Keir Starmer could have made Prime Minister’s Questions much more uncomfortable for Rishi Sunak, given the state of the Tory party. The Labour leader decided to focus his first three questions on the murder of Zara Aleena and the Probation Service failings that allowed her death to happen.
Starmer listed the devastating findings of the Chief Inspector of Probation into the case, which included short staffing, excessive workload and systemic problems which meant such a murder could happen again. He linked this to the government’s ‘botched and then reversed privatisation after a decade of underinvestment’. Starmer then quoted the accusation of Aleena’s family, that the ‘government has blood on their hands’ at Sunak, and asked him whether he accepted that claim, along with the report’s findings.
A much more aggressive and effective attack came from SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn
Sunak initially listed the things the government was already doing to ensure that the Probation Service improved, but after the ‘blood on their hands’ question, switched into political mode, saying:
‘One of the other things we must remember, Mr Speaker, if we do want to increase the safety of women and girls out on our streets, that we need tough sentencing and that’s why this government passed the Police, Crime and Sentencing Act, which the honourable gentleman opposite and his party opposed.’
Starmer then changed direction, asking whether Sunak agreed ‘that any politician who seeks to avoid the taxes they owe in this country is not fit to be in charge of taxpayer’s money.’
The mood of the Chamber switched at this point from MPs looking grave about the Aleena case to jeers and heckles about Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs. This really was uncomfortable for Sunak, who did all he could to distance himself from the case.
‘The issues in question occurred before I was Prime Minister,’ he insisted, adding: ‘No issues were raised with me when he was appointed to his current role and since I commented on this matter last week, more information has come. And that is why I have asked the independent advisor to look into that.’
This might have made Sunak look like he was being messed around by Zahawi and indeed the civil service, but it also made him look weak: as though he was not in control of his team or Whitehall more widely. The exchanges grew more bad-tempered. Sunak insisted he wanted to abide by due process rather than deal with the matter purely for the benefit of PMQs.
Starmer then used his final question to come out with a line that drew an audible gasp from MPs, including Tories: ‘Is he starting to wonder if this job is just too big for him?’ Sunak shot back by pointing out that Starmer had sat in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet for ‘four long years’ ‘when antisemitism ran rife’.
Starmer’s attacks could have been better. It is always difficult to cover two topics well in just six questions, especially when you are moving from a murder to an intensely political row. It meant the mood of the chamber had to change dramatically – and that Starmer didn’t have Sunak in as uncomfortable a position by the end. But Sunak was still quite clearly on the defensive, both about his government’s record and his own judgement.
A much more aggressive and effective attack came from SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn:
‘May I ask the Prime Minister, what advice would he have for individuals seeking to protect their personal finances? Should they seek out a future chair of the BBC to help secure an £800,000 loan? Should they set up a trust in Gibraltar and hope that HMRC simply don’t notice? Or should they do as others have done, and simply apply for non dom status?’
It was effective because it showed how many scandals there have been involving prominent Conservatives and their finances recently. And it was more direct. The quality of attack is still something Starmer needs to work on, even with this much material available.
Comments