In a notable departure from recent sessions, Prime Minister's Questions this week featured a relatively coherent exchange between Labour leader Keir Starmer and Conservative MP Kemi Badenoch, centered on the contentious issue of defence spending. While both politicians appeared more secure in their roles, the underlying tensions and political maneuvering remained palpable throughout the proceedings.
A Shift from Nihilism to Modest Coherence
The last few PMQs had descended into what many observers described as an exercise in nihilism, with questions posed but rarely answered meaningfully. This week, however, Starmer made a concerted effort to listen to Badenoch's inquiries and provide responses that, while rehearsed, at least approached coherence. The improvement was subtle but significant, marking a departure from the futility that had characterized recent exchanges.
The Defence Spending Dilemma
Badenoch devoted her questions to criticising the government's defence policies, leveraging comments from Labour grandee George Robertson, who had accused the administration of "corrosive complacency" regarding the UK's armed forces. Starmer responded by expressing admiration for Robertson while respectfully disagreeing, asserting his commitment to national security and highlighting increases in defence spending. He pointed out that Britain maintains the fifth-largest defence budget globally, though he acknowledged past missteps, such as investments in vulnerable aircraft carriers.
The debate underscored a fundamental disagreement: both sides recognise the need for enhanced defence expenditure, particularly amid shifting global alliances, but they clash on funding mechanisms and priorities. Starmer argued against a simplistic trade-off between defence and welfare, noting that the Conservatives had previously tripled welfare spending, while Badenoch deflected by emphasising Labour's responsibility for current challenges.
Political Dynamics and Personal Tensions
Despite the improved dialogue, personal friction emerged when Speaker Lindsay Hoyle interrupted Starmer, admonishing him for focusing on Tory limitations rather than answering questions directly. This incident highlighted the ongoing strain between the Prime Minister and parliamentary authorities, suggesting deeper unresolved conflicts.
Both Starmer and Badenoch appear increasingly secure in their positions—Starmer due to his handling of international crises like the Iran conflict, and Badenoch because of a lack of obvious successors. Yet, this stability feels precarious, with hubris lurking and the constant threat of sudden political downfall. They operate in a phoney war atmosphere, aware of impending local election losses but clinging to their roles day by day.
Surreal Moments and Broader Implications
The session took a surreal turn when Badenoch joked about a campaign to bring dildos into Parliament, a remark that fell flat in the Commons and contrasted with her attempts to project seriousness. Later, Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey shifted focus to Donald Trump, questioning how to handle the former US president's potential embarrassment of the monarchy. Starmer dismissed concerns, asserting the enduring special relationship between the UK and US while advocating for closer ties with the EU—a statement that surprisingly drew no outrage from Tory benches, possibly reflecting growing Brexit realism.
Overall, this PMQs was characterised by its lo-fi nature: questions were asked, answers were rehearsed, and both leaders went through the motions without major confrontations. Badenoch, often known for her anger, remained subdued, perhaps due to personal growth or strategic calculation. The exchange, while more coherent than recent sessions, revealed the ongoing struggles over defence policy, political accountability, and the fragile equilibrium in Westminster as elections loom.
