Penultimate clash: PMQ's series

It is Wednesday again and what does this mean? Another round of Prime Minister's Questions. Since Starmer entered into the jousting arena, I think that he has regularly dominated Johnson at PMQ's and today was no different. He exposed him on questions of fact and is well-briefed, measured and rational in his performance. He does not pertain to any ideology or elicit any radical ideas. There is now one more PMQ's before parliament adjourns for the rest of the summer. Starmer needs to make it count. 

This week, Starmer was the clear winner with an arc of questions that exposed the PM to accusations that he was not performing to the same standard on detail. There is increasing talk that the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, could be Johnson's successor. Like Starmer, Sunak is articulate, calm and good on detail. I would be looking forward to view the change in dynamics if this were the case in the coming years. A PMQ's where debate and accountability has more potential to flourish and answers to be given rather than the mumbling and baffle that comes out of Johnson. 

Opposition Questions 

I will start with Starmer's questions to the Prime Minister this week. Starmer started the session by asking about the lack of sector-specific support for aviation. He stated: "BA have announced 12,000 redundancies, Virgin 3,000, EasyJet 1900. If the Government's priority really is to project jobs, why did the Chancellor not bring forward sector specific details that could have done precisely that?" Johnson argued it was not possible to keep every job the same after the pandemic and he exhorted the country to "build, build, build." The PM glided into his usual Punch and Judy style by saying that Labour's front bench could not decide whether to support Sunak's mini-budget. He stated: "Last week, the shadow chancellor supported our programme. This week, he says he opposes it. Which is it?" A typical style of defence by Boris that we have seen throughout the weeks, especially when posed with questions that put him under pressure. 

Starmer remained calm and composed. Not being surprised that Johnson adopted this style of defense. He replied: "This is such rhetorical nonsense. Since the Chancellor sat down last week around 10,000 people have lost their jobs. The Prime Minister should focus on them, not political rhetoric." Starmer used a case study to contribute to his forensic style of questioning that he is accustomed towards. He stated that British Airways treatment of its staff was "totally unacceptable" he pulled out an email sent by the PM to BA staff in June that said firms must not use furlough to "cynically" change terms condition. He said: "Will the PM now intervene and make clear that actions like those at BA cannot be allowed to stand without consequences for landing slots?" On his response, Johnson seemed relaxed, referring to "our great companies." He stated that workers should be kept in employment "where they possibly can." Johnson continued by saying: "British Airways and many other companies are in severe difficulties at the moment, and we cannot I'm afraid, simply with a magic wand, ensure that every single job that was being done before the crisis is retained after the crisis." 

This was not an acceptable answer for Starmer. Starmer replied by saying: "The Prime Minister knows exactly what I'm talking about - it is the rehiring of 30,000 people at BA on worse terms and conditions and he should call it out." He continued with a report of the Government advisory group on preparing for a possible winter spike of Covid-19 and the flu together. The report predicts that in a worst-case scenario, a resurgence of Covid-19 this winter could kill up to 120,000 people and it says preparation for this in the coming weeks is vital to reduce the death toll. He asked: "Would the PM implement the report's recommendations in full and at speed?" Starmer pounced on the vague reply, saying he was "surprised" the PM did not commit to fully implementing the report, which included a "significantly expanded NHS Test and Trace to save lives." He then asked: "What assurances could the PM give that the system will be fit for both purposes in the timeframe envisaged in this report?"Johnson used his usual defensive technique and stated: "Once again he attacks the test and trace operation. Instead of knocking the confidence of the country in the test and trace system, now is the time for him to return to his previous script and build it up." Of course, Johnson is completely unaware that no one had done more to reduce public confidence in the government's response to the pandemic than himself. 

Starmer condemned Johnson's approach by stating: "It is perfectly possible to support track and trace, and point out the problems. And standing up every week saying it's a stunning success is kidding no one. That isn't giving people confidence in the system. They would like a prime minister who stands up and says: "There are problems and this is what I'm going to do about them." Then, this is where the real turning point happens at PMQ's. Starmer says: "I have to ask, in light of the last few questions: has the prime minister actually read this report, that sets out the reasonable worst-case scenario and tells the government what it needs to do about it in the next six weeks? Has he read it?" Johnson replied: "I am, of course, aware of the report, and we are, of course, taking every reasonable step to prepare this country for a second spike." This understandably brought jeers from some opposition MPs and knocked confidence of people in the country. 

For the final question, Starmer switched his questions by reading out the words of bereaved families who wanted the Government to learn lessons from the first wave of the coronavirus to save lives if there was a second wave. He also said he was meeting families bereaved by coronavirus later in the day. His final question was: "So what would the Prime Minister like to say to them?" Johnson said he would do everything he could to prevent a second spike, but ended with a prepared joke about Starmer's legal past by saying, "He needs to make up his mind which brief he's going to take today. Because at the moment he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein." I think it was very insensitive and inappropriate to include such a joke in a serious and solemn question. But can we expect any different? It is standard strategy for Johnson to lash out with diversionary tactics. Like a little boy throwing his dummy out the pram. Except in this case, it is insensitive jokes. 

