Mrs Kemi Badenoch
MP for North West Essex · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It is unbelievable that the Prime Minister would say that. He is clearly unwilling. We need to fund our defence, not spend all our money on welfare. I cannot believe that he would actually say that. He is clearly unwilling, but there are ways to do this—he is not unable.”
“The Prime Minister seems to think that the last Government were a Conservative Government. The last Government were a Labour Government and they failed, which is why Keir Starmer resigned. He keeps talking about their record as if it was fantastic. If it was, then why is Keir Starmer not sitting there?”
“The Prime Minister wants to talk about the past on defence spending, so let me refresh his memory and that of the House. I remember when he was the shadow Home Secretary, when the then Labour leader wanted us to leave NATO, disarm our nuclear deterrent and defund the Army, so I will not be taking any lectures from him.”
“No, it is not. The truth is the Prime Minister does not know where he is going to find the money. He is talking about anything except defence, including council housing. He will not fund the military.”
“We are talking about paying £35 billion to give away British territory, and all of that is happening while the Prime Minister’s Government are cancelling £30 million of vital training for British soldiers. He may be new to the job, so let me tell him what may not be in his briefing paper.”
“After last week’s session, the country was thrown into confusion over whether the Prime Minister was or was not going to fund 3% for defence by 2030. After today he will have another five weeks off PMQs, but there are some serious threats to national security that cannot wait.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Mrs Kemi Badenoch, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“When President Zelensky was attacked in the White House, the Prime Minister showed leadership and invited him to Downing Street. That was the right thing to do. Ukraine is on the frontline in the battle for freedom, so does the Prime Minister agree that cross-party support for their cause must endure?”
“Her wit and forthrightness sat alongside a deep humanity and decency. Ann had wonderful turns of phrase. She said: “We need less political correctness and more political courage.” She said: “If we deny our culture, become nothing and everything, that weakens us.” She also said: “It is a truth universally unacknowledged at Westminster that there is life after politics.” With that in mind, I turn to this Prime Minister’s final questions. Mr Speaker, I wanted to make sure that I got the tone right today, so I looked back at the Prime Minister’s final questions to Boris Johnson. Luckily for the Prime Minister, I plan to be much gentler than he was that day. Week after week, the Prime Minister and I have clashed at these Dispatch Boxes and rarely agreed on anything, but there is one thing that I admired.”
“Can I start by thanking the Prime Minister for the way that he responded to the murder of Ann Widdecombe last week? This is the first opportunity I have had on the Floor of the House to commemorate her life. A lot has been said about how she died. I want to focus on celebrating the life she lived. Ann was a woman of high principle and profound beliefs, with a wicked sense of humour—a wonderful combination of being a serious person who did not take herself too seriously. She changed her faith from Anglican to Catholic and from the Conservative party to the Brexit party, but she always remained part of the Conservative family. You might not always have agreed with her, but Ann Widdecombe was a woman who said what she meant and meant what she said. Hers was an honesty that made our politics better.”
“I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. No doubt, he will be disappointed that he will not be emulating his hero Harold Wilson in winning multiple elections. However, we all hope that he may be about to emulate him in another way: by being the Prime Minister when England win the world cup. That is something that every single one of us in the House should get behind—especially the SNP. [ Laughter. ] As Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister led his party to a landslide after a historic defeat—I fully intend to do the same—but if you want to lead this country, you should set out your plans to do so. We have, but one politician intends to spend the summer avoiding scrutiny, refusing to set out his plans. Does the Prime Minister not agree that what the country deserves is a televised debate between Nigel Farage and Count Binface?”
“I know how much the Prime Minister has come to enjoy our exchanges—in fact, in the King’s Speech debate he told me that on difficult days my input was “always a ray of sunshine.” —[ Official Report , 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 24.] He might not have answered many of the questions I asked him, but at least he turned up. It is important to respect Parliament, so does the Prime Minister agree that his successor should come to this place and answer questions rather than scurrying away for the summer?”
