Would Kemi Badenoch let Keir Starmer off the hook — again? That was the question animating Westminster as PMQs approached this afternoon.
The Conservative leader arrived in SW1 today, as she often does on Wednesday, with a wide range of bruises to punch. Tulip Siddiq, the anti-corruption minister, resigned yesterday after she was named in a corruption investigation. Siddiq had been cleared by Sir Laurie Magnus, the prime minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards. But Sir Laurie suggested she should have been more alert to the “potential reputational risks” from her family’s association with Bangladesh.
Siddiq, of course, has left her Treasury post during a rough week for the department. The escalating cost of government debt has narrowed Rachel Reeves’ “fiscal headroom” and prompted speculation as to future spending cuts and tax rises.
But across her PMQs performances, Badenoch has exhibited a canny knack for making Starmer appear significantly less vulnerable than he actually is. Perhaps the Conservative leader has found her abundant subject matter a burden; gripping the despatch box on a Wednesday afternoon, Badenoch takes MPs through the news bulletins bereft of a cohesive narrative that could tie her onslaught together. And by broaching an array of topics, she supplies Starmer with ample escape routes.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill clauses would permit new 100% religiously selective schools
Hidden impact of domestic abuse on doctors revealed in MDU journal
Suffice it to say, Badenoch’s inability to land a blow on Starmer — when he is at his most exposed — has diminished expectations for her PMQs showings. As such, by the Tory chief’s established standards, Badenoch was sharper this afternoon.
She started with the most salient topic: the economy. Badenoch asked Starmer to admit that his fiscal policies meant “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher borrowing costs”.
The prime minister — shock incoming — issued no such admission. Instead, he insisted that the global economy is “experiencing volatility” and pointed to the £22 billion black hole purportedly left by the Conservatives in the public finances.
***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***
But Badenoch stuck to her guns — for the time being at least. She castigated Reeves’ budget borrowing and tax “spree” which, she argued, had “ignored all the warnings”.
The prime minister then refused to rule out further tax increases, contrary to Badenoch’s request. “We took the right and difficult decisions at the budget. Decisions that they did not have the courage to take which left us in the mess in the first place”, he said.
At prime minister’s questions, Badenoch tends to pivot when Starmer looks most uncomfortable. And today was no different. The chancellor is “apparently promising to be ruthless in reducing spending”, the Conservative leader noted. “Let me suggest something that he should cut. There is no way that we should be giving up British territory in Chagos.”
The arguments on the Chagos Islands handover are well-rehearsed. Conservative spokespeople insist ministers are “rushing” through a “surrender” deal, and landing taxpayers “with a multi-billion pound bill” in the process.
Starmer has repeatedly rejected this characterisation. “We inherited a situation where the long-term operation of a vital military base was under threat because of legal challenge”, he argued this afternoon.
In other words, Badenoch wasted a question on a topic that she has already dedicated significant time to this parliament; and, in doing so, shifted from a topic — the economy — where Labour is under genuine pressure.
This approach, otherwise perplexing, could well reflect ascendant anxieties over the extent to which Badenoch is herself exposed in such debates. The Conservative leader, after all, served as business secretary in the last government — and Starmer seems at his most comfortable when deriding his predecessors’ record. At present of course, the Conservatives do not have a coherent economic programme; so far, they have refused to criticise Labour’s spending — but torched its tax rises. As the PM pointed out today, Badenoch’s sums do not add up.
Does Badenoch shift so frequently, therefore — because, well, she is scared what Starmer could retort is she did not?
With no real substance left to add, Badenoch addressed the Chagos Islands controversy for a single further sentence: “There’s no one he can blame for this dud deal”, she blasted.
But then Badenoch U-turned in real-time, a full 360 degrees, to reappraise Reeves’ record as chancellor. She said Labour had been busy congratulating themselves on ushering the “first female chancellor” into office — and less concerned with appointing “someone who can actually do the job”.
In response, Starmer deployed some Donald Trump-esque preterition: the PM insisted from the outset that he would not “cheaply” criticise the Conservative Party’s Treasury revolving door — which span five chancellors into office from 2022-2024 — as he wouldn’t have “enough time”. It was a novel, well-targeted rhetorical technique. Labour MPs lapped it up.
And so Badenoch shifted gear once more, opting to question the prime minister’s judgement over the resignation of Tulip Siddiq. “What does it tell us about his judgement that yesterday he said he was ‘saddened’ that his close friend resigned?”, Badenoch posited.
This is the first time Badenoch has raised the case of the ex-anti-corruption minister at PMQs — which, given Siddiq resigned yesterday, suggests the Conservative Party could be behind the story. Indeed, the saga is a reminder of the potential political gain Badenoch spurned last week, with her Musk-inspired line of inquiry.
