Rocketing dud Sir Keir did well to answer the most boring man in Parliament, writes QUENTIN LETTS
Prime Minister's Questions began with news that a Houthi drone factory in Yemen had been destroyed by the RAF.
But the drone factory at Westminster was still producing annoying devices – known by various names, most politely 'MPs' or 'backbenchers' – that are capable of doing terrible damage to the nation's morale.
The Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, had just initiated proceedings when there came a mosquito-like whine. Old-timers ducked for safety.
More innocent souls looked up, left and right, trying to locate the source of this irritating, doomful hum.
Then they spotted it: a little chap on the Lib Dem benches, not much above 5ft, who was clutching his usual cue cards (few of the new intake have the wit to memorise their questions).
Oh no, it was Wokingham's Clive Jones, the most boring man in Parliament! He makes even 'Bozo Bill' Esterson look a gifted raconteur.
Mr Jones put his question. It was not a short one. They never are.
What meagre energy the House had possessed was swiftly going down the plughole. MPs started talking over him.
Mr Jones put his question. It was not a short one. They never are. Although I am sometimes critical of Sir Keir Starmer – himself a rocketing dud – it must be said that he did well to produce some sort of answer to Mr Jones, says Letts
Mr Jones, oblivious to his shortcomings, seemed to imagine that the laughter was reward for his oratorical brilliance rather than in mockery of his E.L. Wisty dullness.
Eventually Speaker Hoyle pulled out his Luger and shot Mr Jones out of the skies.
Although I am sometimes critical of Sir Keir Starmer – himself a rocketing dud – it must be said that he did well to produce some sort of answer to Mr Jones.
Few others in the chamber had a clue as to what the Wokingham wombat had been saying.
Next up: Dan Tomlinson (Lab, Chipping Barnet). Drones sometimes go phut mid-flight. This happened to Tomlinson.
Operator error. He made the mistake of trying to suck up to his whips by asking Sir Keir a patsy question about the opposition.
You are supposed to ask the PM about government responsibilities. Sir Lindsay rightly told Mr Tomlinson to shut up.
The Chipping Barnet stooge tried to finish his question but his microphone had been switched off. His final words went mercifully unheard as his rotor blades bit the turf and his mission ended in tinkling disaster.
Little Sam Carling (Lab, NW Cambs) had a question. Mr Carling is aged about 14. As his moment approached he looked pale. Kept swallowing.
Checked his flies. Tugged at his fringe. I thought he was going to be sick.
His question turned out to be another whips special, imploring the PM to update Cambridgeshire residents on Labour's 'plan for change'. Young Carling sat down with a look of immense relief.
Now he could go and have a can of pop at the tuck shop.
Julie Minns (Lab, Carlisle and North Cumbria), listing villages that had breakfast clubs, also managed to say 'plan for change'.
So did Josh Simons (Lab, Makerfield). The Chief Whip looked faintly disgusted. Whips never respect sycophants.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Con, Harwich and North Essex) gave a plug to a coming concert by the parliamentary choir. It seemed he might be about to list the entire programme.
Sir Bernard, who once considered trying to become a professional tenor, could at least have sung his question.
Mark Francois (Con, Rayleigh and Wickford) banged on about the late Dame Vera Lynn. A shameless pitch for the Gen Z vote.
Nigel Farage (Reform, Clacton) asked about immigration but he was hard to hear in the chamber, either because his microphone was not working or because he lacks Sir Bernard's vocal projection.
Sir Keir, having already had a tricky time with Kemi Badenoch, was snappy about both Reform and the Tories.
The PM's best moment was when he joked about Robert Jenrick 'still running' after the London marathon.
Lady Starmer was in an upstairs gallery. A rare visitor. During the ten minutes I watched her, she betrayed no emotion, not even when her husband did OK.