“I thank the Prime Minister for that answer and for paying tribute to so many of the people he has been able to help. In fact, I remember when I started this job, the Prime Minister was very helpful to me, saying that I would not last the year. Life comes at you fast. [ Laughter. ] He spent a long time laughing at how I had lost control of my party; I think he should have been paying attention to his Back Benchers instead of mine. Everyone in politics would do well to remember how quickly political fortunes can change. I know that the Prime Minister has been asked and that he is being diplomatic, but on that note, does he have any advice for his successor?”
“That is a lovely statement that the Prime Minister has just made to Pooja; I am sure that the whole House will agree. I think that the whole House will also agree that he gave a very diplomatic answer to the question I asked on advice to his successor. Having heard that answer, I say this to Labour MPs with as much goodwill as I can muster— [ Laughter. ] —we have been where you are. Changing Prime Minister is not a silver bullet; indeed, it may be that the Labour party’s troubles are only just beginning. Solving the fundamental problems in this country will require difficult decisions, and you also need to know how to get things done. The Prime Minister once said that when he pulled the levers, nothing happened. Why did he think that was?”
“I hope that he will allow me to draw our time together to a close by thanking them for the love and support they have given him throughout his time in office.”
“The Prime Minister may not think so now, but it is a tribute to him that not a single sitting Labour MP could beat him. Not the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) who could not count her taxes, not the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) who could not count how many phones she had lost—“lost, lost, lost”—and definitely not the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) who could not count to 81. This is my last exchange with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I know how much his wife and children mean to him, and that they are in the Gallery. As everyone here knows, our families make a huge sacrifice for our choice to enter public life.”
“Can I associate myself and those on the Opposition Benches with the Prime Minister’s comments about Venezuela, and also about the Lib Dems? [ Laughter. ] But seriously, the Chief of the Defence Staff made it known that the armed forces needed a minimum of £28 billion more to defend the country. Can the Prime Minister tell us why he thinks half that amount is enough?”
“The Prime Minister did not say that it was enough, and that was a very long list of things that he is not yet paying for. It is not right and it is not fair—certainly not to our troops, who put their lives on the line for all of us every single day. Three weeks ago, the Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), resigned saying, “I am being forced to make decisions that would…increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.” Since that letter, the Prime Minister has increased spending by only 0.01%. We can count, the generals can count, and the Kremlin can count, and his plan does not add up. How can he possibly stand there and say that this is enough?”
“It is £5 billion short. We all know that he is leaving this mess to his successor. Can he confirm that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has agreed to fund the shortfall?”
“The Chief of the Defence Staff is an honourable man, and what he and the NATO Secretary-General have done is welcome the fact that the plan has been published—just that it has been published. They have been waiting for more than a year. The strategic defence review was last year. The Chief of the Defence Staff is an honourable man who is having to make do with very little. The threat level has dramatically changed in the two years that the Prime Minister has been in office. Since he took office, Poland has increased its funding to 4.8% and Germany has increased its funding to 3.7%. This year, Russia will spend 10% of GDP on defence. Meanwhile, Britain is spending it all on welfare. Even the limited plan that the Prime Minister has announced has completely unravelled, because he has not found the money to pay for it.”
“It said that the Prime Minister’s “legacy is betrayal, failure and vulnerability” —and that is one of the nicer headlines. I will ask again, because the Prime Minister did not answer the question. Did the right hon. Member for Makerfield know that he was going to have to find £5 billion for the Prime Minister’s plan?”
“The Prime Minister says that he is delivering this outside the Budget. That is right: it should have been in the last Budget. The strategic defence review was published last year. It should have been in the last Budget, not the next Budget. According to the intelligence assessment that the Prime Minister himself has said we have, there could be an attack on NATO by 2030, but this plan does not deliver until after that. Not only is £5 billion missing from his plan, but it relies on £11 billion of unidentified savings. The plan has unravelled. It is a total dereliction of duty, and I am not the only one who thinks so. The Times said today that the Prime Minister’s “legacy”— [Interruption.] Well, why don’t we wait and see what The Times said?”
“It does not sound as if the Prime Minister has told the right hon. Member for Makerfield to find £5 billion. He says that any Labour Prime Minister would stand behind this plan. Let me tell him what Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, said yesterday. He said that the Prime Minister had chosen the “cheap option”, and he called the plan “woefully inadequate”. Let me tell him what General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the authors of his own strategic defence review, said yesterday: “we are simply not going to be ready to defend this country properly.” That is what they are saying. The reason the Prime Minister is in this mess is that he was too weak to cut welfare when he had the chance. There are only three ways to find the missing £5 billion: increase borrowing, increase taxes, or cut welfare.”
