Tory MP launches astonishing attack on Kemi Badenoch after staggering blunder
There were gasps across the Commons as Kemi Badenoch accused Keir Starmer of 'evading' PMQs to attend two major international summits - prompting Tory Mark Pritchard to voice his disbelief
"Unserious" Kemi Badenoch was dramatically slammed by one of her backbenchers after a stunning Commons blunder.
Conservative MP Mark Pritchard launched an astonishing attack on his own leader after she lashed out at Keir Starmer for missing PMQs for two weeks. Mr Pritchard said he may lose the party whip for speaking his mind - but said "so be it".
It came after Ms Badenoch accused the PM of "evading" PMQs to attend the G7 and NATO summits at a time of global crisis. The remark was met with disbelief across the Commons, and Mr Starmer said he could see from the faces of Tory MPs that there was "disquiet" within her own ranks.
Addressing the comments, Mr Pritchard said: "Whilst we may disagree on the detail, can I agree with the Prime Minister as far as possible in this place. It would be better to keep partisan politics out of national security issues.
"And who knows, I may get the whip withdrawn for saying it, but so be it. There are things that go beyond party politics. So can I thank the Prime Minister for all his hard work in the national security interests of this country?"
It came after Ms Badenoch said: "He has evaded Prime Minister's Questions for two weeks, only to come back here only to come back here to tell us what we already heard on the news."
Mr Starmer said the comment showed how "unserious" she was. He said: ""There has never been a more important time to work with our allies, and to be absolutely serious in our response. That response was unserious. Unserious.
"To suggest that at a time like this that the Prime Minister attending a G7 summit and the Nato summit is avoiding PMQs is unserious. What happened at Nato yesterday was historic. It was very important at a time like this that Nato showed unity and strength with a commitment to the future, not just to the past.
"That took a huge amount of work with our allies over the last few days and weeks. We have been centrally involved in that, crafting the final outcome, and we were recognised as having done so. I am proud that we helped put that summit into the right place, and the world emerged safer as a result."
And he continued: "For the leader of the Opposition to belittle it just shows how irrelevant she and the party opposite have become. They used to be serious about these issues, they used to be capable of cross-party consensus, and all of that is slipping away."
The comments were echoed by Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey. He told the Commons: "The Liberal Democrats agree that would it be wrong to leave an empty chair in front of the Union Jack at the table for the G7.
"And I share his surprise is now Conservative policy not to attend the G7 and I am astonished."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Former Iran diplomat makes disturbing claim to Aussie journalist following US bombings
Iran could rebuild its nuclear sites within months, a former Iranian diplomat has warned. Seyed Hossein Mousavian, who previously served as a senior member of Iran's nuclear diplomacy team, said recent US strikes only 'partly' destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities and that the country still retains its nuclear 'know-how'. 'There is no doubt... Iranian nuclear facilities have been attacked, have been bombed, have been damaged,' he told the ABC's 7.30 program on Thursday. 'You can imagine buildings, utilities, even perhaps centrifuges have been destroyed, partly, not all. 'Nevertheless, if the objective of the US-Israeli air strikes aim and objective was to destroy (the) Iranian nuclear program, I'm confident they have failed. 'Even if they have another attack, even if they have 100 attacks, they will fail because you can not kill technology and know-how, Iranians, they have know-how.' Mr Mousavian, who claims to no longer be affiliated with the Iranian regime, suggested it might take only months to reconstruct the country's nuclear facilities. 'Iranians have the know-how technology and they can reconstruct everything, whether that would take one month or five months or six months, it doesn't matter.' The US launched an array of strikes on Saturday after Israel and Iran's long-standing feud developed into a direct conflict earlier this month. The strikes involved 125 US military aircraft and targeted three nuclear facilities: Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. Mr Mousavian's comments stand in stark contrast to those of US President Donald Trump who has claimed the bombings devastated the country's nuclear facilities. 'Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The former Iranian diplomat is not the first to suggest the damage could have been less extensive than Trump had suggested, including by his own intelligence agencies. An initial assessment by the US Defense Intelligence Agency also suggested Iran's path to building a nuclear weapon might have been set back only by months. Trump shrugged off the findings in an appearance at a NATO summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday, claiming they were 'inconclusive'. 'It was very severe. It was obliteration,' he said. CIA director John Ratcliffe has since said the strikes had 'severely damaged' Iran's nuclear facilities but stopped short of stating the nuclear program had been wiped out. Asked by Mr Speers whether he believed Iran would remain in the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Mr Mousavian was non-committal. 'It depends to the US. If the US would be committed to international rules and regulations,' he said. 'If the US would respect Non-Proliferation Treaty, if the US would respect the rights of Iran like other members of Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran would stay. 'Iran, like before, would never go for nuclear bombs, like before, Iran would cooperate at the highest level of transparency and inspections, to ensure its nuclear program is peaceful.' Mr Speers then asked whether, in Mr Mousavian's view, there would be an 'incentive' for Iran to speed up its efforts towards building a nuclear weapon. 'It depends on the US. If the US is going to accelerate hostilities, wars, assassinations, terror, cyberattacks, why they should not? 'That sounds like a threat. 'It is (the) American threat. It is (the) Israeli threat. Why you are saying vice-versa? 'Iran has been attacked. Iran did not attack. Israel attacked Iran. The US attacked Iran. But now we are discussing about Iranian threat?'
Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
How much each NATO country will pay to meet 5% defence spending target
NATO agreed at a summit in The Hague this week to set a defence spending target of 5% of GDP for all its members following months of pressure from US President Donald Trump . The agreement, which seeks to boost defence expenditure in Europe 'back to the levels of the Cold War,' as Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb put it, gives members of the security bloc ten years to hit the new target. It's a major revamp of the way the transatlantic alliance calculates defence spending - and one that many analysts doubt is achievable for several of the bloc's members. Of the 5% of GDP members are expected to earmark for defence in 2035, 3.5% will be dedicated to core military spending, with a further 1.5% dedicated to security-related areas. This includes infrastructure - adapted roads, bridges, ports and airfields needed to host and deploy armies to a battlefield - as well as cybersecurity and broader societal changes and civilian programmes to prepare a population for conflict. According to the new regulations, weapons and ammunition that NATO members supply to Ukraine will be factored into the total spend, making the new target slightly easier to reach. The targets may also be adjusted in 2029. But many European countries have expressed concern that they will struggle to meet 5%. Spain, meanwhile, has openly declared it will not come close to meeting the target, leading Trump to threaten to slap tariffs on Spanish goods to make up for the deficit. The UK's current defence spend is 2.33% of GDP, amounting to almost $81.4 billion. If Britain were required to meet the 5% target today, the Government would need to set aside a whopping $192 billion. Our interactive map below displays the current defence expenditure of all the NATO countries, both as a percentage figure of GDP and in monetary terms. As a comparison, you can also see how much money 5% of GDP equates to today. Following Russia 's annexation of Crimea in 2014, NATO members agreed at a summit in Wales to commit 2% of their GDP to defence to help ensure the alliance's military readiness. A decade later, in 2024 - two years into Russia's full-scale war in Ukraine - only 23 of the bloc's 32 members had managed to achieve the target. Now, they're expected to double down even further. The bloc-wide push to increase defence spending comes amid concerns over Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine and the Trump administration's desire to reduce Europe's dependency on Washington for defence and security as Washington turns its focus to China and the Indo-Pacific. NATO allies dedicate a much smaller share of their economic output to defence than Russia but, taken together, they spend significantly more cash than Moscow. Russia's military spending rose by 38% in 2024, reaching an estimated $149 billion and 7.1% of GDP, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The US is still by far the biggest spender on defence overall in terms - forking out a total of $967.7billion, equivalent to 3.38% of GDP. But America falls behind Poland and Estonia in percentage spend. These nations, which share a land border with Russia or its exclave Kaliningrad, contribute 4.12% and 3.43% of their respective GDPs to defence. The UK by comparison spends around $81.4billion, equivalent to 2.33% of its GDP, with Sir Keir Starmer 's government insisting it is on a 'path' to increasing this to 2.5%. But no member of the alliance is close to spending 5% of GDP on defence at present, and some nations - including Spain , Canada , Italy and Portugal - are still lagging below the 2% threshold. Spain is at the bottom of the pile, spending just 1.28% as of this year. For Madrid, spending 5% of GDP on defence would mean boosting its annual defence budget by around €80 billion - nearly half the size of the Spain's entire pensions bill - a move the government is unwilling to accept. NATO countries spent over $1.3 trillion on core defence in 2024, up from about a trillion a decade earlier in constant 2021 prices. If NATO states had all spent 3.5% of GDP on defence last year, that would have amounted to some $1.75 trillion - in other words, hundreds of billions of dollars more. Besides the focus on defence spending targets, NATO leaders in The Hague this week reaffirmed their 'ironclad commitment' to the alliance's collective defence clause, Article 5. In recent months, Trump had sowed seeds of doubt about whether the US would actually come to the aid of any NATO ally under attack, conditioning American military support on whether said ally was contributing enough to defence spending. With NATO's new spending pledge in the bag - albeit with Spain's refusal to meet it - a positive Trump told reporters that 'I left there saying that these people really love their countries. 'It's not a ripoff. And we're here to help them protect their country.' It was clear that this week's NATO summit had been curated to appeal to the US President, with leaders perhaps having recognised that stroking the former reality TV star and real estate mogul's ego likely constitutes the path of least resistance in their dealings with him. As Trump flew to the Netherlands, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte sent a text message gushing about him being on the verge of a great achievement and saying, 'Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.' Trump gleefully plastered the message on social media, forcing Rutte to bat down speculation that he was pandering to the President and that his gushing texts made him look weak. Rutte later suffered another gaffe during a press conference with Trump in The Hague. As the US President went on a rant about America's involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, Rutte quipped that 'sometimes Daddy has to use strong language', in a pointed reference to Trump's use of a forceful expletive in an interview when chastising the arch foes for breaking a ceasefire deal. Trump's appearance at the summit was brief - his engagements were limited and a simple, one-page statement was prepared to keep him happy and focused. The approach seemed to pay dividends. After the meeting, Trump said he had headed into the summit seeing it as a political chore, but left convinced that the assembled leaders love the alliance, their own countries and, mostly importantly, the United States. He called NATO leaders a 'nice group of people' and said that 'almost every one of them said 'Thank God for the United States.' While Western leaders and defence chiefs met in The Hague, China was preparing to host defence ministers from Iran and Russia for a meeting in its eastern seaside city of Qingdao today. China has portrayed itself as a neutral party in Russia's war with Ukraine, although Western governments say its close ties have given Moscow crucial economic and diplomatic support. Russian Defence Minister Andrei Belousov painted a bleak picture of a world seeing 'worsening geopolitical tensions' when he addressed his counterparts at the meeting. 'The current military and political situation in the world remains difficult and shows signs of further deterioration,' he said, according to a Russian defence ministry statement. His Chinese counterpart Dong Jun also framed Thursday's meeting in Qingdao, home to a major Chinese naval base, as a counterweight to a world 'marked by intertwined turmoil and changes'. 'It is all the more important for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation to play its role as an anchor of stability,' he said, according to state news agency Xinhua. Recent fighting between Israel, Iran and the United States was also likely discussed in Qingdao. Though Russia and China are both seen as allies of Iran, Moscow and Beijing refrained from offering anything more than diplomatic support to Tehran as it came under attack from Israeli warplanes. This lack of support reflects both Russia and China's limited leverage in the region and reluctance to worsen relations with the US, analysts said. 'Public backing for Iran will come in the form of words, rather than deeds,' said James Char, an expert on the Chinese army at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. 'Other than condemning the US strikes on Iran, Beijing can be expected to continue treading cautiously in the Middle East's security issues and would not want to be dragged into the region's security challenges,' he said. Iran's defence minister will likely 'discuss with China the supply of weapons but I doubt China would agree', said Andrea Ghiselli, an expert in China foreign policy and a lecturer at Exeter University. 'It would be seen as provocative by both Israel... and, even more important for China, the US, with which Beijing is trying to stabilise relations,' Ghiselli said.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump administration slaps down UK after MPs pass assisted dying bill
The Trump administration has lashed out at the UK after MPs passed Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill - accusing Britain of 'standing for surrender and death'. The president's State Department said the US 'reaffirms the sanctity of life' in an attack on the Labour MP's Terminally Ill Adults Bill. 'The western world should stand for life, vitality and hope over surrender and death,' it said in a social media post from its Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour. It said the bill is 'euphemistically' said to be for terminally ill adults, but described it instead as 'state-subsidised suicide'. The attack comes a week after the bill, which would legalise assisted dying for those diagnosed with a terminal illness, passed with a slim majority of just 23 votes. Those with fewer than six months to live would be able to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel including a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist. The bill is now heading to the House of Lords for further scrutiny, where it is set to face more opposition. The US intervention came after Sir Keir Starmer slapped down Wes Streeting for raising concerns over how assisted dying would be funded if it becomes law. The prime minister said he was 'confident we've done that preparation' and that it is his job to 'make sure the bill is workable, and that means workable in all its aspects'. Last week's crunch assisted dying vote, which saw the bill narrowly pass by just 23 votes, came after months of impassioned debate, culminating in a tense third reading debate on Friday. Ms Leadbeater described the passing of the assisted dying bill at third reading as a 'result that so many people need'. The Spen Valley MP added: 'When you've spent as much time as I have with people who have got experience of losing loved ones in very difficult circumstances, and you've spent time with terminally ill people who are just asking for choice at the end of their days, then this is absolutely the right thing to do.' Among the MPs who backed the bill were the prime minister and his predecessor, Rishi Sunak. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, health secretary Mr Streeting and deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, meanwhile, voted against. The passage of the bill in parliament has put the UK at odds with the US, and marks the second time the State Department has criticised Britain under Sir Keir. The department's human rights arm previously warned of its 'concerns about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom' after the prosecution of anti-abortion campaigner Livia Tossici-Bolt.