An expressionless visage. She was not quite sad but lacked rapture. Perhaps she hates this place.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
25 minutes ago
- Sky News
Spending review 2025: Cutting agricultural budget could be 'catastrophic' for nature, farmers and charities warn
The National Trust and RSPB have joined forces with farmers to warn the government that cutting the agricultural budget could be "catastrophic" for nature and rural businesses. In a letter to food security and rural affairs minister Daniel Zeichner, exclusively seen by Sky News, a dozen of the biggest rural industry organisations say they are "deeply concerned" about rumoured cuts that will be made to the agricultural budget in Wednesday's spending review. Chancellor Rachel Reeves will set out budgets for each government department for the rest of this parliament, set to end in 2029. The letter says cutting funding for existing and new environmental farming schemes will be "catastrophic" to the government's aims for the environment. "Many of the environmental features present in the countryside and enjoyed by the public will be under threat and will disappear," the letter says. "This would be a poor legacy for this government." Sir Keir Starmer's government has made getting to net zero by 2050 a key goal, already initiating several policies to restrict carbon emissions and make the UK greener since winning the election last July. However, the government shocked farmers in March when it shut down applications for the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), which rewards farmers for managing their land in environmentally sustainable ways, with just a few hours' notice as they said a cap had been reached for the year. The rural organisations say the Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme payments are "critical to the government's statutory targets on environmental improvement", including the main goal of halting the decline of biodiversity. 3:26 The letter states farmers and landowners are fully committed to environmental schemes, with 77,000 live agri-environment scheme agreements, according to the latest government figures, "with millions of hectares under environmental land management". "So much good has been done by these agreements, the oldest of which has run for decades," the letter says. "The unprecedented engagement in the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) is testament to the appetite of farmers and land managers to rise to the challenge and do more." The letter finishes with: "The industry would like to have your assurances that this critical work will continue to be funded at the same level." David Wilson, a farmer for 53 years, told Sky News it took many years for farmers to get on board with the environmental schemes but they are now joined up, and reducing funding could damage years of work and be a backwards step for not just the UK's environment, but the world's. "This is ultimately about sustainability. To produce good food, you need good ecology and reducing this funding could damage the UK's ecology and our food security," he added. A return to intensive farming Alex Robinson, 39, a farmer from Gloucestershire with 424 hectares, said the schemes have been "a lifeline for nature", with birds, bees and wildflowers returning - including 14 red-listed bird species, many that had not been seen in decades. His farm's soil health is improving, which means he can grow more resilient nutrient dense crops for people to eat. If funding is cut he said he "may have no choice but to return to intensive farming methods sooner than the soils are ready for", with wildflowers and field margins becoming "difficult to justify", which will put the UK's climate, biodiversity and long-term food security "in real danger". Government will be abandoning nature Signatory Victoria Vyvyan, farmer and president of the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), said: "If sustainable farming contracts are cut, government won't just abandon nature - it will abandon its own environmental and legal commitments. "The Sustainable Farming Incentive is working - for farmers, for nature, for the public, and for the Treasury. It's bringing back wildlife, cleaning up rivers, and restoring the health of our soil. "Take away the funding for nature contracts, and farmers will be pushed back to intensive methods - forced to undo years of progress. Nature will suffer as well as farmers, and on the environment, it will go against everything government claims to agree with." The letter has been signed by the heads of The National Trust, the National Farmers' Union (NFU), the RSPB, the Soil Association, the CLA, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, the Nature Friendly Farming Network, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs, the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants and the Agricultural Industries Confederation.
Edinburgh Reporter
2 hours ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Demands for UK Government to do more for housing in Scotland
First Minister John Swinney has urged the UK Government to do more to support Scotland's housing sector in the upcoming Spending Review. The First Minister will set out his vision for the future of Scotland's housing sector in a speech at the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations in Glasgow later. Ahead of his speech the First Minister said: 'Scotland faces a housing crisis which is why we are investing £768 million in affordable housing in 2025-26, the majority of which will be for social rent. This includes up to £40 million for acquisitions, to help reduce the number of homeless households, especially with children, in temporary accommodation. 'We are keenly aware of the benefits of providing multi-year spending plans to our partners and want to prove this stability across the public sector. We continue to call on the UK Government to provide multi-year funding for housing to give developers and third sector organisations long-term certainty. 'The UK Government must also commit to unfreezing Local Housing Allowance rates. These rates set the amount that private renters receive to help with rent. Increasing these rates can be a key lever that can help protect tenants. Repegging these rates to the 30th percentile of local rents would mean greater security for many households across Scotland.' Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer met with First Minister of Scotland, John Swinney in July 2024 at Bute House. Photo courtesy of The Scottish Government Like this: Like Related
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Winter fuel humiliation: After huge U-turn Rachel Reeves bizarrely claims she was 'right' to cut handout - while Sir Keir Starmer is ridiculed for suggesting move is now possible because Labour's 'fixed' stricken economy
