The Truss rollercoaster is taking the Tories on a wild ride

I’m tempted to say I’m genuinely unclear. Liz Truss is adamant she intends to press ahead with her tax cuts, without cutting public spending, but many assumed the mega reaction in the markets to the mini-Budget had made quite plain that this isn’t possible.

So now we’re all confused, herself included (although when she said she was “genuinely unclear” at Prime Minister’s Questions, she was of course referring to Labour’s stance on energy bill subsidies).

The Truss rollercoaster has been on quite a journey since she emerged as the Conservative leadership favourite during that scorching summer long ago, when the notion of turning the heating on and having to remortgage your house to pay for it was just a distant anxiety rather than an ever-present neurosis.

Back in July, she was “very clear”, a phrase she’s hitherto been fond of repeating. Here’s what she said then: “I’m very clear I’m not planning public spending reductions. What I am planning is public service reforms to get more money to the front line, to cut out a lot of bureaucracy that people face.”

So far, so reassuring to those old Boris Johnson allies (and voters) who didn’t particularly fancy a smaller state.

Fast forward to 2 October, and after several twists and turns on something like Alton Towers’ Smiler ride, Truss twice refused to rule out public spending cuts in her post-mini-Budget interview with Laura Kuenssberg.

A day later, the chancellor confirmed he planned to “stick within the envelope of the comprehensive spending review”. The jargon may have been momentarily baffling, but the hot take by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) left no room for doubt. Because the last spending review was agreed before double-digit inflation reared its head, the IFS declared the Treasury would need to give public services an extra £18bn to compensate. If it didn’t, real terms cuts would follow.

A few more loop-the-loops, and we arrive at Prime Minister’s Questions, where Truss promised “absolutely” she wouldn’t be reducing spending.

Genuinely unclear now? Downing Street’s post-PMQs briefing attempted to clarify that “government spending will continue to rise, but beyond that, it really is for the chancellor to come forward with anything on spending, which he will do on the 31st [October]”.

The chief secretary to the Treasury Chris Philp offered further “clarity”, insisting there would be no “real terms cuts” in government spending. Cue another briefing that while Philp was clear that spending would keep pace with inflation, he wasn’t talking about common or garden CPI inflation (currently running at around 10 per cent ) but the more wonkish “GDP deflator” (a snip at 3.7 per cent).

So while Philp danced on the head of an ever more technical pin to insist what might look like a spending cut, isn’t actually a spending cut – it was left to plain-talking chair of the Treasury select committee Mel Stride to be genuinely “genuinely clear”.

In a series of tweets, he questioned “given the clear government position expressed today on protecting public spending … whether any plan that does not now include at least some element of further row back on the tax package can actually satisfy the markets”.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Stride – a man I can’t quite imagine climbing aboard a rollercoaster – went on to suggest a “clear change in tack” may be in the offing, warning that: “The chancellor will only get one opportunity to land his plans … he must take no chances. There is too much at stake for all of us.”

To be clear then, the PM can’t square the circle after all, and cut taxes without cutting public spending too. And if Stride is right, another U-turn beckons, with further tax cuts shelved to protect public services. Tory MPs are even muttering that the entire mini-Budget may now need to go.

Many on the backbenches believe that would prove terminal for the chancellor and perhaps – some of them dare to hope – the prime minister too.

While confusion reigns, a moment of clarity is emerging among Conservative backbenchers after Wednesday night’s blood-letting at the 1922 Committee: a prime minister selected by a minority of MPs, untried and untested in a general election campaign, is a fairground ride they won’t be buying tickets for again. In fact, they’d quite like their money back now.

Cathy Newman is presenter and investigations editor of Channel 4 News