“They are the Government for now, not for 10 years ago, and the fact is that Labour’s plan is too weak, it is too little and it is too late. If the Prime Minister’s successor does not want to be complicit in this failure, he should come out and condemn this plan. The money must be found, and that money should come from cutting welfare—something that these Labour MPs will not do. If Labour cannot defend our country, what is the point of them?”
“We understand it perfectly, and that is why— [ Interruption. ] Yes, we do. That is why the Prime Minister is leaving and so is his Chancellor. Labour Members are laughing and pretending, but if he was doing such a fabulous job, why did he resign? Defence of the realm is the first duty of Government. [ Interruption. ] Yes, it is the first duty of Government. I do not need to read again what General Sir Richard Barrons or Lord Richard Dannatt said. Maybe Labour Members did not hear it the first time—they can rewatch the clips—but defence of the realm is the first duty of Government. Britain is facing a moment of danger unlike anything in our lifetimes and unlike anything that we saw in government. We need a plan to fund our armed forces that meets this moment.”
“I associate the Opposition with the Prime Minister’s remarks on the horrific train crash, the attacks in Edinburgh and, of course, Armed Forces Week. I want to start by congratulating the Prime Minister: he is the other party leader who won a by-election last week, although I think I am much happier with my new MP than he is with his. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House that the Government were funding defence and that everything was under control. The very next day, the Defence Secretary resigned, saying the Prime Minister was “unable” and the Treasury “unwilling” to fund the defence of our country. What changed?”
“I think the Prime Minister forgot to mention that we got 50% of the vote in Aberdeen South. He says that he is funding defence; the truth is he would not be in this mess if his Chancellor had found money for the defence investment plan. The Prime Minister gave her the second most important job in Britain. She was the first female Chancellor. She lives next door to him, but would not even come out to stand by him during his resignation speech; she was too busy getting ready for a selfie with the new leader. Does the Prime Minister feel let down by his Chancellor?”
“Labour Members are cheering so loudly, but if it is all going so fine, why is the Prime Minister resigning? The fact is the Chancellor did let him down. She is the one who snatched the winter fuel payment and who announced a disastrous Budget that killed economic growth. Because of her, a Labour Prime Minister is once again leaving office with unemployment higher than when he came in. But the Chancellor is not the only person who let him down: the Energy Secretary is putting up bills and killing jobs. [Hon. Members: “Where is he?”] He is not here, is he? He was a failed Labour leader rejected by the electorate, brought back from the wilderness by this man, and when the going got tough, he jumped into bed with the Mayor of Manchester—it is not the first time he has betrayed someone close to him, is it?”
“She taxed private schools to pay for more teachers, but the number of teachers has gone down. It turns out that appointing a spiteful class warrior as Education Secretary was a disaster. Does the Prime Minister agree that he has been let down by her incompetence?”
“Once again I have to ask: if it is all so fantastic, why is the Prime Minister resigning? It is very generous of him to stick by his Ministers, because they did not stick by him. He can say what he likes, but the people of Aberdeen gave their verdict—they gave their verdict on his Energy Secretary by voting Conservative. To be fair, the Cabinet are not all traitors and deserters; some of them have been loyal—loyal and incompetent. Hands up if you think that the Education Secretary is doing a good job— [ Interruption. ] Even she doesn’t think she’s doing a good job, Mr Speaker— [ Interruption. ] Oh, someone did. For those who raised their hands—the two people who raised their hands—yesterday, a poll found that 0% of teachers think that the Education Secretary is doing a good job.”
“The fact is that if the Education Secretary knew so much about poor children, she would not have given them fewer teachers. Teacher numbers have gone down— [ Interruption. ] It is amazing; I have never seen this much excitement on the Labour Benches. They are cheering so loudly, while there are 400 knives stuck in the Prime Minister’s back. Shame on them. They don’t like it up them, but they know that what I am saying is true. There were times when the Prime Minister tried to do the right thing. He tried—he did try to cut welfare, and who stopped him? Those MPs behind him. In the words of the Welfare Secretary, his MPs only want to know who they can tax to fund more benefits. They are not Labour MPs, they are welfare MPs. Does the Prime Minister feel betrayed by the people he got into Parliament?”
