Kemi Badenoch putting in an uncharacteristically strong performance would usually be the headline story to emerge from a session of prime minister’s questions. Badenoch has shown little sign of improvement at the despatch box since emerging as Conservative leader in November last year. But this afternoon, contrary to her crystallising reputation for commons missteps, she succeeded in making the prime minister look uncomfortable.
Indeed, Badenoch did not perform her usual magic trick, which sees her transform a beleaguered premier into a bona fide elder statesman across six questions in just fifteen minutes. Rather, Keir Starmer — for whom the House of Commons has been a safe space — struggled.
The prime minister relied on a series of non sequitur retorts to bail him out of difficult positions.
Badenoch started, as she often does, by pursuing the line of inquiry she should have adopted last time around. The difference this time, however, was that Starmer still does not have a solid answer on the topic of winter fuel payments.
BASC issues warning over fraudulent online firearms sales
Public disorder conviction for man who burned a Quran – Humanists UK comment
The Conservative leader queried: “On behalf of the pensioners who want to know, can the PM be clear with us here and now: How many of the 10 million people who lost their winter fuel payments will get it back?”
Starmer is always the first to point out when Badenoch is late to the party. This afternoon was no different. “I’m glad to hear she’s catching up with what happened two weeks ago”, the prime minister pronounced breezily. (“What happened” being code for a fiasco of a U-turn, of course).
But Starmer’s confident prologue was soon belied by his lack of material. He said Labour had taken the “right decision” on scrapping winter fuel payments for 10 million pensioners last year. He pointed to an improving economic picture. That, he said, now allowed for a change of policy.
Speaking in Rochdale this morning, Rachel Reeves went further than the prime minister in confirming reports that the threshold for the payments will be raised before the winter. In an interview on Monday, Starmer merely conceded that the “sooner we have clarity… the better”. That comment was taken to mean additional details will come at the spending review next week.
Such ambiguity is ripe for exploitation at PMQs — and Badenoch capitalised.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
Another common critique of the Conservative leader is that she rarely takes “yes” for an answer. Badenoch has been known to reiterate some stale point across multiple questions, believing she has Starmer cornered, only to invite a scathing counter: “Her script doesn’t allow her to listen to the answer!”
But this time Starmer was genuinely stuck. Badenoch sensed blood.
She asked the prime minister to apologise for the winter fuel cut. It was a strong tactic. The government’s position, that the winter fuel cut was “right” last year but wrong this year because of variant fiscal circumstances, certainly warrants scrutiny. Westminster knows the truth: the economic position has hardly altered — what changed was the burgeoning and multi-layered political backlash.
Starmer could only repeat his previous response: “We took the right decisions at the budget because we needed to stabilise the economy. She needs to apologise for the fact that they left the economy in a terrible state.”
Since November, Badenoch has routinely declined opportunities to pit the prime minister against his backbenchers, referring excessively to her own politics and positions. The Conservative leader’s takes, despite her high opinion of them, are not nearly as interesting as intra-party drama; and Badenoch belatedly recognised that with her questioning today.
One cause for discord between No 10 and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) is the government’s child poverty strategy. Badenoch labelled this “another area of confusion”, and so she sought clarification: “Can we get a simple answer? Will the government keep the two-child benefit cap?”
Starmer’s eyes fell to his folder as he regurgitated a line we have heard repeatedly in recent months. The prime minister insisted he is “determined to drive down child poverty”, but he deferred to the relevant taskforce. That, he reminded the House, will report “in due course”.
Like the winter fuel U-turn, Starmer is not in a position to give details on either timing or substance. More ambiguity for opposition parties to exploit.
Badenoch’s pivot then, from winter fuel to child poverty, was not nearly as maladroit as those that have defined her worst showings as Conservative leader.
The Tory leader’s next question was even more effective. She declared her support for the two-child benefit cap, stating: “I believe in family, but I also believe in fairness. On this side of the House, we believe that people on benefits should have to make the same choices on having children as everyone else.”
She asked, simply, if the prime minister agreed with that position.
Starmer did not supply a direct answer. “I believe profoundly in driving down poverty and child poverty, that’s why we’ll put a strategy in place”, he responded.
