Today was Andy Burnham’s second Prime Minister’s Questions and also his last one for five weeks. The mini-recess for the extended exercise in masochism that is party conference season means Burnham will have gone a little over three months in the job while only answering questions twice. It’s quite hard to think of the last senior advisor to the crown to have faced so little direct Parliamentary scrutiny: the Munshi? The courtier in charge of wiping Henry VIII’s bottom? Merlin?
There was no subject that couldn’t be unsubtly swerved towards this in an attempt to gain positive murmurings from the House
Kemi Badenoch took advantage of this rare opportunity to subject Mr Burnham to questioning on perhaps the most important duty of any government – the defence of the realm. Burnham has promised to raise spending to 3.5 per cent but not until 2035 and has, in the meantime, cut a number of army exercises in order to save money. How did that square with the past attitudes of the now-Chancellor of the Exchequer who led the ritual spatchcocking of Sir Keir Starmer for his failure to commit on this very issue?
Burnham did his disappointed deputy head (pastoral) impression. He looked hurt and repeated his line about ‘problem solving not point scoring’. It’s clear he’s going to trot this out as some sort of unanswerable riposte every time anyone tries to point out an act of incompetence or corruption by the government. It’s classic passive aggressive deflection and of course fails to acknowledge that most of the key moments in our political history have been the result of ‘point scoring’. Mrs Badenoch’s ‘point scoring’ today took the form of the not-unreasonable question of how on earth the government intends to pay for the necessary increases in defence spending when, as she put it, ‘The benefits bill is set to rise by £32 billion and they won’t drill for oil.’
Burnham’s response was bizarre, claiming that any talk about defence was actually to do with the housing budget (the Tories have said that the vast amounts spent inefficiently on housing benefit might be a place to start for finding spare cash). ‘National security and social security: this side of the house will not be forced to choose between the two,’ mewed Burnham. It’s a bit early for panto but it was a miracle that nobody shouted ‘Oh yes they will!’ back at him.
One gets the impression that Burnham has things he likes to talk about and is determined to talk about them and them alone. He brings to mind an extreme train enthusiast, who will let you know about changes to the livery of the Flying Scotsman in the 1930s, regardless of whether the conversation is actually about a family bereavement or the menu choices at Bella Italia or the name of your cousin’s new cat. All these subjects can be bent into a conversation about the thing on which he wants to hold forth. Burnham is this, but for £2 bus fares.
Mrs Badenoch looked bemused and exasperated as she asked about the funding gap for the armed forces and received a rambling answer about council houses. The Labour way to fund defence was apparently ‘more mental health support’. Nothing, clearly, will get in the way of Burnham’s vague vibes-based shouting.
Mrs Badenoch tried a different tack and brought up the deranged Chagos betrayal, with which Burnham is still technically pressing ahead, like a man determined to push a dog turd through his own letterbox. ‘She does have to do better than that’, Burnham huffed disappointedly. These clearly were the ‘worst kind of points to be scoring’: totally justified and accurate ones. The Mauritian payoff money is coming directly from the Defence budget. Mrs Badenoch finished her questions with a new barb; given what he’s failing to do on defence and his mad persistence in giving away the Chagos, she asked, ‘Isn’t he just Continuity Keir?’
Clearly Burnham was annoyed by this, but more so by the lack of back-slapping from across the House over the government’s Israeli settlement decision – which was announced yesterday, but with what Burnham evidently felt to be insufficiently gushing fanfare. There was no subject that couldn’t be unsubtly swerved towards this in an attempt to gain positive murmurings from the House. A question about British sovereign territory in the Indian Ocean prompted a completely unrelated pouring forth about Israel-Palestine. I know his geography stops at the Watford Gap but to mash these two together seems ridiculous. However, it wasn’t just foreign policy questions which Burnham brought back to his stunning and brave leadership on the Middle East. He even managed to shoehorn it into an answer to Sir Ed Davey who had actually asked about maternity services in Devon.
The backbenches were less fun this week. Burnham likes to give detailed answers to questions about local bus routes or council reorganisations, leaving less time for toadying or nuttery. Dame Siobhain McDonagh gave a gloriously dramatic spin on the scourge of e-bikes, suggesting they are a Grenfell waiting to happen. A question about Kent-Essex ferries gave Burnham a chance to do his best Uriah Heep impression: ‘I do love the south of England,’ he slathered at a backbencher. Someone fetch the mop.
‘I do love the south of England,’ he slathered at a backbencher. Someone fetch the mop.
The SNP’s new Westminster leader Dave Doogan asked about another impending catastrophe – winter energy prices, though he caveated it with a sort-of compliment. ‘I’ll let you into a little secret…I quite like the new Prime Minister’. Finally, the love-in that Needy Andy wanted? Not so, as cries of ‘he’s finished’ erupted from somewhere nearby.
‘Can I thank him for his faint praise,’ gushed Burnham, ‘it will get him everywhere’. Many a true word was spoken in jest. What is becoming clear is that Burnham likes being liked. Which is why this winter’s unravelling, when he has to do things which will make him hated by the British public – on whose caprice, tweeness and deep fear of reality he has coasted for so long – will be quite so delicious.
Comments