Badenoch declines to criticise Jenrick over his comment about possible need for Tory/Reform UK ‘coalition’
Kemi Badenoch has not criticised Robert Jenrick, or disciplined him, over his comments about the possible need for a Conservative/Reform UK “coalition” by the time of the next election. (See 9.04am.)
Speaking at a post-PMQs briefing, Badenoch’s spokesperson said the Tory leader “agrees” with Jenrick that that “we need to bring centre-right voters together”.
Asked about Badenoch’s reaction to the Sky News report about what Jenrick said, Badenoch’s spokesperson said:
She took his words at face value … If you read the text he is saying that he wants to bring centre-right voters together in a coalition to defeat Labour.
The spokesperson also said that Jenrick was “working to defeat Reform” and that Badenoch has “made it perfectly clear there will be absolutely no electoral pact with Reform”.
Badenoch and Jenrick “have a very good relationship”, the spokesperson added, saying Jenrick was regarded as a team player.
Key events
Green co-leader Adrian Ramsay challenges Farage to TV debate on climate crisis
Adrian Ramsay, the Green party co-leader, has challenged Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, to a debate on the climate crisis. Responding to Farage’s Today programme interview (see 10.39am), in which Farage made several false or questionable claims (see 11.14am), Ramsay said:
Nigel Farage is a performer, a con artist. He will say or do anything. He will happily dance to a populist tune regardless of its impact. Let’s not forget he’s bankrolled by fossil fuel interests, climate deniers, and major polluters – taking in £2.3m since the 2019 election.
This morning’s performance suggested he hasn’t got the slightest grasp of even the most basic climate science. But I think it’s worse than that. He understands all too well human-made climate change, but he is willing to pretend he doesn’t and stand in the way of climate action for his party’s populist agenda.
If he really does believe what he says, let’s see if his ridiculous rhetoric stands up to actual scrutiny – let’s see if he is prepared to take part in an hour-long TV debate about climate change and the challenge of reaching net zero?
Badenoch declines to criticise Jenrick over his comment about possible need for Tory/Reform UK ‘coalition’
Kemi Badenoch has not criticised Robert Jenrick, or disciplined him, over his comments about the possible need for a Conservative/Reform UK “coalition” by the time of the next election. (See 9.04am.)
Speaking at a post-PMQs briefing, Badenoch’s spokesperson said the Tory leader “agrees” with Jenrick that that “we need to bring centre-right voters together”.
Asked about Badenoch’s reaction to the Sky News report about what Jenrick said, Badenoch’s spokesperson said:
She took his words at face value … If you read the text he is saying that he wants to bring centre-right voters together in a coalition to defeat Labour.
The spokesperson also said that Jenrick was “working to defeat Reform” and that Badenoch has “made it perfectly clear there will be absolutely no electoral pact with Reform”.
Badenoch and Jenrick “have a very good relationship”, the spokesperson added, saying Jenrick was regarded as a team player.
After PMQs the Conservative party said that Keir Starmer had refused to answer three questions. A Tory spokesperson said:
The prime minister refused to answer three clear questions put to him by the leader of the opposition: when did he change his mind that a trans woman is a woman; will he apologise to Rosie Duffield MP; and will he reappoint Baroness Falkner as chair of the EHRC.
Keir Starmer needs to answer these critical questions as soon as possible, or women and girls will fear that they are going to be betrayed by the Labour party once again.
Here is Peter Walker’s story on PMQs.
PMQs – snap verdict
That went better for Keir Starmer than probably he was expecting, or perhaps even deserved. Politicians never like admitting mistakes, and you don’t have to spend long on social media to find quotes from Starmer and other Labour politicians on trans issues that now they are unwilling to defend. So he will have known that today Kemi Badenoch was likely to start by asking him to admit that he was wrong.
Perhaps Starmer could have insulated himself by giving a speech or interview, at some point between the release of the supreme court judgement last Wednesday and noon today, saying that in some respects he, and the party, did go too far. ‘We got the language wrong, we pushed ahead of public opinion, we did not take concerns as seriously as we should have done because they were being amplified by our opponents in the media.’ The danger with an approach like this is that it amounts to an admission of failure, and it makes you sound like a dud. But the public like it when politicians admit they have got things wrong, and if Starmer had said something like this to the BBC yesterday, Badenoch would have been stumped. Instead, she was able to clobber him quite effectively on his record. In the Mail and the Telegraph at least, she will get a terrific write-up.
