PM picked ‘wrong Chancellor and wrong priorities', claims Badenoch
Kemi Badenoch has accused the Prime Minister of 'running away' from a 'U-turn' on winter fuel payments for pensioners.
The Conservative Party leader accused Sir Keir Starmer of appearing at the despatch box 'all puffed up and self-righteous', and claimed he has 'the wrong Chancellor and the wrong priorities'.
Sir Keir listed 'three trade deals, record investment, breakfast clubs, social affordable housing, defence review' and the decision to pump £14.2 billion into building Sizewell C nuclear power station in Suffolk as being among his achievements.
At Prime Minister's Questions, Mrs Badenoch told the Commons: 'Last year he said he was taking the winter fuel payment away to balance the books.
'But the books are not balanced, in fact they are worse.
'This year the deficit is forecast to be £10 billion higher since the budget.
'Not since last year's election, since the budget.
'In what way are the books now balanced?'
Chancellor Rachel Reeves last year announced that the Government would strip pensioners of the universal winter fuel payment, unless they claimed certain means-tested benefits.
But the Government has since said pensioners with a gross taxable income of less than £35,000 will be eligible for payments of up to £300 each winter.
Sir Keir replied: 'She's obviously missed the interest rate cuts, the growth figures for earlier this year, the strategic defence review, local transport – £15 billion going in, free school meals, Sizewell, social housing.
'She stands there to lecture us, and I see Liz Truss is obviously back in vogue.
'Advising Reform officially now, haunting the Tories, and I remind her that the shadow home secretary (Chris Philp), I think he was then chief secretary to the Treasury, he gave a Liz Truss budget 9.5 out of 10.
'The Leader of the Opposition said what was wrong with Liz Truss's budget was not necessarily the package, that was alright, it was the way it was sold.
'They've learnt absolutely nothing.'
In a follow-up question, Mrs Badenoch said the Prime Minister mentioned Ms Truss because he 'wants to hide from his own economic record'.
She added: 'He's a coward.
'Every time he stands up there and talks about Liz Truss it's because he is scared about talking about his record and what is happening to the economy out there.
'Let's bring it back to the U-turn which he's running away from.
'A U-turn on the policy his MPs went out defending time and time again.'
Mrs Badenoch continued: 'This is laughable.
'He stands there all puffed up and self-righteous.
'Why can't the Prime Minister just admit that he made a mistake?'
In his response, the Prime Minister said: 'Three weeks ago I said that I wanted more pensioners to be eligible for winter fuel.
'I'm really pleased we've set out the threshold for the certainty that is needed.
'She says I don't want to talk about record.
'What about three trade deals, record investment, breakfast clubs, social affordable housing, defence review, Sizewell, we could go on all morning.'
He added: 'At the weekend she said that she would be getting better in the role.
'She could start with apologising for the Liz Truss budget, that would be better.'
Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle rebuked laughing Labour MPs after Mrs Badenoch said her PMQs performances 'get better every week'.
He told them their behaviour was a 'very bad look'.
In her question, Mrs Badenoch said Ms Reeves said the winter fuel payment 'U-turn won't be funded through higher borrowing'.
She asked: 'So, will the Prime Minister admit that it will be funded by putting everybody's taxes up?'
Sir Keir said: 'At the budget, we put record investment in our NHS and our public services – record investment – but she comes every week to carp on about national insurance, but she doesn't stand there with the courage of her convictions and say she'll actually reverse it, and the reason she won't?
'Because she won't stand up and say she's against the investment in the NHS, she won't stand up and say she's against the investment in our public services, and we'll all listen very carefully in just 20 minutes when the Chancellor lays out more record investment as to whether they welcome it, or whether they'll say they wouldn't support it.'
In her final question, Mrs Badenoch said Ms Reeves had 'made bad choices – bad choices that mean higher inflation, bad choices that have led to lower growth, bad choices that have meant that jobs have been lost every single month since Labour come into office'.
She said 'thousands of families' had 'lost their incomes in Stoke, in Grangemouth, in Luton', before she asked: 'Isn't the truth that we've got the wrong Chancellor and the wrong priorities?'
Sir Keir said: 'A wrong choice they made was making her Leader of the Opposition.'
Turning to the Government's plan to hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, where the UK maintains a military presence on Diego Garcia, Mrs Badenoch had earlier claimed 'Mauritius is scrapping income tax' and asked: 'Why on earth should the British taxpayer pay £30 billion for tax cuts in Mauritius?'
The Government risked jeopardising the 'vital intelligence and strategic capability' on Diego Garcia without a deal, the Prime Minister warned.
