TVP WEEKLY: What can we expect from the new UK Prime Minister Liz Truss? Will the policies she pursues be a continuation of Boris Johnson's policies or a break with them?

MACIEJ ZAKRZEWSKI: I don't expect a revolution and radical change from the new UK Prime Minister. She will not be a second Margaret Thatcher, rather she will go down as a second Theresa May. A peculiarity and a constant in British politics, no matter who is in power, is the absence of abrupt change. Labour and the Conservative Party do not differ on fundamental issues, but on the different distribution of political accents.

The Prime Minister's challenge will be the growing crisis in the international space, which will also affect her country's domestic politics. However, the energy crisis will not affect the UK as much as central European countries or Germany. The policy she pursues will be a continuation of Boris Johnson's line. When the British plan their policies, they take into account the resources they currently have at their disposal. That is why they are always extremely pragmatic in their policies.

SIGN UP TO OUR PAGE Prime Minister Liz Truss announces the extension of sanctions against Russia. If introduced, Russian ships will not be allowed to enter European ports.

It is also a continuation of the Conservatives and Boris Johnson's policies. Britain has represented the most intransigent position towards Russia in Europe. This is also due to the UK's relationship with the United States. The reaction of the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Sergei Lavrov, to the election of the new British Prime Minister is quite distinctive. It consists of directing attention to the regularisation of relations with France.

Liz Truss has changed her views on brexit, going from being an opponent to a supporter of Britain's departure from the European Union.

An issue characteristic of British political thinking, which can be illustrated by the phrase: we play the cards we have, not the cards we would like to play. According to British political thinking, it doesn't matter whether Mrs Truss was for or against before brexit, because Britain is now out of the Union.

Pure pragmatism. What is the conservatism of the modern Tories based on?

It stems from a very specific way of thinking and the peculiarities of politics there, which apply not only to the Conservative Party, but also to the Labour Party and, at one time, to the Liberals. The national political pattern is extremely strong and can largely be reduced to two elements.

Which ones?

The first is based on the empirical tradition, that is, the use of experience in politics. It is no coincidence that conservatism was born in Britain, although it was formulated by wig Edmund Burke. The second element that is key to understanding the British political model is John Stuart Mill's "Utilitarianism". This short text tells us all about the British people and their way of thinking and acting politically. It also explains to us the motives of British politicians during the Second World War. The Poles talk about the betrayal of the West in 1939 and in 1945.

It is difficult to have a different perspective on those events.

Agreed, but if we go back to Mill's conception, we see that from the point of view of the ethical theory of pragmatism, British actions were, according to them, as normal as possible. Modern British Conservatism is a constant adaptation to current challenges, an evolution, not a revolution, but also an adaptation of contemporary elements to its political agenda. To a large extent it is an action that is not so much deliberate as instinctive. This is how the Tories acted in the 19th and 20th centuries. Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli expanded suffrage in defiance of his party's position, which became one of the formative moments of modern British democracy.

Then we have 1947 and the acceptance by the Tories of certain elements preached by the Labour Party. Then we have the modern era, with Conservative David Cameron introducing legislation to allow so-called same-sex marriage. Tory conservatism has a very distinctive non-dogmatic trait that grows out of constant need, adaptation and evolution. It is not a reactionary and doctrinaire conservatism. It is more a way of thinking than a defined political doctrine.

That is, a political standpoint, not an ideology.

Yes, a certain instinct for political behaviour, that is, taking into account the forces at one's disposal at a given moment. Tory conservatism takes electoral strategy into account. There is nothing ironclad about it, but it has certain characteristics that have not changed since the Tories appeared on the political scene in the late 17th century. This was even before conservative political philosophy emerged in the late 18th century.

What are the elements of permanence in the Tory agenda?

They were always opposed to increasing the national debt. At the beginning of the 18th century they fought a major battle with Wig policy, which advocated increasing the public debt to finance the war. The consistency on this issue can still be seen today. The Tories accept some elements of the social welfare state, such as the healthcare system, but want to return to common sense economics. They are aware that some changes - even revolutionary ones - cannot be undone. If they have happened, they must be made as common sense as possible.

Hence, among other things, the pro-social turn the Tories took in 2005 when Labour was in power?

Yes. It was preceded by the evolution of Tony Blair, who steered the Labour Party in a centrist or even right-wing direction. We have seen a programmatic convergence between the two parties. Today, as I have already pointed out in our talk, it is not possible to speak of radical programmatic differences between the Conservatives and Labour, but of a different distribution of accents. It is obvious in the UK, and almost unknown in Poland, that in politics there is a sphere of things that fall within the scope of a national consensus respected by both parties. Without this we will not understand either the Tories or the Labour Party.

One might get the impression that British politics is extremely elegant and cultured. But does this image reflect reality?

In our country, especially in the Interwar Period, the British political system was idealised, pointing out that it was compliant, gentlemanly and characterised by a great political culture. It was argued that there was no reprehensible behaviour in British political competition. But this is a myth.

Political rivalry on British soil takes place mainly within party factions. By being much less regulated and formalised by a national consensus, it is less gentlemanly and more behind-the-scenes. This is how British politics looked before and this is how it looks today. Just look at the history of political gamesmanship in Britain. Many politicians have moved from party to party, such as Winston Churchill, who went from the Liberal party to the Conservatives. Transfers along liberal-conservative and conservative-liberal lines were not uncommon. This is still due to 18th century patterns, when the British political and party system was formed. British parties are highly personalised, more or less made up of rival coteries. That is why now, even though there has been no election in the UK there has been a change in the position of Prime Minister.

The behind-the-scenes games in the Conservative Party and in British politics are brilliantly depicted in the 1990 British series "House of Cards", based on the novel by Michael Dobbs, a Tory politician and advisor to Margaret Thatcher.

The specificity of British political thinking is also well demonstrated in the series "The Crown". When we watch it, we see that despite her lack of strong powers, the Queen has a powerful political weight in the British system.

Did a work first published in Venice in 1568 entitled. "De optimo senatore libri duo" ("On the perfect senator") by Bishop Lawrence Goślicki influenced the formation of British political thought?

The influence of Polish political literature on British political thought is still being studied, although it has been overlooked for years. For us, it is very ennobling that someone knew Goślicki in England referred to him, but I would not overestimate it. The British had some extremely eminent political thinkers of their own and, above all, their political instinct was shaped more by experience than by theory, and if theory, then for obvious reasons, the native one. In the British Isles, Poles were read, but thinkers from different countries were studied. Characteristically, the two treatises on government by one of the main ideologues of liberalism John Locke were treated with reluctance by the Tories, but also by the Wigs, almost throughout the 18th century.

Why?

They were distanced from them because they were seen as having revolutionary potential. They were too radical for the political culture there, which is why they did not make as much of an impact in the British Isles as they did in the United States.

– Interviewed by Tomasz Plaskota
-Translated by Tomasz Krzyżanowski

TVP WEEKLY. Editorial team and jornalists

Dr Maciej Zakrzewski is a political scientist and a graduate of the Jagiellonian University. He specialises in English political thought and the history of conservatism. He is the author of, among other publications, "In Defence of the Constitution. The political thought of Henry St. John Bolingbroke".