Let’s get the Kemi Badenoch bit out of the way first this week. The leader of the opposition came to PMQs fresh from launching the start of the Conservatives’ policy development programme by ending cross-party consensus on net zero and inadvertently admitting that Nigel Farage is probably far better known in households around the country than she is. Despite the shock over the Trump-Putin phone call last night that has sent Western allies scrambling, Badenoch decided not to replay the statesmanlike role she performed two weeks ago, when the House was united (one or two aside) in its support of Ukraine. Nor did she have anything to say about the domestic issue of the week: welfare reform.
Instead, Badenoch chose to use all six of her questions to Keir Starmer to chip away at her favourite theme: that the Budget in October was a disaster and it is Labour, not the Tories, who can now be said to have “crashed the economy”.
You can sort of see her logic. Next Wednesday Rachel Reeves will deliver the Spring Statement – a fiscal balancing act that has been made even more challenging by the wipeout of the fiscal headroom the Chancellor had hoped to have. It felt like Badenoch’s top aim this week was to foreshadow this event by branding it (as she has done before) an “emergency budget”. The Tory leader clearly knows that chancellors since the 1970s have made two fiscal statements a year to the House, and that while next week’s has taken on greater political significance than the Treasury would have liked, it cannot in any way be described as an “emergency budget” – in contrast to, say, the interventions Jeremy Hunt was forced to make in October 2022 to reverse virtually everything attempted by Kwasi Kwarteng and Liz Truss.
Nonetheless, Badenoch thinks it’s a good line and she is sticking to it. Expect to hear that term again when the Tories respond to Reeves next week.
Clunkiness and subject matter aside, Badenoch had a better week than usual. First, she borrowed a tactic from Ed Davey and pressed the Prime Minister several times not on the Budget in general but on the specific issue of whether he would exempt hospices, pharmacies and care providers from the employers’ National Insurance rise. MPs will be voting on a Lords amendment on exactly that topic later this afternoon. It is notable that Davey, when he came to ask his questions after Badenoch, asked virtually the same thing.
Starmer returned to one of his favourite rejoinders against Badenoch, which is to flip the script by demanding to know whether she would reverse the NIC increase she seems so upset about were she in power. In the past it’s been an effective line, as the Tories haven’t got their position on the NIC increase straight. But in this instance, it backfired. Badenoch’s quip back “If they want me to answer questions than we can swap sides” was quick and (at least seemed) unscripted.
And for once, it was Badenoch catching Starmer out with detail. When the Prime Minister claimed hospices were already being given support, implying that this would mitigate the NIC impact, she was able to correct him that this money was for buildings, not to compensate for the tax changes.
Her final flourish was to ask the Prime Minister to repeat the commitment made by Reeves in October that she would not extend the freeze on tax thresholds. Starmer fell back on his usual spiel about how badly the Conservatives messed everything up. That’s a no, then.
Still, despite causing a few awkward moments for Starmer, it wasn’t Badenoch who made the biggest impact this week. This is, quite simply, because the issue agitating the House today is not the Spring Statement, but the changes to welfare and disability support announced yesterday. Emotive questions on the topic came from the SDLP’s Column Eastwood, who outlined the case of a disabled woman who would no longer be eligible for PIP under the changes, Green co-Leader Carla Denyer who repeated her party’s call for a wealth tax instead, and – somewhat unexpectedly – the Conservative Danny Kruger, who accused the government of not having consulted on the impact of the changes.
Notably, disability cuts were not raised by Ed Davey, who used his second question to ask about illegal hare coursing and calling for a rural crime strategy instead. A sign that the Liberal Democrats are aware of broad public support for welfare reform so are minimising their opposition? Or evidence that Davey is crying to burnish is party’s rural credentials ahead of the local elections in May? Or both?
Once again, the most brutal question to the Prime Minister came from someone supposedly on his own side: Diane Abbott, who in a dramatic turn of events had the last question of the session. Last month, the Mother of the House eviscerated Starmer for raiding the aid budget to pay for increased defence spending. This week, she condemned the welfare cuts: “This is not about morality. This is about the Treasury’s wish to balance the country’s books on the back of most vulnerable and poor people in society.”
Starmer responded that the fact one in eight young people are not in work, education or training is indeed a “moral issue” – a line government ministers have been working hard to land this week. But Abbott, whose unique position means she can criticise the government far more forcefully than any other Labour backbenchers would dare, did not look impressed. As George reported this morning, as many as 40 MPs are considering rebelling over this issue. Abbott can publicly voice sentiments they can only express in private. Watch out for a revolt.
[See more: A Labour welfare revolt is still brewing]
Content from our partners
Related
