He's spent two years managing crises instead of reshaping Britain
In the ancient theatre of Westminster, a government at the midpoint of its mandate faced the mirror of public accountability. Prime Minister Keir Starmer defended Labour's record of social reform against Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch's charge that a historic electoral mandate had been quietly squandered. With local and devolved elections days away, the exchange was less a debate than a referendum on whether power, once granted, had been wisely spent.
- Badenoch arrived at PMQs armed with a single argument: that Starmer had turned a landslide into a liability, presiding over serial missteps while his own MPs required corralling to keep him out of a Privileges Committee inquiry.
- The 335-233 Commons vote that spared Starmer from formal scrutiny over Lord Mandelson's vetting looked like a win on paper, but the machinery required to secure it exposed just how thin his authority has worn.
- The session's most combustible moment came when Starmer refused to rule out sacking Chancellor Rachel Reeves, a non-answer that Badenoch immediately weaponised, declaring Reeves 'toast' before Downing Street scrambled to reassert her permanence.
- Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey injected a different urgency, warning of a 10 percent rise in food prices tied to the Iran conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, pressing for binding food security legislation the PM declined to endorse.
- As polling day approaches, Starmer points to workers' rights, renter protections, and half a million children lifted from poverty — but the question voters will answer is whether those gains feel real against a backdrop of political turbulence.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch clashed sharply in Parliament on Wednesday, each offering an irreconcilable account of Labour's first two years in government. Starmer cited new workers' rights, renter protections, and the lifting of half a million children from poverty. Badenoch called it a record of unbroken failure and a squandered mandate, delivered just days before voters in England, Scotland, and Wales head to the polls.
The confrontation carried a personal charge. Badenoch pointed to Tuesday's Commons vote — in which Labour MPs were mobilised to defeat a motion referring Starmer to the Privileges Committee over his handling of Lord Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador — as evidence of a prime minister reduced to pleading for his own survival. The motion failed 335 to 233, but the effort required to secure that margin told its own story. Starmer dismissed the whole exercise as a baseless political stunt launched while he was chairing talks on the Middle East.
The session's most consequential exchange came over the Chancellor's future. When Badenoch asked directly whether Rachel Reeves would survive a post-election reshuffle, Starmer deflected toward falling interest rates and the Iran situation. The evasion was enough for Badenoch to declare Reeves 'toast.' Downing Street moved swiftly to deny it, with the PM's political secretary reaffirming that Reeves would serve the full parliamentary term — a reassurance No 10 had already felt compelled to issue once before.
Sir Ed Davey used his questions to raise food security, warning that the Iran conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would push food prices up by 10 percent this year. He called for a Good Food Bill with binding long-term targets. Starmer acknowledged the concern but offered no legislative commitment, and took a pointed jab at Davey for backing the Privileges Committee motion.
The session captured the paradox of Starmer's position: a government with genuine achievements to defend, navigating a restless parliamentary party, a sharpened opposition, and an electorate about to deliver its first significant verdict on whether the promise of 2024 has been honoured or hollowed out.
The prime minister and his chief political rival squared off in Parliament on Wednesday, each painting a starkly different picture of the government's first two years in office. Sir Keir Starmer stood at the dispatch box and recited Labour's accomplishments: new rights for workers, protections for renters, half a million children lifted from poverty. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, countered that he had presided over "one disaster after another" and wasted the political goodwill that came with his landslide 2024 election victory. The exchange came just days before voters across the UK head to the polls for local elections in England and devolved parliament elections in Scotland and Wales.
The tension between them carried an edge of personal reckoning. Badenoch suggested Starmer had been reduced to pleading with his own MPs for their support, a reference to Tuesday's Commons vote in which Labour members rallied behind the prime minister on a motion to refer him to the Privileges Committee over his handling of Lord Mandelson's vetting as US ambassador. The vote passed 335 to 233 in Starmer's favour, but the narrow margin and the need for a coordinated No 10 operation to secure it underscored the fragility of his position. Badenoch invoked the imagery of political decay, comparing the government to a failing dynasty and invoking Game of Thrones to suggest that Starmer's own allies had turned against him.