With the pressure building, Starmer changed the subject. “She talks about head spinning, [Badenoch had used the phrase two questions ago]… there’s only one leader who’s been praised this week by the Russian embassy, and if she carries on echoing Kremlin talking points like this, Reform are going to be sending her an application form for membership.”
In another context, it would have been a worthy attack line. But not in response to a question on child poverty. “What on Earth was that?”, asked a sedentary Chris Philp. A mood of bemusement fell over the House. The confused-sounding noises emanating from the Conservative benches soon drowned out any Labour jeers.
Badenoch’s response, in my estimation, was her best contribution to commons discourse since her elevation as leader: “I asked him what he believed in, he had to look in his folder to find the answer.”
But Starmer doubled down: “I am going to look in my folder because here I’ve got the quote that she had on Sky News… what she said was this: ‘Israel is fighting a proxy war on behalf of the United Kingdom, just like Ukraine is on behalf of western Europe against Russia.’”
The prime minister added: “[The Russian embassy] put out a statement saying the leader of the opposition has finally called a spade a spade, Ukraine is indeed fighting a proxy war against Russia on behalf of Western interests…
“She asks me what I believe in — I believe in standing by Ukraine and calling out Russia as the aggressor.”
Again, on another day, in response to another topic, the attack could well have worked. But at PMQs the segue is just as, if not more important, than the scripted attack line. Starmer had only done half a job — and the easy bit at that.
Badenoch was brusque in response: “It was our [Tory] government that stood behind Ukraine and led the way in Europe.
“Everything he has said this afternoon is total nonsense — obfuscation, avoiding the question, he doesn’t have any answers. It’s disgraceful.”
But it wasn’t just Badenoch who failed to get a straight answer out of the prime minister. Brendan O’Hara, an SNP MP, asked Starmer if he would stand by the position taken by government lawyers that “no genocide has occurred or is occurring” in Gaza.
The prime minister said he was “appalled by Israel’s recent actions… we must see a ceasefire, hostages must be released and there must be aid into Gaza”.
He added: “But he talks about peace and security. Their party [the SNP] at this moment of global instability… they want to get rid of the nuclear deterrent, the single most important capability that we have to keep the UK safe.”
Starmer will know that voters in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse are heading to the polls tomorrow for a Scottish parliament by-election. But this was not the moment to launch into a political attack. His MPs recognised this. They weren’t with him.
Reform MP Sarah Pochin was granted her first PMQ today. The House’s newest MP, returned at the recent Runcorn and Helsby by-election, called on the government to ban the burqa “in the interests of safety”.
Her question was greeted by a resounding “hear, hear!” from the Reform bench — and cries of “disgrace” from just about everywhere else.
Pochin asked: “Given the prime minister’s desire to strengthen strategic alignment with our European neighbours, will he in the interests of public safety follow the lead of France, Denmark, Belgium and others and ban the burka?”
As the House crackled with criticism, Starmer welcomed Pochin “to her place”. He chose not to “follow her down that line”.
Instead, he commented: “Now she is here and safely in her place perhaps she could tell her new party leader [Nigel Farage] that his latest plan to bet £80 billion of unfunded tax cuts, no idea how he is going to pay for it, is Liz Truss all over again.
“Although considering I think she was a Conservative member when Liz Truss was leader she probably won’t.”
The prime minister, wisely, opted against instigating a national debate on the burqa. But Starmer’s obviously rehearsed retort will only reinforce criticism that he struggles for straight answers. A better response would have been to urge Pochin to focus on her new constituents’ priorities. (I wonder how many times the burqa came up on the doorstep during her successful by-election campaign).
PMQs today was the first session in some time that was not graced by a planted question, courtesy of a loyal Labour MP and some scheming whip. Starmer’s slippery answers would suggest he has become rather used to sycophantic softballs. Certainly, either the prime minister’s folder needs updating — or Starmer needs some lessons in quick thinking.
Whatever the case, the PM’s evasive manoeuvres today — while reflecting a deeper malaise in some instances (winter fuel and child poverty) — will do him no favours.
Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