“The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the one who is resigning because of his MPs. There is no point trying to distract from that. Let’s be honest: the Prime Minister has made many mistakes, otherwise he would not be going, but he has also been let down—I am only saying what his staff have been briefing. He has been let down by an Energy Secretary who is killing industry, let down by a Chancellor who is killing jobs, and let down by Back-Benchers who do not understand that government is about tough choices. He U-turned again and again and again to appease them, and now they have abandoned him. And for what? A pair of eyelashes and a black T-shirt. Is it not the truth that, whoever is in charge, the real problem is the Labour party?”
“Let me remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the Prime Minister is resigning because he failed on national security. He appointed a known security risk as our ambassador to Washington. He is destroying our energy security, which is national security, and he is refusing to fund the defence investment plan needed to keep our country safe. The G7 summit reminds us that we are living in serious times, yet the Government are paralysed and our country is in limbo. It is time for Labour to start putting country before party, and to put Britain’s national interest first.”
“In order to fund defence, we need more money, not more speeches at summits. The right hon. Member for Makerfield will find that Britain is not able to borrow any more money, and that it has all been spent on welfare. He will realise that this Government are providing export finance to rebuild Ukraine’s energy system, while crippling our own, and are reducing sanctions on Russian oil, while sanctioning oil from Aberdeen. Only one thing matters at the G7 and NATO summits, and that is our collective national security. [ Interruption. ] A Minister is chuntering. Can he say anything about why the Defence Secretary resigned? If Ministers are all living in la-la land, I am going to wake them up. They need to stop pretending that everything is fine, because it is not.”
“I take the opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Member for Makerfield on his election, but I point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) is here; the right hon. Gentleman is not, because he is more interested in his leadership bid than Britain’s national security. Two weeks ago, the Defence Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister quit the Government because Labour’s failure to fund defence is putting our national security at risk. That issue will not disappear from the right hon. Member for Makerfield’s in-tray just because he won a by-election. If he becomes Prime Minister, he will be briefed by the heads of our military about Britain’s reducing ability to defend herself, let alone Ukraine, which the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned.”
“The Deputy Prime Minister had to change his statement so that we all knew that the EU reset summit had been postponed. The summit is not happening any more, so what is the Prime Minister hanging around for? Why are we sending a non-Prime Minister to the most important NATO summit in a generation? It is because this psychodrama is about the Labour party, not the country. Labour is still trying to tell us that everything is fine. That is what the Deputy Prime Minister was saying: “Everything is fine.” He has given us a statement about a G7 summit that he did not go to. The few Labour MPs who bothered to turn up to the Chamber were nodding along, pretending to be listening intently, but in a few minutes, they will all scurry back to their offices and focus on their real priority: lobbying for a job in the next Government.”
“In the meantime, no one is in charge, and Britain is not being governed. The Prime Minister gave assurances at the G7 about military support to Ukraine. He gave those assurances after the Defence Secretary resigned because he was being forced to make decisions that would increase the risk to our armed forces. The Prime Minister gave assurances about sanctions on Russian oil and gas while, in this House, the Government were lifting those sanctions. The Prime Minister is saying one thing abroad but doing the opposite at home. Those are just some of the many reasons that he had to resign this morning, but apparently, for some mysterious reason, he must stick around until September. Given that he has resigned, why is he hanging around?”
“I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. He is right when he says that everyone in this House owes a debt to the Prime Minister, but it is most certainly not a debt of gratitude; it is the other type of debt that we owe. The right hon. Gentleman has come to the House to update us on a meeting that he did not attend. He stood in for the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions during the G7; now he is standing in again to tell us what happened at the G7. Where is the Prime Minister? He says he needs to stay in post for three months, but then does not come to Parliament to do his job. He wants to go on a farewell tour, while the new right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is asking for a summer holiday to work out what he thinks.”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effect of the delay in the defence investment plan on our armed forces’ ability to defend the United Kingdom.”
“It speaks volumes that a junior Minister has been sent to answer this question today. If the new Defence Secretary is too scared to face tough questions at the Dispatch Box, waiting for an easier statement later, then I do not have much confidence in him facing down the threats from Russia. It has been two years since Labour paused the Conservatives’ plan to fund our armed forces, and a year since Labour’s strategic defence review. [ Interruption. ] We have been warning that the delays to the defence investment plan—”
“Thirdly, the funding must ensure that we are ready to fight the wars of the future, not the past. I am sure the Minister will now stand up and try to blame the situation on Conservative Governments, forgetting that these are new threats, not past threats. This Government need to stop wasting time and do what is necessary to keep the British people safe today.”
“He did not say that there would be extra money for the defence investment plan, as his former mentor—so he says—asked for. The Prime Minister needs to tell the Chancellor to find the money. The answer is to cut the welfare budget, and I am willing to lend the Government 116 votes to do just that—I know Labour Back Benchers will not do it—with the proviso that the defence investment plan meets three simple tests. First, the Government must at a minimum find the £28 billion that the Chief of the Defence Staff has said is needed. Will they? Secondly, the funding must be provided before 2030. Will it? There is no kicking into the long grass here. If the answer to both of those questions is no, the Minister should have resigned along with his colleagues.”
“We have been warning that the delays to the defence investment plan are making our troops and our country less safe. Last week, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for the Armed Forces quit the Government, because they knew that those warnings were true and they were no longer willing to defend the indefensible. They have done the honourable thing by resigning. It could not have been easy for the former Defence Secretary—a Labour man through and through—when he said that “I am being forced to make decisions that would…increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.” That is absolutely shocking. What on earth are the Government playing at? The statement that the Minister has just given shows that the Government are still in denial.”
“There is a live criminal case, so we must be careful about what we say, but we can be clear about this: people have a right to be angry—I am angry—and people have the right to expect their politicians to secure our borders, but no one has a right to burn families out of their homes or to burn public property and attack the police. We all have a duty to stand up for public safety in every way. Last night, America carried out strikes on Iran in response to the downing of a US helicopter. This comes just days after renewed attacks on Ukraine. The world is getting more dangerous and the British public want to know that this Government are doing everything they can to protect our national security. Can the Prime Minister tell the House, will the full defence investment plan finally be published this week?”
“I, too, wish England and Scotland the very best in the world cup. I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker—many happy returns. May I take the opportunity to associate myself with the remarks that the Prime Minister made about the helicopter crash? Our condolences go to their families, and to the family of Michael Storey. I thank the Prime Minister for his short statement on Belfast. The scenes in Belfast are deeply, deeply disturbing. A man is in hospital after a brutal attack and now families are frightened after a night of violence.”
“That sounded like a no. We have wasted two years waiting for the defence investment plan. Projects have been put on hold and Britain is getting weaker with every passing day. It has been reported that the Chief of the Defence Staff told the Prime Minister that the Ministry of Defence needs an extra £28 billion. Will that requirement be met in full?”
“I welcome the pay rise for the armed forces. The Prime Minister says he has increased defence spending, but he has not. This year he is cutting it by £3.5 billion. What he is talking about are hopeful increases, and we do not know if he will make them because there is still no defence investment plan. At a time when we need leadership, we have total paralysis. It is reported that the Chancellor is only willing to find £13 billion for the DIP. At the London defence conference last year, the Prime Minister said that defence would be the “central organising principle” of his Government. How can that be the case when he is giving the armed forces less than half of the minimum that they need?”
“We have heard the Prime Minister say that about 100 times. There is still no defence investment plan. He is the Prime Minister now—at least I think he is. Should I be calling Andy Burnham instead to ask these questions? He is the Prime Minister, and the reason he is dithering is because he does not know where the money is coming from. The military is waiting and the bond markets are watching. He has only three options: cutting spending, more borrowing, or higher taxes. We know that the Chancellor wants to put up tax to pay for defence. Will the Prime Minister rule out raising taxes?”
