Do we like Liz Truss?
Our score: 1 out of 10. A run of her own words against trans people's rights and a turn to conspiracy-flavoured US culture-war politics, with no verified good to set against it.
Truss was born in Oxford in 1975 to left-wing parents and, as a girl, marched with her mum against nuclear warheads at Greenham Common. She went to a state school in Leeds, then Oxford, where she was a Lib Dem who spoke in favour of abolishing the monarchy in 1994. She swapped to the Tories, did stints at Shell, Cable & Wireless and the Reform think tank, and became MP for South West Norfolk in 2010.
The arc since is a short stint as prime minister, then losing her seat in July 2024 to Labour's Terry Jermy by 11,847 votes to 11,217. In January 2025 she sent Keir Starmer a cease-and-desist letter over his line that she crashed the economy, which she called false and defamatory. Nobody has reported a filed claim, and Starmer didn't back down.
On trans people, her own words are the problem. At a 2022 leadership hustings she answered “No” when asked if a trans woman is a woman. In a 2023 speech to the US Heritage Foundation she said “We need to challenge those who seek to subvert the law of biology.” She says she has respect for trans people and made gender recognition “simpler and kinder”, but as PM she also shelved Gender Recognition Act reform.
After losing her seat she went all-in on the American right. In February 2024 she said “I would rather have Trump than Biden”, warned of left-wing ideas threatening Western civilisation, and sat down with Steve Bannon. She defended sharing a platform with election deniers by saying she doesn't only attend events where she agrees with everyone. Bannon told her to come back and “sort us out”, and she didn't exactly run from that.
The recent thing is a CPAC appearance in Dallas in March 2026, where she claimed the UK didn't back Trump's strikes on Iran to appease British Islamists. The report didn't name any critics, so there's no response to weigh. Where you land depends on whether you hear that as a foreign-policy argument or as blaming a community for a government decision. Nothing newer turned up in what I read.
On the good-person side, I found no convictions, no court findings against her and no reporting of her mistreating staff. Her one legal move was threatening Starmer. That's a clean sheet only in the sense that the record I could open is thin, so it's a close call rather than a pass.