As the political landscape fractures and fragments, prime minister’s questions is fast becoming something of a curiosity. The two stars of the show, secured by their position opposite each other on the commons frontbenches, were both losers at last week’s local elections. And still, commons convention allots Kemi Badenoch six questions — and Keir Starmer is constitutionally obliged to provide six responses.
Collectively, Badenoch and Starmer speak for 39 per cent of the public. That is the principal finding of the latest YouGov/Sky News poll. Labour is placed second on 22 per cent and the Conservatives on 17 per cent; for the latter, as Reform UK rides high on 29 per cent, that is terminal territory.
The Conservative Party last polled at 17 per cent in June 2019, just before Theresa May was ousted as prime minister.
In the commons chamber, Badenoch’s six questions damn her: they are a reminder of the Conservative Party’s enduring institutional relevance, and simultaneously of her inability to cut through at Westminster — let alone with the electorate beyond. Even after the Runcorn and Helsby by-election, Badenoch begs more questions of the PM on a weekly basis than Reform has MPs.
The Conservative leader’s PMQs performances sum up the party’s malaise. The Tories go through the motions of mattering: spokespeople tour the media studios, press releases are pinged into inboxes, government ministers are scrutinised on the floor of the commons. But the Conservative Party’s ostensible busyness belies it. The political energy is elsewhere.
This position is made worse by the fact that Badenoch, every so often, shows signs of pressuring the prime minister. Taking to the despatch box this afternoon, the Conservative leader successfully chose the topic that is most likely to highlight Labour divisions: the winter fuel payment cut.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
Her first question was well-composed: “Does the prime minister now admit that he was wrong to remove the winter fuel payment for millions of pensioners?”
Badenoch rightly judged that her attack did not need additional context. Labour’s local elections drubbing and the fallout since has heightened focus on Starmer’s “original sin”. Backbenchers of all factional stripes — Blue Labour, Socialist Campaign Group, the “soft left” — have pointed to the winter fuel payment as an electorally toxic policy.
The prime minister responded: “The number one job of this government was to put our finances back in order after the last government lost control and to deal with the £22 billion black hole that they left.
“Because of our action we have stabilised the economy, we have invested record amounts in the NHS… and of course we are committed to the triple lock which improved pensions by £470 last year.”
It is not the line many of Starmer’s backbenchers want him to take. The clamour for a symbolic U-turn on the winter fuel payment is growing louder. The Red Wall caucus of Labour MPs this morning issued a statement suggesting an about-face could, contrary to No 10’s apparent calculation, see Labour assume a “position of strength”.
Badenoch continued along the right lines: “His mayor in Doncaster [Ros Jones] says it’s wrong, his first minister in Wales [Eluned Morgan] says it’s wrong, even his own MPs are saying it’s wrong.”
But no sooner had Badenoch delivered her best line of the session — “Pensioners are poorer and colder because of his decisions” — than she changed course.
Rather than drill down on Labour criticism of the winter fuel cut — forcing Starmer to deliver on-the-record defences of this uniquely unpopular policy, Badenoch turned to net zero. It was a screeching pivot.
First, the Conservative leader accused Starmer of reneging on a Labour manifesto pledge to reduce household energy bills. The prime minister predicted Badenoch’s line of inquiry. “The way to bring energy bills down for good is to deliver cheap, clean, home-grown energy”, Starmer responded.
Later in the exchange, the prime minister revealed his preparation. He commented: “I’ve got the shadow chancellor [Mel Stride] here, his previous words: ‘Net zero — the shift must happen now as a matter of urgency’. His words. ‘It’s no longer an environmental issue. Energy independence should be reviewed as part of our national security.’ He must have our lines.
“What about the leader of the opposition herself? She said: ‘We believe that green trade and investment will be the future-proofing force that will help us create a better tomorrow.’ And then she went on to say this. ‘It’s long term investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependencies on fossil fuels and keep down consumer [costs]’.
“She’s got a reputation, apparently, for straight talking. She was right, though, wasn’t she?”
It was an effective and symbolic put-down. The prime minister, despite speculation to the contrary, shows no sign of abandoning on his government’s net zero platform.
“Net zero is an opportunity to be seized”, he insisted on one occasion. He later accused Badenoch of being a “climate defeatist” and dismissed the Conservative position as “anti-growth, anti-jobs and anti-working people.”
Badenoch closed by accusing the PM of travelling “further and faster in the wrong direction”. She noted Tony Blair’s recent comments on net zero — which sent Westminster into a frenzy last week.
Intriguingly, Badenoch’s questioning often comes across as a conscious response to criticism levelled at her most recent performance. Ahead of the local elections last week, Westminster widely expected the Conservative leader to weaponise Blair’s apparent attack on net zero. The primary reason the former PM’s comments were notable was that they played into Conservative attack lines. And yet Badenoch ignored them.
There is something uniquely baffling about a decision-making process — pursued as part of Badenoch’s PMQs preparation — that ignores Blair’s remarks when they were relevant, but seizes on them when the moment has passed.
Badenoch has been offered a great deal of PMQs advice in her six months as leader. Last month, she disclosed the details of discussions with David Cameron, once a doughty PMQs performer, and Iain Duncan Smith, once a, well, PMQs performer.
Cameron and IDS’ advice, Badenoch relayed to Times Radio, made plain that the public should be able to “follow” the opposition chief’s argument. Ground-breaking stuff. Overtime, by making reasonable and consistent criticisms of the government, a leader can build credibility.
Across separate topics, Badenoch failed on these counts this afternoon. Viewed together, her recurrent lacklustre performances are beginning to exact a political toll.
The prevailing discourse suggests Badenoch, already, is on borrowed time. Every PMQs session is styled as a fightback. And every week Starmer appears exposed. But Badenoch’s performances never fail to fall short of Westminster’s steadily deteriorating expectations. Sometimes there is a sign of a breakthrough. It is soon squandered. She pursues a meandering line of inquiry. An open goal is missed. The prime minister emerges relatively unscathed — even strengthened.
Politicos are left scratching their heads.
All the while, the pressure builds. Farage chortles. Jenrick manoeuvres. It is an escalating doom spiral that Badenoch shows no sign of stemming — let alone reversing.
Strong performances at PMQs are not, in and of themselves, a vote winner. But on a week-by-week basis, they are a means by which an opposition leader can manage their party. Combative showings will keep backbenchers on side, even when the party is travelling backwards by other measures.
Badenoch’s poor performance this week comes at an especially inopportune moment. In the wake of the local elections, Conservative doubts as to their leader’s ability will now harden. Expect the party’s quiet panic, still playing out in the background via anonymous briefings, to intensify.
Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