“I remember when the last Government led Europe when we were fighting the war in Ukraine. When Russia invaded, we were ready. We supplied Ukraine with munitions. We increased defence spending. But I was not asking the Prime Minister about our record; I asked him if he would rule out tax rises. He did not rule out raising taxes, so tax rises are coming. He cannot borrow more, because the markets have no confidence in him. The Prime Minister is in this mess because he maxed out on spending in his first two Budgets. That is why the benefits bill is set to rise to over £200 billion by the end of the decade. He has things the wrong way round: he has a benefits plan until 2031, but no defence investment plan. Why not just cut welfare?”
“At a time of increased global instability and tension, with war in Europe and the middle east, the Prime Minister is paralysed, giving the armed forces less than half of the minimum that they need. Tony Blair says to cut welfare for defence. Lord Robertson, a former NATO Secretary-General—and also one of them—says to cut welfare for defence. We all know why he will not cut welfare. It is because he is too weak—too weak to make a decision, too weak to face down his Back Benchers and cut benefits, and too weak to stand up for our national security. As the sun sets on his premiership, he is scrabbling around for a legacy, but is it not the case that his real legacy will be a bloated welfare state and weaker armed forces?”
“He was respected on all sides of this House, and was elected multiple times as your predecessor as Deputy Speaker, before he concluded in the other place. Apart from serving his constituents, Sir Alan’s greatest passion in Parliament and perhaps in life was cricket, as you said, Mr Speaker. He was chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cricket, a role which he encouraged me to take up and which I graciously declined, telling him I knew absolutely nothing about cricket. However, I think colleagues should know that Sir Alan’s intense lobbying is the reason that Sky Sports can be found on the parliamentary TV network. There is so much to say, but just to let everyone know, he was a good and kind man and he will be very much missed. My thoughts are with his wife Angela, his children Mark, David and Emma, and his grandchildren.”
“I echo the Prime Minister’s words on Lance Corporal James Freeman and about the Royal Navy helicopter crash in Devon. I also send my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Henry Nowak. The circumstances around Henry’s wrongful arrest and tragic murder must be a wake-up call to the entire country and our institutions that every life matters, and it is the responsibility of everyone in this House to bring people together, not divide them. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Alan Haselhurst—Lord Haselhurst—who died on Monday. Sir Alan served Parliament for over 50 years, eight of them in the Lords and 40 years as my predecessor as MP for Saffron Walden, while from 1970 to 1974 he was the Member of Parliament for Middleton and Prestwich.”
“The Prime Minister does not seem to know the answer, so let me tell him: benefits alone have risen by £20 billion since he came to office. The Prime Minister has promised welfare reforms—we heard him say it just now—so why was there no welfare reform Bill in the King’s Speech?”
“We need to bring down the benefits bill. The Prime Minister complains about the shadow Chancellor. The bill went up because of the pandemic and even then Labour Members were asking us to spend more. It is not the shadow Chancellor who is the problem; it is the actual Chancellor. She is not even in her place. The reason there is no welfare Bill is the Prime Minister has given up, and he has given up because Labour Members have given up on him. On Sunday, the Welfare Secretary was asked 12 times on national radio if he would make cuts to the benefits bill and 12 times he could not answer. So I will ask the Prime Minister: is he going to cut the benefits bill?”
“The Prime Minister keeps saying he is bringing in welfare reforms. None of those things is going to cut the bill. Even his own Timms review explicitly says—this is their review; this is in the terms of reference—that this is not about generating proposals for further savings. The Prime Minister had a chance to cut benefits. Last year, I remember the Government were planning to cut benefits and on the Floor of the House they U-turned. What did he do when he had a chance? He caved. He caved to all the MPs behind him who do not want benefits brought down. That is why they are sitting silently behind him. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Welfare Secretary that that was the moment he lost his authority?”
“He says he is proud of what they are delivering—I am glad to see that the Prime Minister still has his sense of humour, given we all know that he is losing his job soon. He has no authority, and we know why: his MPs will not let him do anything. The Welfare Secretary said in private what the Government will not dare say in public. He said: “Every meeting I have is: ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?’” Last week, Tony Blair said: “If the Conservative Party repeats its offer of working together on welfare, Labour should accept”. Today I am repeating that offer to the Prime Minister. Is he ready yet?”
“But it does not matter who is in charge; Labour MPs will keep asking who they can tax to pay more benefits—it is in their DNA. The truth is that the problem is not this passive Prime Minister; the problem is the Labour party.”