PMQs verdict: Keir Starmer’s subtext, directed at Vance, was scathing

The fierce backlash to the ex-marine’s comments came from all corners of the House of Commons. Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Helen Maguire, a former Captain in the Royal Military Police who served in Iraq, accused Vance of “erasing from history the hundreds of British troops who gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The Conservative shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge called it “deeply disrespectful to ignore such service and sacrifice.”

Even Nigel Farage, convenor of MAGA’s UK office, dismissed the US vice president as “wrong, wrong, wrong.”

And so the prime minister’s statement today, as he listed the names of UK soldiers killed thirteen years ago in Afghanistan, can only be interpreted as a pointed rebuke of Vance’s position.

Starmer went on: “These men fought and died for their country, our country, and across the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, 642 individuals died fighting for Britain alongside our allies. Many more were wounded.

“We will never forget their bravery and their sacrifice and I know the whole House will join me in remembering them and all who served our country.”

Starmer’s focus could also have been viewed as a subtle swipe at Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader sat opposite the prime minister. She defied all logic and political reason yesterday by leaping to Vance’s aid when drawn on his remarks. Contradicting the stance adopted by her shadow defence secretary and several of her MPs, Badenoch said she had “looked at the comments” and concluded Vance did not disparage Britain.

“I know JD Vance quite well”, she told GB News, flanked by shadow environment secretary Victoria Atkins in a Union Jack blazer. “I’ve looked at the comments. I don’t think he actually said that, a lot of people are getting carried away. They are saying loads of things, and getting quite animated, let’s keep cool heads.”

(The implication being that Cartlidge and a slew of Tory MPs were simply “getting carried away” with their well-received interventions.)

The episode is just the latest instance of recent Conservative ill-discipline, particularly as it pertains to the Trump administration and Ukraine. Just last week, a Tory spokesperson was forced to clarify that shadow Home Office minister Alicia Kearns was not speaking for the party when she called for Donald Trump’s invitation to a second, unprecedented state visit to be rescinded.

The true political content of this session, therefore, was to be found in Starmer’s opening subtext.

As for the frontbench exchange, Badenoch repudiated her crystallising reputation and opted for a distinctly conciliatory approach. (Perhaps her advisers had limited her social media privileges in response to recent maladroit showings). Politicos witnessed a rare outbreak of civility as Badenoch questioned the prime minister, competently if unenthusiastically, on the government’s position on the evolving geopolitical situation.

The Conservative leader, quashing her every instinct and political impulse, stressed a series of cross-party talking points. But the truth is: she had little choice. There is no political advantage to be found in exploiting grave geopolitics for partisan gain — only ridicule and condemnation. And so Badenoch undertook her collegiate responsibilities, for the most part, ably.

For her first question, she asked what the prime minister is doing to help “rebuild” relations between Ukraine and the United States. Starmer said the Conservative leader was “absolutely right” that the UK must do “everything we can to ensure that the US, Europe and Ukraine are working together”.

He added: “I’m doing everything I can to play my part. [I am] in regular contact with all of the key players at the moment, including talking to president Zelensky yesterday afternoon.”

Badenoch thanked the prime minister for his answer. She then questioned him consecutively on Britain’s plan to place a “peacekeeping” force in Ukraine; attempts the government is making to persuade the US “that is also in their national interest to provide a security guarantee” to Ukraine; and on “concerning reports” that the Trump administration had instructed Britain to suspend intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

The back-and-forth was consummately cordial — the commons at its best, or worst, depending on one’s perspective.

And yet, perhaps predictably, Badenoch’s script shifted just in time for her last question. Her combative, Starmer-shredding impulses could be contained no longer. After five well-honed questions on geopolitical instability, the Conservative leader came for the government’s economic record.

Picking up a thread drawn by her penultimate question, Badenoch said she was glad that US-UK trade talks had started. But, she declared, Britons remain worried about economic security. The Conservative leader called for an “entirely new approach” to economic and energy security — and referred finally to farmers’ protests yesterday.

She closed: “People are hurting. Will he now change course so we have the economic security we know we need for our national security?”

The prime minister took a moment to steel himself. A second passed as Starmer shifted to an attack stance. His eventual riposte was well-targeted. “We were doing so well!”, he quipped to laughter among Labour MPs.

But the PM’s wide grin faded as soon as he recalled his stock response.

Starmer told the House of Commons: “What we inherited was insecurity in our economy. We inherited a £22 billion black hole, and we have now turned that around and got the highest investment coming into our economy, we’ve got wages higher than prices… interest rates are being cut.

“That’s the difference between stability with Labour and instability with the party opposite.”

This final exchange, prompted by Badenoch, ensured the prime minister ended the session in the ascendant.

It follows that there are questions to be asked of the Conservative leader’s ostensible strategy: to focus on consensus for five questions before pivoting to outright attack in time for her sixth and final intervention.

Starmer, as leader of the opposition from 2020-2024, mastered the exact reverse formation: he would ask five aggressive questions, before concluding on a point of consensus. This order, Starmer found, wrecks the prime minister of the day’s planned peroration — be they Boris Johnson, Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak.

In the position Badenoch found herself in today, she should have committed to maintaining the cross-party consensus for six questions. Instead, her final intervention presented the prime minister with a veritable free hit to slam the Conservatives on the economy.

The slip serves as a minor but pertinent reminder that the Conservative leader is still some distance away from mastering her despatch box duties.

Lunchtime briefing

‘People who are wanted by British police for such appalling crimes should stand trial in our country.’

—  Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey says four British women have accused Andrew Tate of rape and human trafficking, and that arrest warrants have been issued by UK police.

He asks if the PM agrees that “people who are wanted by British police for such appalling crimes should stand trial in our country”, and if he will “request an urgent extradition of the Tate brothers”.

Starmer responds as above.

Lunchtime soundbite

Now try this…

‘Ukraine and Trump will define Starmer’s legacy’
Recent diplomatic events crystallise what is at stake for PM, writes the FT’s Stephen Bush. (Paywall)

‘Out-of-date polls to wrong aid amounts: factchecking Trump’s Congress address’
Via the Guardian.

‘Trump softens on Zelenskyy in speech to Congress’
After berating the Ukrainian president in the Oval Office last week and cutting all military aid to Kyiv, Trump on Tuesday said he appreciated Zelenskyy’s climbdown, Politico reports.

On this day in 2024:

Conservative MP warns against right-wing shift as core vote could ‘die off’