SNP Questions

The SNP Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, was focused on the issue of devolution and Scotland in his questioning today. He accused the government of overseeing a "power grab" over the Scottish Parliament through Brexit. He accused the PM of a "hostile agenda" against devolution. The PM replied by saying that he is "on the contrary" overseeing what is possibly the "biggest single act of devolution in modern memory." He says that 70 powers are being transferred to the Scottish Parliament. However, Blackford made sure to note in today's PMQ's how Nicola Sturgeon's approval ratings are three times higher than the PMs. 

This series of questions is after controversy this week over the UK Government's plans to impose an unaccountable body to rule on decision made by Nicola Sturgeon. This jeopardising the devolution rules. Blackford made it clear in PMQ's that, "Westminster's plan to impose an unelected, unaccountable body to rule on decision made by the Scottish Parliament will not be accepted. The decisions of the Scottish Parliament must and will be decided by the Scottish people." Johnson however made clear that it was the opposite situation by stating, "He should be celebrating. What he wants is trade barriers between England and Scotland. He talks about unelected people, he wants to hand power to Brussels!" Yet, Blackford fought back in true Scottish style. He stated: "A Brexit settlement Scotland rejected, imposed on Scotland. An immigration settlement Scotland rejected, imposed on Scotland. A decade of Tory government Scotland rejected, imposed on Scotland...Effective leadership and respecting the will of the people contrasted with the bumbling shambles coming from Westminster. Scotland has the right to have her decision made by those we elect. Not bureaucrats appointed by Westminster." Blackford being seen as relentless in his questioning, a strong figure for the SNP. 

He asked: "Will the Prime Minister guarantee that his plans will not be imposed on Scotland and Scotland will have the chance to choose for ourselves?" The Prime Minister blasted in response: "It sounds extraordinary for him to attack unelected bureaucrats for any role they may have in Scotland when his proposal is to hand back the power that this place is going to be transferring to Scotland back to Brussels where they are neither elected nor accountable to the people of Scotland...As to his point about respecting referendum results, I think the House will recall that there was a referendum on the issue of Scottish independence, on the issue of breaking up the Union in 2014.They said at the time that it was going to be a once in a generation event. I think they should keep their promises to the people of this country and to the people of Scotland." 

This raises the issue of Scotland's future and as a population, we have no idea what will be on hold for our country in the future. It is a scary situation when we constantly have policies enforced on us by a government that we did not elect. I feel that there is only so many times that questions can be posed to the PM and the same answers are given. It almost seems like a waste of questioning now as nothing is happening. We need action rather than just the same answers and no change. 

Other questions 

In terms of other questioning by MPs, the PM answered a question from Ed Davey, the Lib Dems' interim leader. A question in which Johnson committed for the first time to holding an independent inquiry into the handling of the pandemic. However, he did state that now was not the “right moment” for it. This gives hope for the future and the idea that we will learn from the actions towards this crisis so that nothing similar happens again.

The MP Sir Graham Brady, the chair of the 1922 committee of Tory backbenchers, asked the PM to "commit to revising government advice urgently on whether people should return to work." He asked: "Does the PM agree with me the worst reason for staying at home is to follow blanket government advice?" The PM says employers should decide in consultation with their workers whether “it is safe” for them to return to work. He hails British firms for "making huge strides" in making workplaces safe.

Labour’s Paul Blomfield asked whether ministers will provide the extra funding to pay care workers more. The PM said £3.2 bn has been given to local authorities, with £600m to fight infection in care homes.

Tory MP Heather Wheeler asks the PM to voice his support for low-emission hybrid cars as a way to transition to zero-emission transport in the future. Johnson said "hybrids and plug-in cars can make a huge difference and they're an important part of our transition to zero-emissions vehicles".

Labour MP Darren Jones picks the PM up on previous comments on workers and businesses subject to local lockdowns that "nobody should be penalised for doing the right thing". But he says the business secretary couldn't give any further details and asks for clarity on what support they will receive. Mr Johnson says £160bn has been given to people and firms across the country and areas in lockdown have been given "considerable grants". He stated: "The best thing possible is for them all to work hard, as Blackburn and Darwen have done, to get the virus down and make sure they're able to open up again."

This PMQ's was a battleground and a test for Johnson's debating skills yet again. I would say that Starmer is governing more of these PMQ's than the prime minister. Starmer showed dominance and maintained professionalism. I like the fact that he does not downgrade himself to Johnson's pettiness of personal digs and rambling on without evidence to back himself up. He is clear in his questioning. He demands answers and has the case studies and evidence to rightly demand them. I hope that Boris has now realised that you cannot argue with the statistics, even though he attempts to and fails miserably.