Yet, in the chamber, it did not feel like a victory for Badenoch. It was more of a score-draw (which, admittedly, is a good result for Badenoch, who normally loses).
Why? Partly because Starmer starts with a huge advantage, because he conveys a lot more authority than his Tory opposite number. Partly because, while Badenoch was right in much of what she said about Starmer’s U-turn on trans, she also sounds obsessive on this (which she is). Partly because Starmer’s call for MPs to “lower the temperature” on the trans debate was welcome (even if it won’t happen), and made him sound the more reasonable of the two people in the debate (which is almost always where you want to be). Partly because, while Badenoch can claim credit for kiboshing the Scottish government’s gender recognition reform bill, she has little else to boast about from her time as minister for equalities and women. And partly because Badenoch gave Starmer an opening to start talking about the Robert Jenrick/Reform UK story, where he was on much stronger ground.
Starmer probably went a bit too far when, in his final answer, he said that no one expects Badenoch to last until the next election anyway. It’s true, but it sounded hubristic, and a good rule in politics is to never underestimate your opponent, even if they appear to be useless. But it was interesting to hear him say that he expects Nigel Farage to eat the Tories for breakfast. Starmer reportedly thinks that, come the next election, his main opponent will not be the Conservative party, but some hard right, Tory/Reform UK coalition, probably with Farage as the dominant voice. Today he more or less said that explicitly.
I have beefed up all the earlier posts with the exchanges between Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch. You may need to refresh the page to get the updates to appear.
Alison Hume (Lab) asks for an assurance the people with learning disabilities will be among the disabled people who, under the government’s welfare reforms, will not have to go through repeat benefit reassessments.
Starmer says the government is clear that “those with the most severe disabilities” won’t be subject to repeat reassessments.
Katrina Murray (Lab) asks about a constituent how spent months trying to get a cancer diagnosis.
Starmer says that the government has put more investment into the NHS in England, and given the Scottish government more money for public services.
David Davis (Con) says British governments of all parties have all tied to reduce carbon emissions. But they have driven production abroad to countries that produce more carbon. Does the PM have a policy to protect British industry from this “long-term, disastrous trend”.
Starmer says he recently announced moves to protect British car building.
Neil Shastri-Hunt (Con) asks why the government is treating China as a business partner, not “as the hostile state that it truly is”.
Starmer says his government’s approach to China is “not materially different” from the last government’s.
Starmer refuses to promise MPs will see new OBR analysis of welfare cuts before they vote on them
Andy McDonald (Lab) says too many of his constituents live on low incomes, or in poverty. He asks for an assurance that MPs will get to see a fresh OBR analysis, covering the impact of the pro-employment measures, before they have to vote on the welfare cuts. And he asks for an assurance that the measures will not lead to an increase in poverty.
Starmer says the system needs to be reformed, and the government will help people into work.
UPDATE: McDonald said:
I very much welcome the employment support proposals in the welfare green paper, but the government has to be clear about the real opportunities it is offering more than 3 million families who it says will lose out financially as a result of this package.
So before asking MPs to vote, can he confirm we will see, fresh OBR analysis, evidence on who will be affected by the PIP changes, and the government’s own assessment of the employment impact of its measures?
And will he confirm that this policy will not result in increased experience of poverty?
And Starmer replied:
Well we are reforming a broken system. The system that we inherited, and I think most people accept that it needs reform, because it traps people in unemployment and inactivity and we need to reform it for that reason.
The principles will be that we will provide support where support is needed. Where people do want to get into work we will help them into work.
The current system operates against people getting into work who want to make that transition. And that if you can work, you should work. Moving into work is what halves your risk of being in poverty. And that’s why we’ve invested £1bn in tailored employment support.
And of course, we’re introducing a new premium for those with the most severe lifelong disabilities who will never be able to work.
Robin Swann (UUP) asks Starmer to explain his understanding of the principle of consent in Northern Ireland. And he asks if Starmer is a unionist.
Starmer says he stands behind the principles in the Good Friday agreement.
Starmer declines to commit to giving MPs vote on any potential trade deal with US
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, asks about the hospital building programme.
Starmer says the plans left by the last government were not realistic. He says the Lib Dems need to get more realistic about how hospital rebuilding programmes are funded.
Davey says, unlike Labour, the Lib Dems had a funded plan for hospitals at the last election.
He turns to farming, and asks Starmer to guarantee that MPs will get a vote on any future trade deal with the US.
Starmer says, if there is a deal, there will be a “process” by which it becomes law.
He is referring to the procedure by which treaties are ratified – which does not always lead to MPs getting a vote.
Starmer says Tories think Badenoch will be replaced as leader, and says Farage will eat them ‘for breakfast’
Badenoch says this is about political courage, about doing the right thing, even when it is difficult. And Starmer “doesn’t have the balls”.
Starmer says that probably sounded better when Badenoch practised that. He says it does not matter what Badenoch thinks, because none of the Tories think she will lead them into the next election. Robert Jenrick is away plotting. And Nigel Farage will do what he always does, and “eat the Tories for breakfast”, he says.
UPDATE: Badenoch said:
He’s clearly so uncomfortable talking about this subject. This is a choice between a Conservative party that stood up for common sense and a Labour Party that bent the knee to every passing fad.
This is a question about moral courage, about doing the right thing even when it is difficult, and the truth is he doesn’t have the balls. The prime minister only tells people what they want to hear, he is a weather vane who twists in the wind.
He cheered an ideology that denied safe spaces to women and girls because he thought it was cool to do so. He hounded a brave female MP out of his party for telling the truth he accepts now. And now he is hiding behind the supreme court judgment and isn’t that because he doesn’t know what he actually believes?
And Starmer replied:
I can only assume that sounded better when she did it in the mirror earlier on. The truth is it doesn’t really matter what the leader of the opposition says because nobody believes, none of them thinks she’s going to lead them into the next election anyway.
It’s going to be the shadow justice secretary [Robert Jenrick] – he’s away of plotting. That’s why he’s not here today – and the member for Clacton [Nigel Farage] fighting over the bones of the Tory party. And they think Reform will give them their votes withoutchanging their policy? Absolutely no way. The member for Clacton is going to do what he always does, eat the Tory party for breakfast.
Badenoch accuses Starmer of playing political football with this issue.
Starmer returns to the Jenrick story, and says the country knows what will happen when the Tories work with Reform UK.
UPDATE: Badenoch said:
He should be more worried about his backbenchers than my frontbenchers.
His Labour ministers called the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission appalling. Baroness Falkner’s role is critical to enforcing the court’s judgment. She has had to put up with relentless abuse not just from his front bench but from activists and ideologues.
Reappointing her would be a clear sign that he is taking this issue seriously. So will he commit to reappointing Baroness Falkner when her term expires this year?
And Starmer replied:
A coalition between Reform and the Tories being formed behind her back, we know what that means when the shadow justice secretary [Robert Jenrick] and the member for Clacton [Nigel Farage] cook up their joint manifesto.
NHS charging, a pro-Russia foreign policy, an end to workers’ rights. Just as the last government lost control of the economy, the borders and health, in six short months she’s lost control of her party.
Badenoch says Labour MPs are plotting on a WhatsApp group to overturn the supreme court judgment.
Starmer says the WhatsApp group that Badenoch should be worried about is the one being run by Robert Jenrick, who is not here, he says.
UPDATE: Badenoch said:
When his Labour leader in Scotland was whipping his MSPs to get male rapists into women’s prisons, I stopped that gender recognition bill.
I helped commission the Cass Review, I replaced the guidance on single-sex toilets, I made sure that the puberty blockers issue was resolved while he was sitting there cheering on the ideology that was taking away safe spaces. And when the prime minister stayed silent last week waiting presumably for what Morgan McSweeney thinks, on his WhatsApp groups, some of his closest ministers were plotting to overturn the supreme court’s decision.
Labour MP after Labour MP stood up yesterday and challenged the ruling. How can we take his government seriously on this?
And Starmer replied:
Well I think the WhatsApp groups she should be worried about is the one of her shadow justice secretary [Robert Jenrick]. The mask has slipped just one week before the election because the shadow justice secretary is not here, a man who’s doing everything he can to replace her.
The man that most of them want as leader of their party has admitted that Reform and the Tories are working together. He said, ‘I want this fight to be united’.
He said he’s determined to bring this coalition, he calls it, together one way or another. Well, I think we know what that means.