Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: The Reeves-Starmer friendship show proves transitory

No tears this week from Rachel Reeves: she and Sir Keir Starmer entered together with a show of amity.

It did not last. Starmer at once reverted to his usual manner, that of an apparatchik aggrieved to find his tremendous tractor production figures are not accepted as conclusive evidence that the Soviet economy is booming.

There is, he pointed out, a ten-year plan, four million more NHS appointments – twice the target of two million – have been delivered in the first year, “what we did in the Budget was stabilise the economy” and “we are absolutely sticking to our fiscal rules”.

Reeves, whose job is to stick to the fiscal rules, looked unhappy.

Kemi Badenoch pointed out that the doctors are going on strike, millions of pensioners will be dragged into paying income tax unless thresholds rise, council tax is set to soar, investors are fleeing the country and “he’s dragging us back to the 1970s”.

Starmer complained that “she comes here every week to talk the country down,” but anyone can see she actually comes there each week to talk him down.

She is a Conservative, and as Comrade Starmer reminded us at frequent intervals, the Conservatives wrecked everything, so have no right to criticise anything.

This argument he regards as conclusive. It is not, however, a cheerful point to make, and the workers and peasants sitting behind him looked uncheered.

Will Comrade Starmer ever offer them a glimpse of the sunlit uplands, or must they trudge on for the next four years without a hope in their hearts?

Sir Ed Davey, for the Lib Dems, observed that “Labour MPs are planning another rebellion” over the funding, or non-funding, of special educational needs, and offered Starmer the votes of 72 Lib Dem MPs, as long as the five Lib Dem tests for reform are met.

Starmer did not accept this fraternal offer, but who knows what expedients he may be forced to in due course. He remarked with bitterness that the Conservatives “laugh” when special educational needs are mentioned.

Nigel Farage, for Reform, provoked much noise simply by rising to his feet. When the abuse had died down a bit, he said the British people had voted for Brexit because they want to take back control of our borders.

Starmer retorted that “we are fixing the mess”, while Farage simply wants to exploit it.

Sir David Davis (Con, Goole and Pocklington) said “at least 50 innocent retired veterans” who served in Northern Ireland “will be exposed to legal persecution for crimes they did not commit” if the Government sacrifices them “to politically motivated lawyers trying to rewrite history with a pack of lies”.

This got through to Starmer, whose first career was as a blameless lawyer, and he accused Davis of “cheapening the debate”.

Doubt must never be cast on Starmer’s honour. In terms of Commons convention, he is correct: every member is an honourable member, which is what makes debate between them possible.

But Starmer finds it hard to accept that anyone who attacks him might be doing so for honourable motives. Perhaps this is one reason why he finds it so difficult at the Despatch Box to win friends and influence people.

The photograph at the top of this piece shows him at his most unamused, just after he has reproached Davis for “scoring points”. Reeves has by now closed her eyes. The show of amity is over.

The post Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: The Reeves-Starmer friendship show proves transitory appeared first on Conservative Home.