Talk:Liz Truss

Sources

Upcoming or recent sources that can be used to improve the article Riley-Smith, Ben (2023). The Right to Rule: Thirteen Years, Five Prime Ministers and the Implosion of the Tories. Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 978-1-39-981029-6. Truss, Liz (2024). Ten Years to Save the West. Biteback Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78-590857-6. Shipman, Tim (2024). Out: How Brexit Got Done and Four Prime Ministers Were Undone. William Collins. ISBN 978-0-00-830894-0. Seldon, Anthony; Meakin, Jonathan (2024). Truss at 10: 49 Days That Changed Britain. Atlantic Books. ISBN 978-1-80-546213-2. Seldon, Anthony; Meakin, Jonathan; Thoms, Illias; Egerton, Tom (2024). The Impossible Office?: The History of the British Prime Minister—Revised and Updated. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-009-42977-1.

Proposal to include historical ranking context in lead or legacy section

I propose adding a brief mention of Truss's reception by historians and political analysts, either in the lead or in the legacy/premiership section. Specifically:

In a 2023 survey of MPs conducted by Royal Holloway, University of London, Truss was ranked the worst post-war prime minister, placing last among the 16 evaluated.

Alternatively, a more concise version could be considered for the lead at a later stage if scholarly consensus solidifies:

She has been described by political analysts and MPs as one of the worst prime ministers in British history.

This is supported by the peer-reviewed academic article published in The Political Quarterly, titled "The Good, the Not so Good, and Liz Truss: MPs' Evaluations of Postwar Prime Ministers" (2024), which documents a survey of 65 MPs. Truss ranked last, and the framing of the paper itself strongly implies a historic outlier in failure.

While it's early for a fully established scholarly consensus, this source meets WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT for inclusion in the article body. A lead mention could follow once academic rankings such as the University of Leeds/Woodnewton surveys incorporate her into post-war PM league tables (likely in the next cycle). ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

No article for a living person stands still and a FA needs kept up to date. However, isn't it too early still to pass final judgement on her as PM until at least one full government term has passed? Moreover, a survey of MPs cannot be taken as a reliable yardstick for measuring how awful (or good 🤔) Truss was Billsmith60 (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: any thoughts, Tim? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Undecided at the moment. I wouldn't say an MPs' survey holds enough weight to be in the lead as an individual point, although (as you mention) academic studies are probably not far off: Seldon has already written a pretty scathing (some might say ridiculously, needlessly spiteful) account of her, which does hold some weight. I might use that instead, and write up a fuller "Reputation" section to go with it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, has any reviewer described Seldon's book as "spiteful"? I've seen reviews calling it scathing or brutal, but I haven't come across anything suggesting it's needlessly personal or vindictive.

I'm only asking because if we're weighing that book against something like the Royal Holloway survey in terms of reliability, it helps to know how it's been received in reliable sources. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Bumping thread. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 365 days. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2026

Replace Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain in the infobox as Lord Chancellor to be consistent with the others. ~2026-41361-60 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Already done win8x (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2026 (2)

• Secretary of State for Justice
• Lord Chancellor

for the infobox ~2026-41361-60 (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Already done See the collapsable section. — Czello ^(music) 06:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

In popular culture

Regarding this recent removal, what would constitute secondary sources? I can agree that Radio Times can be considered primary, but what about The Scotsman, The Guardian, londonpubtheatres and Variety? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I have undone the removal of that section. The idea may have merit but, as I noted in my edit summary, no one can unilaterally remove a section from a Featured Article without gaining consensus here first Billsmith60 (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The section was a recent, post-promotion addition.

Regarding sourcing, there should be sources not only indicating that the references exist, but that they are significant to the subject - see MOS:IPC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I suppose most prominent politicians are likely to appear on Spitting Image or Saturday Night Live UK, so those are a bit trivial. But not many get two shows at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, which somehow seem more notable. Those might be seen as a sort of endorsement of her prominence? But there's no discussion of the significance of her political career, so not sure where else that might be placed. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Deputy PM in Infobox

Therese Coffey was Deputy Prime Minister under Liz Truss. Even though their term of service is short, I think this information should be in the infobox. I think it's inappropriate to present this information on the pages of other prime ministers (like Blair, Starmer, Sunak) but not on Truss's page simply because her term was short. I don't think it's right to remove it from the infobox by labeling it as "unnecessary information". Tremilses (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2026 (UTC)