Labour 's spending plans descended into chaos last night as Rachel Reeves backed down over winter fuel. The Chancellor said all pensioners with incomes of less than £35,000 will get the payment this winter following a huge public backlash over last year's cuts. The humiliating climbdown means nine million pensioners will receive the handout – worth up to £300 a household – at a cost of £1.25billion. Ms Reeves refused to apologise for the original decision to slash the number of those eligible for the payment – a move which triggered a collapse in Labour's poll rating. She insisted she had been 'right' to cut the payment last year. And, despite having repeatedly attacked opponents for making 'unfunded' spending pledges, she refused to say how she will pay for the U-turn. Labour MPs seized on the Chancellor's political weakness and lined up to demand that she now scrap the two-child benefit cap and cancel plans to cut disability benefits at a combined cost of £8.5billion a year, fuelling fears of further tax rises. Downing Street claimed the U-turn was possible because the economy had now 'turned a corner', despite the fact the Office for Budget Responsibility has halved official growth forecasts for this year. Sir Keir Starmer insisted Labour had ' fixed the foundations of the economy', in spite of rising unemployment and inflation. Reform leader Nigel Farage, who pledged this month to restore the payment in full, said Labour's U-turn was triggered by 'blind panic' at its collapsing poll ratings. The Treasury said the winter fuel reverse would not lead to a 'permanent rise in borrowing'. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said this was likely to mean 'permanent additional taxes'. The move came ahead of tomorrow's spending review, when the Chancellor will announce a spending spree totalling an extra £300billion over five years – equal to £8,100 for every taxpayer in Britain. Labour minister Sir Chris Bryant said the review would mark 'the end of austerity'. But Tory business spokesman Andrew Griffith said Labour was 'massively adding to the national debt our children will have to pay and ensuring that taxes will rise and growth will fall'. Economists last night warned that the financial markets could turn on Labour if ministers were unwilling to keep spending on a 'sustainable path'. The Chancellor's decision to means test the winter fuel allowance was one of Labour's first steps in office last July. It meant that around 10million pensioners lost the previously universal benefit last winter. The decision also helped trigger a plunge in Labour's ratings and was widely blamed for the party's dismal performance in last month's local elections, when it lost two-thirds of the seats it was defending. A More in Common poll yesterday found that just 14 per cent of voters now think the Chancellor is doing a good job. Ms Reeves yesterday said she had 'listened to people's concerns'. Kemi Badenoch urged ministers to apologise for the 'callous' decision to cut eligibility for the payment last year. The Tory leader said: 'Pensioners were forced to choose between heating and eating last winter. Keir Starmer should apologise to them.' Tory work and pensions spokesman Helen Whately said the U-turn was 'most humiliating climb down a government has ever faced in its first year in office'. Ms Whately added that the cut had contributed to an extra 100,000 visits by pensioners to A&E departments last winter. 'Their mistake has hurt people and it is cowardly not to own up to it,' she said. But, asked if she would apologise, Ms Reeves said: 'The irresponsible thing to have done last year was to allow the public finances to carry on on an unsustainable footing.' She added: 'I'm always going to put stability in our economy first.' At present, only pensioners with an income of less than £11,800 are eligible for the winter fuel payment. This will treble to £35,000 this winter. It will continue to be £200 per household or £300 for the over-80s. The winter fuel retreat emboldened Labour rebels pushing for increased welfare spending. Left-winger Nadia Whittome said the episode had been a 'fiasco' for the Government and urged ministers to now abandon £5billion of cuts to disability benefits that are designed to curb the ballooning welfare budget. Bradford East MP Imran Hussain said it would be wrong to continue with 'devastating' cuts to disabled support. Former leadership contender Rebecca Long-Bailey welcomed the U-turn but said it was also 'right to lift children out of poverty' by scrapping the two-child benefit cap. The decision to restore the winter fuel payment to three-quarters of pensioners was welcomed by campaign groups. Caroline Abrahams, of Age UK, said Ms Reeves' reversal 'will be a huge relief to many'. Who will now get winter fuel payments? If you are over state pension age and your income is less than £35,000 your household will now be eligible. How much is it worth? The annual payment is worth £200 per household, or £300 if someone who lives there is over 80. How do I get it? The payment will be made automatically to all pensioner households and then recouped from any that aren't eligible. Who will have to repay it? If your income is above £35,000, your payment will be 'recovered' by HMRC or you can opt out. What if my partner's income is below £35,000? Payments will be assessed on individual, not household, income. Payments are split if a household has two pensioners. In the case of a couple where one has an income above the threshold and one below it, half the total will be paid to the pensioner with the lower income. Can I just turn it down? If you know that you definitely won't qualify for a winter fuel payment, as your income is more than £35,000, you can opt out to avoid the hassle of paying it back. What if I need to pay it back? Pensioners whose income is above £35,000 and who don't opt out will need to pay all of it back. It will be repaid either via a self-assessment tax return, for those who complete one, or automatically through PAYE. The Treasury said: 'No one will need to register with HMRC for this or take any further action.' Is this plan for all of the UK? The Treasury announced this move for England and Wales, but Scotland and Northern Ireland might make separate new arrangements. Last winter, Scotland replaced the Winter Fuel Payment with the Pension Age Winter Heating Payment. Northern Ireland made a one-off £100 payment to pensioners who lost their winter fuel payments. How much will this cost? The cost of reinstating Winter Fuel Payments for those now eligible is estimated at £1.25billion in England and Wales. Compared to when the payments were a universal benefit for pensioners, the savings will now only be around £450million annually.
