The below content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.
At prime minister’s questions today, Keir Starmer made his first public appearance on British soil this week — after his latest phase of intensive diplomacy concluded at Cop29 yesterday.
On Monday, Starmer attended the French Armistice Day service in Paris alongside president Emmanuel Macron — the first prime minister to do so since Winston Churchill in 1944. Addressing the House at PMQs, Starmer said he had been “honoured” to “pay tribute to the fallen of the First World War and all subsequent conflicts.”
This afternoon then, in a less historically momentous showing, Starmer rolled into the commons chamber for his second tussle with new opposition leader Kemi Badenoch.
BASC calls on Gloucestershire Constabulary to reverse “outrageous and unlawful” firearms licensing decision
DDU welcomes GDC plans to improve timeliness of fitness to practise investigations
The prime minister may well have been looking forward to the exchange. At this stage in a parliament, such sessions are far more important to the fate of an opposition leader than they are to a prime minister — especially given Starmer has had four months to settle into his role. (The PM has the protracted Conservative leadership contest, and Rishi Sunak’s futile grillings, to thank for that).
And unfortunately for the Conservative Party’s grey-suited cabal, nor did the long Tory leadership contest — according to new data — succeed in capturing the public’s imagination.
YouGov polling finds that 39 per cent of the public “Don’t know” whether they have a favourable or unfavourable view of Badenoch. And of those who do have an opinion of the new Tory chief, YouGov’s findings indicate 41 per cent possess a negative one. Only 21 per cent view Badenoch favourably.
(For what it’s worth, Starmer — upon becoming opposition leader in April 2020 after a similarly lengthy leadership election — was viewed favourably by 34 per cent of the public, and unfavourably by 25 per cent.)
Still, that so many voters don’t know what to make of Badenoch suggests she has an opportunity to make a strong first impression.
To this end, Badenoch’s uniquely combative political style is a real strength. It means the public, over the coming weeks and months, could come to terms with what she offers as opposition leader quickly and assuredly. At the despatch box, Badenoch can harness — as her backers argued throughout the leadership campaign — her potential to “cut through” to voters.
But there arrives a problem. For Starmer, in his recent PMQs bouts with Badenoch, is also trying to contour, shape and weaponise her reputation.
Last week, a veritable siege of Labour MPs lined up to ask planted questions about the former business secretary’s various controversial statements — of which, in fairness, there is no scarcity.
And today was no different. Lloyd Hatton, Starmer’s second questioner and the Labour MP for South Dorset, raised a “series of damaging policies pursued by the leader of the opposition.”
He added: “Is the prime minister aware of any attempt by the leader of the opposition to justify her dangerous positions [on fracking, the minimum wages and maternity pay]?”
Starmer responded: “It’s clear whose side we’re on: the working people of this country. Now I haven’t heard the leader of the opposition clarify why she opposes [the government’s measures], but now is her chance”.
Badenoch, taking to her feet for the first time, shrewdly refused to play Starmer’s political game. “The PM can plant as many questions as he likes with his backbenches”, she blasted. “But at the end of the day, I’m the one he has to face across the despatch boxes.”
Starmer’s initial challenge, however, set the tone for what was a strong session for the prime minister — perhaps his best yet.
Across her six questions, Badenoch drew a series of dividing lines between her politics and the PM’s. But Starmer embraced — and cannily refashioned — every single one.
Badenoch began on climate, claiming Starmer will make “life more expensive with his unilateral commitments”. (At Cop on Tuesday, the prime minister unveiled a new target to cut emissions by 81 per cent compared with 1990 levels by 2035. The goal betters the previous target of a 68 per cent reduction by 2030, and is in line with the recommendation of the Climate Change Committee).
Starmer did not back down. “I’m very proud of the fact that we’re restoring leadership on climate to this country”, he insisted.
The prime minister went on: “On Monday, I was very pleased to announce a huge order into jobs in Hull for blades for offshore wind. If she is opposed to that sort of action, she should go to Hull and say so.”
Next, Badenoch asked whether the government realised that “care homes, GP surgeries, children’s nurseries, hospices and even charities have to pay employers [national insurance]” — referring to the government’s primary budget revenue-raiser.
Starmer, again, did not shirk Badenoch’s challenge. “We produced a budget which does not increase tax on working people”, he began. “Investing in our NHS, investing in our schools, … investing in the houses of the future.”
He closed pointedly: “If she’s against those things, she should say so.”
Suddenly, Badenoch — after just two questions and two reasonably straightforward exchanges — tripped Starmer’s trap. “I’m not against any of those things”, she clarified.
Recognising his Tory opponent’s grave error, Starmer pounced: “So let me get this straight. She doesn’t want any of the measures in the budget, but she wants all the benefits.”
He added: “We put forward a budget which takes the difficult decisions, fixing the £22 billion black hole that they left. We are investing in the future of our country. They say they want all of that, but they don’t know how they’re going to pay for it. Same old Tories.”
The exchange points to the significant advantage Starmer possesses in economic debates with Badenoch. As chancellor from 2010-2016, George Osborne promulgated the view that the government, empowered by the new Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), always has the upper hand in party-political economic disputes because it sets the fiscal baseline.
As such, if Badenoch wants to submit a different approach — on any budget measure — she has to explain what spending she would cut (on the NHS, schools, housing) or what taxes she would raise. At the budget, of course, chancellor Rachel Reeves reset the fiscal and political baseline in fundamentally traditional Labour terms: she put more money into public services and “in the pockets” of “working people”, while raising taxes on business.
Badenoch is opposed to the employer NI hike. That much is clear. But the question that resultantly follows is this: what would she cut?
Today, Starmer challenged the Conservative leader on this potent point, explicitly, repeatedly — and effectively.
Badenoch, in clarifying that “I’m not against any of those things” (Starmer’s investment plans), effectively admitted her criticism of the NI increase is not fiscally or politically serious. The exchange suggests Badenoch, a new opposition leader exposed to the cruel tyranny of first impressions, should tread more lightly.
Starmer’s new favourite retort — “If she’s against those things, she should say so” — could haunt Badenoch this parliament.
Lunchtime briefing
Labour failure could lead to ‘Nigel Farage as prime minister’, says Lord Blunkett
Lunchtime soundbite
‘I expected to see him in the immigration statistics!’
— At PMQs this afternoon, Nigel Farage — who travelled to the US last week to celebrate Donald Trump’s election win — called on the House to congratulate the president-elect on his “landslide victory”.
The Reform UK leader asked Keir Starmer whether he will work to “mend some fences.”
The PM responded: “I’m glad to see the honourable member making a rare appearance back here in Britain. He spent so much time in America recently I was half expecting to see him on the immigration statistics!”
What a clip of the exchange here.
Now try this…
‘Guardian will no longer post on Elon Musk’s X from its official accounts’
The platform’s coverage of the US election crystallised longstanding concerns about its content, says the Guardian
‘MPs urged to be “wary” of mobile phone theft near parliament’
Via PoliticsHome.
‘Is Donald Trump about to wreck Brexit?’
Politico reports.
