Starmer accuses Tories of being ‘economic vandals’ at PMQs as Badenoch challenges him to rule out tax rises – UK politics live | Politics
Starmer accuses Tories of being 'economic vandals'
Kemi Badenoch says she met business owners on Friday. One said his business will not exist in four years time because of the government’s policies. Starmer may try to blame his inheritance, or global factors. But why should people trust Starmer over business leaders about the impact of the budget.
Starmer says the global economy is experiencing volatility. And Labour inherited a £22bn black hole, he says.
He says the Tories were not brave enough to take tough decisions. They want the benefits of the budget, but without the costs. They are “economic vandals”, he says.
UPDATE:Badenoch said:
While borrowing costs hit levels not seen since Labour was last in government, I met business owners and their employees in Chesterfield. One of them told me that his business will not exist in four years’ time because of this government’s policies, it might not even exist next year.
The prime minister may try to blame his inheritance, or blame global factors. But why should anyone trust a word he says over the businesses who are saying again and again that his budget means fewer jobs, lower growth and higher borrowing costs?
In response, Starmer said the global economy was experiencing “volatility” and he went on:
We had to deal with the £22bn black hole that they left, made difficult cuts, raised taxes to invest in health, public services and housing, vital to disability, vital to growth, and we’ve got an ironclad commitment to our fiscal rules, and she will welcome, no doubt, the inflation figures from this morning.
But contrast that with the party opposite, they weren’t brave enough in government to take those difficult decisions. They’ve opposed all of our measures to stabilise the economy and promote growth.
They’re back to the magic money tree, she wants all the benefits of the budget, but she can’t say how she’s going to pay for them. They haven’t changed, they’re still economic vandals and fantasists, imagine where we’d be if they were still in charge.
Key events
Badenoch wants to keep Mel Stride, and all other shadow cabinet ministers, in current jobs until election, Tories say
On Monday the Tories claimed that Rachel Reeves’ future was in jeopardy after Keir Starmer declined to say she would stay as chancellor for the rest of this parliament. At the time, I described that as an over-interpretation, and said it would be surprising if Kemi Badenoch were to commit to keeping Mel Stride as shadow chancellor for the whole of this parliament.
But she has. At their post-PMQs briefing, a spokesperson for Badenoch said that Stride would remain shadow chancellor until the next election. Asked if that applied to all members of the shadow cabinet, the spokesperson said “Yes”. He added: “We’re very happy with the shadow cabinet as it is.”
If this really is the position, that means there will be no major shadow cabinet reshuffles between now and the election, expected in 2028 or 2029.
PMQs - snap verdict
At PMQs the leader of the opposition can either devote all their questions to one topic, go half and half (three questions on one subject, three questions on another – probably the most common approach) or do the full scattergun, trying a bit of everything. There are pluses and minuses either way.
The most memorable, and successful, PMQs for an opposition leader are probably those that are single-theme focused. Badenoch tried one of these last week. But they only work if the PM is particularly vulnerable on a topic, and the opposition leader can “win” convincingly, and that did not happen when Badenoch focused on grooming gangs seven days ago.
The main advantage of going pick ‘n’ mix, as Badenoch did today is that, even if you don’t triumph on every question, you are likely to at least score points on some of them. And, to an extent that happened. If the exchanges had ended after question one, Badenoch might have been declared the winner. This is because she opened with a reasonable point about the impact of the budget, and warned Starmer not to just blame global economic factors or the last government – only for Starmer to do precisely that. I’ve posted the quotes at 12.07pm (although you might need to refresh the page to get the updates to show up).
After that, it started go downhill. Badenoch asked Starmer to rule out future tax rises (which will produce a story for some papers, because he wouldn’t) and condemned the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos Islands (which will also play well with the Tory press). But Starmer has decent responses on both these points, and so these were misses, not hits.
In the final three exchanges, Starmer won quite easily on all of them. It was foolish for Badenoch to attack Rachel Reeves as not qualified to be chancellor, because that is obviously not true. On Tulip Siddiq, Starmer made a very persuasive case that the Priti Patel case proved that the Tories’ record on cases like this was far worse than Labour’s. And, in response to Badenoch’s final question, Starmer came across as much stronger a) because he gave a substantial, newsy answer on Northern Ireland, and b) because he concluded with a jolly take-down of Liz Truss.
I got a letter this week from a Tory voter in a Labour seat. I hope they don’t mind me saying who it was; it was Liz Truss. It wasn’t written in green ink but it might as well have been. She was complaining that saying she had crashed the economy was damaging her reputation. It was actually crashing the economy that damaged her reputation.
So Starmer won on most of the six questions. Just as the advantage of chosing multiple topics is that you might win on at least some, the risk is that the PM will win on more of them.
There is another problem with this strategy too. MPs, and viewers, are left wondering what point you are trying to make. Badenoch tried to sum it up with her final question when she said that Britain could not afford four more year’s for Starmer’s “terrible judgments”. At some point an attack like this might work. But today, particularly after the proceedings beforehand, this just sounded like hyperbole.
Jonathan Brash (Lab) asks about the disappearance of a young child, Katrice Lee, from a military base in Germany in the 1980s. He says his consitutent, Katrice’s father, has been waiting 43 years to get answers.
Starmer says this is a deeply distressing case. He will ensure Brash gets a meeting with a minister to discuss it, he says.
Jack Rankin (Con) asks about the hostages being held by Hamas, and a conversation with the mother of one of them, a British citizen.
Starmer says it is “appalling” that Hamas are continuing to detain these people. “It is nothing short of torture what they are going through”, he says.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Con) asks if Starmer has had a discussion with the lawyer Philippe Sands about the Chagos Islands since becoming PM.
“No,” Starmer replies.
Joe Morris (Lab) raises the murder of Holly Newton and asks if the government will lower the age at which someone can be treated as the victim of domestic abuse.
Starmer says the government does need to look at this. He says he has been shocked by some of the examples of this he has heard about.
Andy McDonald (Lab) asks about gig workers being charged to receive their pay on time. Does the PM agree having a single status of worker will address these abuses?
Starmer says he wants all workers to have proper rights. The employment rights bill will deliver those, he says.
Danny Chambers (Lib Dem) says the Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Will the UK help Ukraine deal with this?
Starmer says the UK is funding doctors to work with their Ukrainian counterparts, including on preventing the spread of infections.
Jim Allister (TUV) asks how Starmer hopes to get a trade deal with the US, when Donald Trump dislikes the EU and a deal covering Northern Ireland would involve EU law.
Starmer says the controls only apply to EU goods coming into Britain. They do not apply to good moving between Northern Ireland and Britain, he says.
Ed Davey suggests visa rules should be changed to allow Americans fleeing Trump's regime to settle in UK
Davey says he is disappointed by Starmer’s refusal to speed up the care review.
There are reports that some Americans want to come to the UK because they fear what President Trump will do. But some are finding there is no visa they can apply for. Does Starmer agree that if people like this want to come to the UK, to grow our econom, they should be able to?
Starmer says he welcomes all investment into the UK. But the last government lost control of immigration. Badenoch was championing driving up those numbers, he says.
