There was only ever going to be one contender for the main topic at PMQs today. Since the Prime Minister faced MPs last week, he has had a historic meeting in Washington with President Trump, watched in horror as his efforts were undone by the jaw-dropping showdown between Trump and Volodymr Zelensky the day after, welcomed the Ukrainian president to London to reiterate British support, convened a summit of European leaders to discuss security, updated the House on all of the above on Monday and spent the remaining time scrambling to respond to Trump’s sudden withdrawal of military aid to Ukraine.
Keir Starmer began the session with a tribute to the six soldiers – whom he named – killed in Afghanistan 13 years ago tomorrow, and to the 643 Brits who died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside American troops. It’s not hard to see this for what it was: a not-so-subtle rebuke to JD Vance, whose comments about “some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years” have been widely interpreted as referring to Britain.
Other MPs picked up on the theme. In between the usual smorgasbord of questions on VAT on private schools, cousin marriage and asbestos in public buildings, there was a pointed focus on Vance’s comments and how the UK should respond to Trump and Putin.
Liberal Democrat Richard Foord asked if the Prime Minister would “gently remind the US” about the UK sending troops to support America in its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, saying Vance should have “a lot more respect” for those Brits who lost their lives. The SNP’s Chris Law asked about seizing Russian assets (something others, including Rishi Sunak, are also pressing for), and earned himself an admonishment from Starmer over his party’s opposition to the Trident nuclear deterrent. And Plaid Cymru leader Liz Saville Roberts noted that Germany was considering changing its fiscal rules to boost investment in defence, suggesting the UK should do the same. We can expect a lot more noise about this, not least because Anneliese Dodds pointedly mentioned rethinking the fiscal rules when she resigned as international aid minister last week in response to cuts to the aid budget.
Ed Davey, meanwhile, continued his efforts to position the Lib Dems as the main “anti-Trump” party, pressing Starmer: “Does he still believe that President Trump is a reliable ally?” Starmer said that he did (or, at least, he believed that the US was a reliable ally, which is not quite the same thing), but he looked uncomfortable.
Davey also raised the case of Andrew Tate, the misogynist influencer facing charges, along with his brother, of human trafficking in Romania. They have both just flown to the US – seemingly because people close to Trump are fans. Tate faces an arrest warrant here in the UK too – four British women have accused him of rape and coercive control. Davey wanted to know: would Starmer ask Trump for the Tates to be tried in Britain? Starmer hedged, agreeing with the principle that those accused of such crimes should face British justice but declining to go into details.
Davey’s decision to use one of his questions on the matter was a reminder of where the Lib Dems stand on Trump. It was also (perhaps) intended to highlight the tensions of a Labour government that has claimed to have one of the toughest stances on violence towards women and girls, yet seems reluctant to prioritise this case with an unpredictable White House.
What about Kemi Badenoch and the Tories? After what even her allies admit was a lapse of judgement yesterday, when she seemed to be defending Vance’s comments in contradiction of her own shadow defence secretary, Badenoch reverted to the statesmanlike tone she adopted on Monday and decided to go high – mostly.
Her questions reflected the gravity of the situation and the suspension of party politics, at least where national security is concerned. She asked what Starmer was doing to help repair the Trump-Zelensky relationship, expressed concern that the presence of British peacekeeping troops could risk drawing the UK into a war with Russia and raised the worrying issue of the US reportedly instructing Britain to stop intelligence sharing with Ukraine. This is a good space for the Conservatives to be in, allowing them to play up their patriotism credentials and position themselves as the grown-ups on the opposition benches, in contrast to Reform and Nigel Farage’s pro-Putin sensibilities.
This did not mean her questions lacked bite. In a display of subtlety that is not Badenoch’s usual style, she observed that the Prime Minister’s key objective for his Washington visit was getting US security guarantees for Ukraine – which, as Freddie Hayward pointed out even before the disastrous Zelensky meeting, Starmer failed to do. She also raised the issue of tariffs, asking whether talks had begun on a US-UK trade deal – something the Conservatives support but, Badenoch knows, fills more than a few Labour backbench MPs with dread.
But overall, it was a far less barbed, more collaborative exchange than we have come to expect. “The Prime Minister is quite right and we on this side of the House agree with him,” the Tory leader said at one point. Later, Starmer responded “I agree with her wholeheartedly.” Badenoch looked serious rather than petty, the Prime Minister’s equal across the aisle rather than the purveyor of student politics Starmer can usually paint her as.
Until the end, that is, when Badenoch changed tone entirely and tried to fit all her usual favourite attack lines into one. She brought up the Budget, with a nod to angry farmers (who were out in force again in Westminster yesterday), asking: “Will he now change course so we can have the economic security we need for our national security?” Starmer couldn’t resist the opportunity for a slap-down. “We were doing so well,” he remarked, in the somewhat condescending tone he knows Badenoch can’t stand. It wasn’t exactly a great look for either of them. The screeching U-turn deprived Badenoch of the chance to end on a high note, and obviously Starmer got the last word.
She had indeed been doing so well. Without that final question, this week would have been Badenoch’s first real PMQs success.
[See more: The return of the Americosceptic Tory]
Content from our partners
Related