'Legal uncertainty would compromise it in very short order,' he added.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
4 hours ago
- Fox News
Former AG Barr shreds Gavin Newsom's 'nonsense' legal claims as Trump sends in troops to quell LA riots
Former Attorney General Bill Barr criticized California Gov. Gavin Newsom's legal challenge to President Donald Trump's decision to deploy National Guard troops in response to recent riots in the state. Appearing on "The Story" Wednesday, Barr dismissed Newsom's lawsuit as unfounded. "[Newsom's] comments, his legal arguments are nonsense, they can't be taken seriously," Barr said. The lawsuit targets Trump's authority to federalize the National Guard without the permission of the state's governor. Newsom argues that the president overstepped his constitutional bounds when he called in troops, while the Trump administration maintains the move is well within federal powers. "The National Guard is an asset that can be used by the states for state purposes, but it also can be federalized and used by federal government for federal purposes," Barr explained. "This has happened throughout our history." According to a recent court filing, administration lawyers argue that the president is under "no obligation" to consult with or notify a state governor before activating the National Guard for federal use. Trump invoked a federal statute that allows the use of military forces in cases of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the U.S. government. Newsom contends the unrest does not rise to that threat level and insists deploying troops only escalated tensions. "Sending trained warfighters onto the streets is unprecedented and threatens the very core of our democracy," Newsom said in a statement earlier this week. "Donald Trump is behaving like a tyrant, not a President. We ask the court to immediately block these unlawful actions." The legal battle intensified after Newsom sought a temporary restraining order to block the deployment. On Tuesday night, a federal judge denied the immediate request but scheduled a hearing for Thursday to consider the state's motion. Barr defended the administration's legal stance, saying the federal law in question has long allowed the president to deploy the National Guard both domestically and abroad. "The very same provision that's being used here is used when the president has, throughout our history, sent National Guard troops overseas," Barr said. "The statute is clear that when the president makes that decision, the troops shall serve as directed by the president. The governors cannot veto the federal government's use of the National Guard." The Los Angeles riots broke out in response to federal immigration raids, with the White House sending in National Guard troops to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and federal buildings. Despite the unrest, the Department of Homeland Security says it has continued to arrest multiple convicted criminals in the United States illegally.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Abrego Garcia's lawyers ask judge to fine Trump administration for contempt
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia have asked a federal judge in Maryland to impose fines against the Trump administration for contempt, arguing that it flagrantly ignored court ordersfor several weeks to return him to the U.S. from El Salvador. Abrego Garcia's attorneys said the administration claimed to be powerless to retrieve him, even while it secretly built a human smuggling case against him. The U.S. brought Abrego Garcia to a federal court in Nashville, Tennessee last week to face those charges. 'The Government's defiance has not been subtle,' the attorneys said in a filing late Wednesday. 'It has been vocal and sustained and flagrant.' The attorneys also are asking U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis to compel the release of documents the federal government withheld by claiming they contain protected state secrets. Or as an alternative, the lawyers suggested a special master to investigate the government's 'willful noncompliance' of court orders. 'What the Government improperly seeks to hide must be exposed for all to see,' Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote. Their request came a day after the Trump administration said it will ask Xinis to dismiss the case, with U.S. attorneys describing recent accusations by Abrego Garcia's attorneys as baseless, desperate and disappointing. 'But the proof is in the pudding — Defendants have returned Abrego Garcia to the United States just as they were ordered to do,' they wrote. Legal experts said last month that the Abrego Garcia case may be headed for contempt. And the request by his attorneys adds to the ongoing friction between the White House and the courts during President Donald Trump's second term. Courts can hold parties to civil litigation or criminal cases in contempt for disobeying their orders. The penalty can take the form of fines or other civil punishments, or even prosecution and jail time, if pursued criminally. But contempt processes are slow and deliberative, and, when the government's involved, there's usually a resolution before penalties kick in. The U.S. mistakenly deported Abrego Garcia to an El Salvador prison in March. The expulsion violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded him from deportation to his native country because he likely faced gang persecution there. Abrego Garcia's American wife sued, prompting Xinis to order his return on April 4. The Supreme Court ruled April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back. Arguments ensued over the next several weeks about whether the Trump administration was following those orders or not. Trump also said publicly that he could return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. with a call to El Salvador President Nayib Bukele. Xinis ordered U.S. attorneys to submit documents and testimony to show what the government had done to follow her orders. The Trump administration claimed that much of that information is protected under the state secrets privilege. The judge has not ruled on that matter.


Hamilton Spectator
4 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Abrego Garcia's lawyers ask judge to fine Trump administration for contempt
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia have asked a federal judge in Maryland to impose fines against the Trump administration for contempt, arguing that it flagrantly ignored court ordersfor several weeks to return him to the U.S. from El Salvador. Abrego Garcia's attorneys said the administration claimed to be powerless to retrieve him , even while it secretly built a human smuggling case against him. The U.S. brought Abrego Garcia to a federal court in Nashville, Tennessee last week to face those charges. 'The Government's defiance has not been subtle,' the attorneys said in a filing late Wednesday. 'It has been vocal and sustained and flagrant.' The attorneys also are asking U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis to compel the release of documents the federal government withheld by claiming they contain protected state secrets . Or as an alternative, the lawyers suggested a special master to investigate the government's 'willful noncompliance' of court orders. 'What the Government improperly seeks to hide must be exposed for all to see,' Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote. Their request came a day after the Trump administration said it will ask Xinis to dismiss the case, with U.S. attorneys describing recent accusations by Abrego Garcia's attorneys as baseless, desperate and disappointing. 'But the proof is in the pudding — Defendants have returned Abrego Garcia to the United States just as they were ordered to do,' they wrote. Legal experts said last month that the Abrego Garcia case may be headed for contempt. And the request by his attorneys adds to the ongoing friction between the White House and the courts during President Donald Trump's second term. Courts can hold parties to civil litigation or criminal cases in contempt for disobeying their orders. The penalty can take the form of fines or other civil punishments, or even prosecution and jail time, if pursued criminally. But contempt processes are slow and deliberative, and, when the government's involved, there's usually a resolution before penalties kick in. The U.S. mistakenly deported Abrego Garcia to an El Salvador prison in March. The expulsion violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded him from deportation to his native country because he likely faced gang persecution there. Abrego Garcia's American wife sued, prompting Xinis to order his return on April 4 . The Supreme Court ruled April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back. Arguments ensued over the next several weeks about whether the Trump administration was following those orders or not. Trump also said publicly that he could return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. with a call to El Salvador President Nayib Bukele. Xinis ordered U.S. attorneys to submit documents and testimony to show what the government had done to follow her orders. The Trump administration claimed that much of that information is protected under the state secrets privilege . The judge has not ruled on that matter. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .