Call it the Liz Truss memorial moment. It is the moment in which it is being reported that in the just-ended third quarter Britain’s economic growth fell to zero. Zilch. Or, as the New York Times puts it, the economy “flatlined.” It is entering, the Times foresees, “a protracted period of stagnation on the cusp of recession.” Or, given what the Tories did upon ousting Liz Truss as prime minister, one could call it the “inevitable” period of stagnation.

We mention this now because we read that Labor will force in the Commons this week a vote calculated to create what the Guardian calls “new legal safeguards against fiscal disasters such as Liz Truss’s catastrophic mini-budget, which sent the financial markets into meltdown and drove up mortgage rates.” After Ms. Truss was toppled, the government put through what the Guardian failed to call a “catastrophic maxi budget.”

The Guardian overlooks, too, the International Monetary Fund’s role in Ms. Truss’ downfall. No sooner had she put forward her pro-growth, supply-side tax cut plan than the IMF plunged into what should have been an exclusively domestic debate among Britons. “We do not recommend large and untargeted fiscal packages at this juncture,” the IMF snooted, adding, in catnip to the left, that “the UK measures will likely increase inequality.” 

No wonder, as the Guardian reports, markets had a “meltdown.” Yet Britain’s establishment had its knives out for Ms. Truss even before her tax cuts were proposed. The Wall Street Journal noticed how officials at the Bank of England sought to foment market turbulence after Ms. Truss’ plan was put forward, following a “familiar bureaucratic imperative for self-preservation.” Labor even exploited the moment to pose as the fiscally responsible party.

Then again, too, we don’t know what would have happened — growth-wise — had Tories stood fast amid the early panic over her bet on supply-side tax cuts. We do know that when there was a government, as there was in America under Reagan, that followed through with its bet on supply-side measures, the result was a triumph. Yes, there was a recession, but then a staggering economic boom, which rolled on for years.

That boom carried  through the two terms, which ended with a balanced budget and the dollar being exchanged in the open market for a 265th of an ounce of gold. That was up more than 200 percent from the nadir in the gold value of the dollar toward the end of Jimmy Carter’s tenure in the White House. The slide in the dollar began with the accession to the presidency of George W. Bush and the outbreak of the Global War on Terror.

Which brings us back to Britain. The Labor Party is planning for a “fiscal lock” to, as the Guardian retails it, “protect personal, family and the national finances from reckless politicians.” This scheme, the Guardian reports, will be voted on by MPs on Tuesday. That’s when Parliament will consider the legislative program outlined in last week’s king’s speech, presenting Conservative backbenchers with a dilemma from which they will not be able to abstain.

The conundrum — a trap, really — for the Tory MPs will be, the Guardian says, whether to back the amendment or oppose “a plan designed to embed fiscal responsibility into the budgetary process, and protect it from wild or accidental political misjudgments.” At the same time Ms. Truss’ “growth commission” is set to publish an alternative budget of deregulation and tax reduction, calling for a drop in the corporate tax rate that would yield a growth spike.

At the risk of sounding naive, it seems the Tories could do a lot worse than to bring back Ms. Truss to pick up where she was so rudely interrupted. It’s hard to see where Britain is in a better place than it would be had it stuck with the prime minister it brought in after Mr. Johnson’s failed ministry. Sneer if you will, but feature how the GOP, unlike the Tories, stuck with Reagan, who breasted the recession and won reelection by capturing 49 of the 50 states.