The prime minister rejected the characterization, saying his government remained focused on its core mission and that nothing would derail it. He also turned the tables on Badenoch, dismissing her Privileges Committee motion as a "desperate, baseless political stunt" launched while he was chairing a meeting on the Middle East conflict. On defence spending, Starmer highlighted that the government was committing resources at the highest level since the Cold War ended, directly countering Badenoch's argument that the UK could not defend itself because too much money was being spent on welfare.
But the most revealing moment came when Badenoch pressed Starmer on whether he would sack Chancellor Rachel Reeves in a post-election reshuffle. The prime minister did not directly answer, instead pivoting to falling interest rates and the Iran conflict. His refusal to rule out removing Reeves prompted Badenoch to declare the Chancellor "toast," a declaration that will likely fuel Westminster speculation about her future. Downing Street moved quickly to contain the damage, with the prime minister's political secretary telling journalists after the session that "the position remains unchanged" and that Reeves would stay in her role for the full parliamentary term. Last year, No 10 had already made a similar commitment, suggesting the government was trying to project stability even as questions swirled about internal tensions.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey used his allotted questions to press the government on food security, warning that prices would rise 10 percent this year as farmers' costs climbed in the wake of the Iran conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. He called for a Good Food Bill to establish long-term targets and support domestic production. Starmer acknowledged the issue would affect every constituent but did not commit to the specific legislation. He also took a swipe at Davey for supporting the Privileges Committee motion, making a cutting reference to the Liberal Democrat leader's well-known campaigning style.
With elections just days away, the session illustrated the precarious political ground Starmer occupies. He has legislative achievements to defend and a record on poverty and workers' rights to point to. But he faces a restless party, a resurgent Conservative opposition, and persistent questions about his judgment and leadership. The elections next week will test whether voters believe his government has delivered on its promises or, as Badenoch argues, squandered an opportunity to reshape British politics.
Notable Quotes
Badenoch said the government was like 'a bad episode of Game of Thrones,' with the prime minister 'holed up in his castle' while his own people turned against him.— Kemi Badenoch, Conservative leader
Starmer said Labour had delivered rights at work, security for renters, and lifted half a million children out of poverty, adding 'that's our mission, nothing is going to hold us back.'— Sir Keir Starmer, Prime Minister
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Badenoch keep returning to this idea of squandered political capital? What does that actually mean in practical terms?
It means Starmer had enormous goodwill after winning in 2024—a huge majority, public hope for change. But instead of using that mandate to push through bold reforms, he's spent the last two years managing crises and internal party drama. The Mandelson vetting row, the Privileges Committee vote, now whispers about reshuffling the Chancellor. From Badenoch's view, he's burned through his credibility on self-preservation rather than transformation.
But the PM is pointing to concrete wins—child poverty down, new worker protections. Doesn't that count as using the mandate?
It does, and that's the real argument between them. Starmer would say those are exactly what he promised and they matter to real families. Badenoch would say they're not transformative enough, and that the way he's governed—the infighting, the defensive posture—has made him look weak rather than purposeful.
The Chancellor question seemed to rattle him. Why wouldn't he just say she's staying?
Because in that moment, he couldn't afford to look like he was being told what to do by his own party. If he'd flatly defended Reeves, it might have looked like he had no choice. By not answering, he kept his options open. But that silence speaks volumes—it signals to his MPs that change might be coming, which is exactly what Badenoch wanted to hear.
So the elections next week are a referendum on whether any of this matters?
Exactly. If Labour does well, Starmer can claim vindication and move forward. If they lose badly, the knives come out. Either way, these next seven days will determine whether his government is genuinely in trouble or just weathering a rough patch.