Sunak and Starmer need to change the record at PMQs

Rishi Sunak was clearly not on a fasting day of his diet when he stood up at Prime Minister’s Questions this afternoon. He seemed to have consumed all the Weetabix in SW1, with more energy behind his attacks on Keir Starmer than he’s had for weeks. This didn’t mean the session veered away from its standard theme of two men fighting over who is the weaker, like dads at a barbecue vying over their DIY failures while burning the chicken. 

Each week’s weak-off has the same lines. Sunak’s are that Starmer sat next to Jeremy Corbyn for ‘four long years, not challenging him’ and that he can’t stand up to his union bosses. Meanwhile Starmer regularly accuses Sunak of not standing up to his own predecessors and cabinet colleagues who are mired in sleaze and bullying allegations. On and on it goes.

Today, the Labour leader opened by asking about the Nadhim Zahawi row, mocking the Prime Minister’s insistence on leading a government of ‘integrity and accountability’ and asking for more details of what Sunak knew about the Tory chairman’s tax affairs, and when. He went on to ask: ‘Is the Prime Minister now also going to claim that he is the only person completely unaware of serious allegations of bullying against the Deputy Prime Minister?’ Dominic Raab was sitting next to Sunak, and appeared to be mouthing ‘not true’. Meanwhile Rachel Reeves on the Labour side became increasingly exasperated and theatrically waved Raab away while shouting across the Chamber at him. She was, if it’s possible, even more energised than the Prime Minister. 

The problem for Sunak is that he continues to offer a commentary on when people told him about serious allegations, often strangely much later than everyone else appeared to know them already. He insisted that ‘I followed due process, appointed an independent adviser as soon as I was made aware of new information’. He then – rightly – attacked Starmer for not standing up for Rosie Duffield, who has said that being in the Labour party reminds her of being in an abusive relationship.

The Prime Minister pointed out that ‘his own office was caught undermining her’ – a reference to a briefing from a figure in Starmer’s team that Duffield should be spending more time in her constituency and less with JK Rowling. Starmer recently told The Spectator that he would stand up for Duffield ‘in terms of respect and tolerance’, but has continued to dodge questions on whether she is supported in airing her gender critical views in the party. The Prime Minister concluded that ‘if he can’t be trusted to stand up for the women in his party, he can’t be trusted to stand up for Britain’. 

What was missing from either man’s contribution today was a case for them being strong leaders with important ideas. Sunak stuck doggedly to the ‘due process once people told me’ line, while Starmer enjoyed the fact he was asking questions rather than giving any of his own answers. Sunak might have had a much more effective day on the attack, but he doesn’t give the impression of being someone who thinks they’ve got much to defend.