It’s the last PMQs of term before recess – when MPs return after Easter, we will be in the midst of purdah in the runup to the local and devolved elections on 7 May. A chance, then, for the parties which have the most to gain from the fracturing of the electoral landscape and dissatisfaction with two main parties to make a statement. And both Ed Davey and Nigel Farage seized their opportunity.
Let us dispense first with the bland back-and-forth between Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch. As in recent weeks, the Tory leader’s six questions could essentially be boiled down to one question and five expressions of indignation that the Prime Minister had not answered it. Last week it was fuel duty; this week it was granting more oil and gas licences in the North Sea to mitigate rising energy costs.
His Majesty’s opposition think they are onto something here in tearing down a flagship net zero commitment of not just this Labour government but previous Tory ones (2018 feels a very long time ago, after all). The hope is that no one will notice the sharp U-turn away from the consensus that the UK needs to shift to renewables in order to keep costs down (a point Starmer was able to make by simply quoting Badenoch’s own past comments on the matter), nor that the UK buys its gas on the global market, meaning permitting more drilling now would not have the implied rapid effect in reducing energy prices for British households and businesses.
All this, however, quickly morphed in a debate that has become depressingly familiar for PMQs watchers, which can be summarised as “the Prime Minister isn’t in charge” if you are Badenoch, and “the Tory leader doesn’t know what she’s talking about” if you are Starmer. The PM pointed out that the decision on the Jackdaw and Rosebank oilfields actually rested not with him but with the Secretary of State for Energy. (Speaking of Ed Miliband, if you haven’t read the latest New Statesman profile of how the former Labour leader became “the most powerful man in government”, let me take this moment to recommend it.) There’s a law and everything. Badenoch responded by reminding Starmer that he, not Miliband, is Prime Minister – a fact Starmer did not seem to think was relevant.
Round and round it went. “She’s attacking me without having read the legislation”, “I’m going to let the Prime Minister in on a secret: he’s the Prime Minister.” To this, we can add two more familiar refrains: Starmer reminding the House that Badenoch’s position on the conflict in Iran and whether Britain should join it has been hopelessly muddled; Badenoch seizing on the Chancellor’s all-but-confirmation on Tuesday that the government would only be offering energy support to the most vulnerable to remake her point about Labour only caring about people on welfare. The exchange ended with Starmer leading Labour MPs in a lacklustre call-and-response about all the things Badenoch had got “wrong”. Strangely, the Conservative leader seemed to think she’d won.
What she was not prepared for was the verdict of an independent adjudicator in the form of Ed Davey. The Lib Dem non-aggression pact with Labour appeared to be disintegrating at the start of the year as the Mandelson scandal consumed British politics (no word from Davey on what he thinks of Morgan McSweeney’s phone getting stolen at a crucial moment). But since Starmer rejected the demands of the Trump White House, relations have once again warmed. Davey stood up and declared, as a former energy secretary who himself granted oil and gas licences (just to remind everyone the Lib Dems were in government once upon a time), “The Prime Minister is actually right and the leader of the opposition is wrong”. Moreover, “The law is clear and I believe in the rule of law”. Take that, Kemi.
There was more yellow-orange fire aimed Badenoch’s way, as Davey joined Starmer in condemning the “crocodile tears of the leader of the opposition who cheered on this illegal war”. True, there were awkward questions for the PM too: namely, what about all the middle-class households struggling with rising energy costs who won’t be eligible for government support (the kind of people, coincidentally, who might vote Lib Dem in May)? Starmer didn’t appear to hear this bit. “At least he’s read the legislation, it does help,” he responded, with the air of harassed geography teacher grateful that one pupil at least has handed in their homework.
What about Farage? The Reform leader wasn’t on the list of MPs down to ask questions, but was always going to be a key player today, in light of the review of foreign interference in British politics and awkward matter of the party’s former Wales leader taking bribes to champion Russia. Labour backbencher Darren Paffey had the honour today of asking a question aimed squarely at Farage, giving Starmer a welcome chance to rail against illicit finance in elections and confirm that the government intends to ban donations via cryptocurrency.
The Prime Minister concluded: “There is only one party leader who has shown he will say anything, no matter how divisive, if he is paid to do so.” “Nigel Farage!” came the voice of the Speaker. He was summoning the Reform leader for the next question rather than replying to Starmer, but let’s take such moments of serendipitous comedy where we can.
Farage wanted to talk about gangs and migrant crossings. Starmer wanted to talk about all the places where Reform has raised council tax after promising not to. The snowflakes on the Reform bench were clearly triggered by this and promptly left during the next question, which was about the theatre that hosts the World Snooker championships. “I see Reform have walked out – they obviously realise they’re absolutely snookered,” crowded Starmer. Drama all round, class dismissed.
Two quick points are worth flagging though, to demonstrate that PMQs even at its most farcical can be a forum for serious points. First, there is crossbench pressure on the government – coming today from Ed Davey and Iain Duncan Smith – to proscribe the Islamic Republican Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist group. This pressure has been renewed both by the fact Britain is being drawn into this war, and in light of Monday’s arson attack on a Jewish ambulance service in Golders Green, for which an Iranian-linked group has claimed responsibility. The government’s position is that this legislation is not intended for state-backed groups. But this may be reviewed as the situation develops.
Which brings us to the second point, made by Starmer. Having condemned the attack at the start of the session, the Prime Minister ended it by pointing out that the Jewish community spoke out in defence of Muslims’ right to pray in public last week, after the shadow justice secretary called the Iftar celebration in Trafalgar Square “an act of domination”. Similarly, Muslim groups have this week spoken out in solidarity with British Jews and to condemn the antisemitic attack. “That is Britain.” Happy Easter.
[Further reading: Will Keir Starmer survive the May elections?]
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentStarmer’s response to Badenoch showed him at his worst (almost); energy supply is a matter of policy, and to focus on the quasi-judicial technicalities was mere evasion. Surely it would have been better to reiterate the government’s standing policy in that respect, perhaps explaining why that shouldn’t change in the current circumstances, than lecture on process? Though there is plentiful evidence he isn’t terribly interested in policy as it is.