Well that was fiery. With Keir Starmer on his way back from Brazil, it was up to Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner to cover PMQs. Instead of appointing a designated deputy, opposition leader Kemi Badenoch has chosen to rotate the honour of filling in for her in such circumstances because it’s nice to give everyone a turn. Today it was the shadow chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster, Alex Burghart.
You would be forgiven for asking, who’s that? Luckily, Rayner was there to jog memories. Burghart began with the news of the day: rising inflation (covered this morning by Will Dunn – who outlines why it’s such bad news for Labour). This gave Rayner the opportunity to remind the House that “the honourable member was the minister for growth under Liz Truss”. Ouch. Burghart thanked her for her “standard charm”, then asked the same question again. Her second answer was just as short, comparing today’s inflation rate with that under the Conservatives: “I’ll ask the honourable gentleman, 11.1 per cent or 3 per cent?”
Rayner has a completely different style to her boss: she is sharp and unapologetic, relishing confrontation rather than neutralising it, as Starmer does. It’s a shame we won’t get to see a clash between her and Badenoch any-time soon – sparks would fly. Still, the usually unassuming Burghart channelled some of Badenoch’s characteristic provocation. At one point a jibe about “real economists” (a pointed reference to the row Conservatives are trying to start about Rachel Reeves’s CV) got a wave of laughter from the benches behind him. And the accusation about the government “stoking inflation” with pay rises for the unions and the measures in the Budget were uncomfortable for Labour.
The real drama, though, came when the topic came to farming. While the pair bickered over the widely varying figures on just how many farms will be affected by Labour’s changes to inheritance tax, Burghart sought to trap Rayner with a question on whether the government could confirm no further increases in this parliament. She batted the question away, but in doing so gave him more ammunition: “We know what that means: they’re coming back for more.” It was a theme the Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper returned to when it was her turn, again raising the plight of farmers – a warning to Labour about the threat the Lib Dems pose in rural areas, for all that Ed Davey’s party has taken a less antagonistic approach so far.
[See also: The farmers’ revolt is coming for Labour]
But back to the main action. Questions five and six descended into the usual scrap over Labour’s troubled start to government and the Tories’ disastrous recent record. “Labour promises get broken,” howled Burghart, only for Rayner to gleefully respond: “I think it’s an audacity for the honourable gentleman to stand there and suggest in some way that Labour broke promises or raised taxes.” She was clearly having fun. So were the Labour MPs behind her, whooping and jeering. In fact, there were so many interruptions from both sides of the House that Speaker Lindsay Hoyle had to intervene multiple times and even threatened to throw some particularly rowdy members out – accidentally referring to Rayner as “Prime Minister” in the process, which just triggered more laughter. All in all, the whole session had the vibe of an unruly class facing a substitute teacher.
There were wins for both protagonists at the end, though. Rayner wrapped up by reminding the House of Badenoch’s poor performance last week, when the Tory leader admitted she supported the investment the government was making in public services, allowing Starmer and now his Deputy to accuse the Conservatives of wanting the benefits of the Budget without knowing how to pay for it – “straight back to putting everything on the credit card”, as Rayner triumphantly put it.
For his part, Burghart worked himself up into a fury listing all the groups Labour has negatively impacted so far – farmers, parents of children at private schools, small-business owners hit with the employers’ National Insurance rise, pensioners deprived of the winter fuel allowance – calling these policies a “punishment meted out to people who don’t vote Labour”. “Isn’t it the truth,” he bellowed with such aggression MPs on his own side looked taken aback, “that if you don’t vote Labour, they don’t care about you?”
Labour should be wary of this attack line. All governments have an incentive to prioritise groups who might vote for them over groups who definitely won’t. There is a reason that David Cameron’s “all in it together” austerity policy protected even the wealthiest pensioners with the triple lock while freezing public-sector pay and slashing benefits for working-age people. One could argue that Labour is simply redressing the balance and attempting to fill the fiscal black hole with cash clawed back from people who suffered least under the last government. But already a narrative is building that something different is going on: that Labour’s agenda is vindictive rather than pragmatic, driven by pettiness and a desire for class warfare, not by the need to balance the books. The government hasn’t had the best communications operation to date. They should take Burghart’s impassioned attack this week as a warning – and figure out a response, fast.
[See also: David Lammy: Trump doesn’t want Putin to win]
Content from our partners
Related
