Mrs Badenoch 'certainly won't'. Changes to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) were abandoned on Tuesday just 90 minutes before MPs voted on them, wiping out the savings that Ms Reeves had counted on to help meet her goal of funding day-to-day spending through tax receipts rather than borrowing. Mrs Badenoch said: 'Today the Prime Minister refused to back his Chancellor, leaving her humiliated. 'She is the human shield for his expensive U-turns. How can anyone be a chancellor for a man who doesn't know what he believes and who changes his mind every other minute?' As the Chancellor left the Commons after Prime Minister's Questions her sister, Ellie Reeves, took her hand in an apparent show of support. Asked about her tears, a spokesman for the Chancellor said: 'It's a personal matter which, as you would expect, we are not going to get into. 'The Chancellor will be working out of Downing Street this afternoon.' Reports suggested Ms Reeves had been involved in an altercation with Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle shortly before Prime Minister's Questions. A spokeswoman for the Speaker said: 'No comment.' Asked why Sir Keir did not confirm in the Commons that he still had faith in Ms Reeves, the Prime Minister's press secretary told reporters: 'He has done so repeatedly. 'The Chancellor is going nowhere. She has the Prime Minister's full backing. 'He has said it plenty of times, he doesn't need to repeat it every time the Leader of the Opposition speculates about Labour politicians.' This is awful to watch, it really is. Rachel Reeves isn't only crying, she sobbing. If I were Kemi Badenoch or Mel Stride, I'd go up to her afterwards and be human. #PMQs Asked whether the Prime Minister still had confidence in Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, the press secretary said: 'Yes.' Labour has promised that income tax, employee national insurance contributions and VAT will not be increased, restricting Ms Reeves' options for raising money if she does look to hike taxes. The Institute for Fiscal Studies' incoming director, Helen Miller, said: 'Since departmental spending plans are now effectively locked in, and the Government has already had to row back on planned cuts to pensioner benefits and working-age benefits, tax rises would look increasingly likely. 'This will doubtless intensify the speculation over the summer about which taxes may rise and by how much.' Sir Keir declined to rule out tax rises later this year, telling MPs: 'No prime minister or chancellor ever stands at the despatch box and writes budgets in the future.' Recommended reading: While the vote passed last night, many disability charities remain unhappy with the way the issue was handled, despite some concessions. James Watson-O'Neill, Chief Executive of the national disability charity Sense, said: "Today's vote in Parliament is deeply distressing. By choosing to advance this bill, MPs have voted for measures the government's data say will push 150,000 disabled people into poverty. This is not the right way to reform our welfare system — it's a move that has already caused significant fear and anxiety within the disabled people's community. "We're incredibly grateful to all those who spoke out against the bill. Their efforts helped secure important government concessions, which mean some disabled people will retain the support they rely on. However, this creates a deeply unfair two-tier system — protecting some while leaving new claimants facing serious financial hardship. And the government's latest concession, to delay the tightening of the criteria for PIP, doesn't change the fact that it will eventually become harder for new claimants to access this vital benefit. "Looking ahead, we urge the government to immediately reconsider their proposal to remove the health element of Universal Credit from young people until they turn 22. We also want to work constructively with them to expand the eligibility criteria for additional support for those who will never be able to work, to ensure no one is left behind." PIP IS NOT AN OUT-OF-WORKBENEFITPIP is an allowance that helps disabled people with the extra costs incurred by having a disability. You can claim it whether you work or media and government narrative about PIP is incorrect and must be challengedKILL THE BILL!… But Mark Rowland, Chief Executive of the Mental Health Foundation, shared these concerns: 'Tonight's concessions by the UK government are a victory for not just the millions of people across the country who are disabled, but for every single one of us who may find ourselves disabled one day. "Removing Clause 5 is clearly the right decision given the lack of evidence these measures would encourage anyone with a mental health problem to return to work, and the very clear risk of pushing people into poverty, worsening their mental health. Despite this, this bill remains deeply flawed. 'We remain concerned by the measures in this bill which both reduce the amount paid to recipients of the health element of Universal Credit, and limits its eligibility to those over the age of 22. These measures are discriminatory, and will do little to support people back into the workplace. The UK government should drop the implementation of these measures too."