The prime minister responded that there was “no breach” of the ministerial code and “no wrongdoing”. The subject also presented Starmer with an opportunity to continue his Tory-Labour compare and contrast routine.
He said: “Compare that with the shadow foreign secretary [Priti Patel], who breached the ministerial code, her predecessor bar two ignored it. It was the adviser that had to resign because it wasn’t taken seriously.
“What a contrast, thank God the British public chucked them out.”
For her final question, Badenoch attempted to tie her parallel lines of inquiry together. But the political geometry did not stack up.
First, she turned to Louise Haigh, the transport secretary who resigned in November, and accused Starmer of “knowingly” hiring a “convicted fraudster”. She went on: “No answer to investigating dodgy Labour ministers, just as last week he didn’t want an inquiry that might have exposed dodgy Labour councils.”
“The anti-corruption minister he had full confidence in only days ago, resigned yesterday in disgrace.”
“He is negotiating a secret deal to surrender British territory, and taxpayers in this country will pay for the humiliation”, Badenoch continued. “Now it turns out his government might write a cheque to compensate Gerry Adams. This is shameful”. (This was a reference to proposed changes to the law that could allow the former Sinn Féin president to claim compensation for unlawful detention).
Badenoch continued: “In just six months under his leadership, it’s been taxes up, borrowing up, mortgage rates up — and thats not all, business confidence is down, jobs are down, growth is down.”
The up-down gimmick is a conventional rhetorical device deployed by opposition leaders. The goal is to corral one’s backbenchers so that they join you in emphasising the “ups” and “downs” — it’s standard political procedure. But the apathetic response from Badenoch’s Conservative troops was telling.
***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***
A smattering of Conservative MPs, presumably on the frontbench payroll, joined Badenoch for the up section. Her own de facto deputy Alex Burghart joined in for the first down. But it was awkward. He soon gave up. As did most other Tory MPs.
Finally, having suitably exhausted her party’s enthusiasm, Badenoch asked: “Can the country afford four more years of his terrible judgement?”
Starmer dismissed Badenoch’s prolix as a “barrage of complete nonsense”. But he drew out her segment on Gerry Adams, which he said he needed to “address”.
“[Legacy] Act was unfit, not least because it gave immunity to hundreds of terrorists and wasn’t supported by victims in Northern Ireland nor I believe by any of the political parties in Northern Ireland.
“The courts found it unlawful. We will put in place a better framework. We are working on a draft remedial order and replacement legislation and we will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases claiming damages. It is important I say that on the record.”
Starmer then rolled into his usual peroration, and brutally deployed Labour’s trump card on the economy: Liz Truss.
“I got a letter this week from a Tory voter in a Labour seat. It was Liz Truss”, the PM began. Cleary unfazed about Truss’s threat to sue him, Starmer added: “She was saying that claiming she crashed the economy was damaging her reputation. It was actually crashing the economy that damaged her reputation”.
Turning to Badenoch, he closed: “Her party is like a blank piece of paper blowing in the wind. No wonder the electorate put them in the bin.”
In total, Badenoch broached at least six separate topics today, and failed to cause Starmer significant concern on any. The story she planned to tell was one about the prime minister’s judgement — which only became clear with her final sentence. But her otherwise aimless strategy merely reflected her own, or lack thereof.
Badenoch’s PMQs sessions have begun to paint a picture: her wayward questioning reflects her wayward, incoherent tenure as Tory leader. Once more, after facing a barrage of accusations courtesy of Kemi Badenoch, Starmer emerges politically strengthened.
Lunchtime briefing
Attorney general says populism poses ‘one of the most profound challenges of our age’
Lunchtime soundbite
‘Does he agree if people like this want to come to our country to bring their money and their skills so we can grow our economy and pay for our public services, they should be able to?’
— “Wealthy, high-skilled Americans” seeking to move to the UK because of an incoming Trump presidency have “no visa they can apply for”, Lib Dem leader Ed Davey tells Keir Starmer at PMQs.
Now try this…
‘Badenoch’s call for new grooming gangs probe reflects old fixations’
From Stephen Bush of the FT: “The Tory leader raises valid concerns but her diagnosis suggests she has not looked at all the evidence”. (Paywall)
‘Giving Tulip Siddiq anti-corruption job seen by insiders as own goal’
Some in No 10 wish they had thought a bit more about how it looked before giving job to niece of ousted Bangladesh PM, the Guardian’s Pippa Crerarwrites.
‘Knives are out for Britain’s boxed-in finance minister’
If Rachel Reeves succumbs, “the wolves” are likely to turn on embattled PM Starmer, Politico reports.
On this day in 2024:
Senior Conservative suggests Rwanda bill rebels are ‘betraying’ party traditions
Discussion about this post