War and peace – PMQs 5th March 2025

At Eton, they call it ‘oiling’. Half an hour in, newbie Labour MP Mike Tapp applied the grease gun ruthlessly:

“These are delicate moments for the country, and the Prime Minister has led with British values, moral courage and decency, as a true statesman, and with skilled and careful diplomacy.”

He continued: “… so does the Prime Minister agree that a united House could help us to achieve a lasting peace?”

He need have had no worries on that score. “We all support him in that effort,” said Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey. “The Prime Minister is quite right,” said Kemi Badenoch, approving the call for guarantees for any agreement on Ukraine. Even Reform’s Nigel Farage seems to be in a cleft stick over the current US policy of disengagement.

Starmer himself, never happier than when flattening the mood, had opened the session with a reference to anniversaries of British military losses in Afghanistan, sombrely naming the victims. Badenoch fell into line on Ukrainian peacekeeping, but worried about the economic burden on us. Would he change course on last year’s Budget? “We were doing so well,” said the patronising PM, who then gave us his familiar boilerplate about the inherited Black Hole and Labour’s “stability”.

Kevin Bonavia (Labour) welcomed the boost for jobs in Stevenage represented by increased defence spending. But now for the autonomous regions.

Plaid Cymru’s Liz Saville Roberts asked the PM to consider strategic investment in defence and infrastructure, rather than cutting welfare and international aid. Starmer regretted that her party had “voted against £1.6 billion to fund public services in Wales” and said she “needs to explain how that helps her constituents and the people of Wales”.

Chris Law (SNP) deplored the US’ suspension of military aid to Ukraine, its banning of the UK from intelligence sharing with Ukraine, and its proposed lifting of sanctions on Russia “to appease Vladimir Putin – a murderous, lying dictator”. Would the PM release seized Russian state assets to Ukraine? Starmer said he would consider it, but in the meantime, the SNP needed to reconsider its policy of getting rid of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

There! Devolution: the gift that keeps on giving.

Another SNP member, Seamus Logan, wished the UK to safeguard Scottish fishing interests in “the forthcoming trade and co-operation agreement negotiations” as it resets its relationship with the European Union. This theme was more to Sir Keir’s liking.

Back to the US. Richard Foord (Lib Dems) indignantly quoted Vice President Vance’s remarks scorning peace-keeping troops from “some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”. Would the PM remind the US of our solidarity following 9/11 and in Iraq?

At this point, it should be noted that Vance had not actually mentioned Britain and could have been thinking of certain EU countries. More offensive, perhaps, was Professor Jeffrey Sachs, when he spoke last month to the EU Parliament, likening us to Monty Python’s insanely defiant, yet limbless, Black Knight.

While his EU Parliament audience might have smirked, some people might suggest that if we are weak now, it is because we helped buy their freedom with our blood and the nation’s treasure. Nevertheless, in that same YouTube clip, the Professor also provides a vital context to the Ukraine conflict – one that runs counter to the narrative that Russia is simply out to invade and conquer us all.

When David Davis (Con) mentioned the plight of over 100 special forces soldiers facing enquiries over their conduct in combating the IRA years ago, the PM claimed not to have seen the NI coroner’s ruling that put them into this quandary and generalised that “in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland, of all those who served and all those who are victims, we need to renew our efforts to find a way forward on this important issue”.

Wendy Morton (Con) linked the Ukraine issue to the needs for our food security and to protect farmers. Starmer replied with the customary litany about Labour’s NFU-approved “road map for farming”, the Budget billions allocated to farming (exactly how, no details just now, please) and the assertion that the “vast majority” of farms would be unaffected by the IHT hit.

Sadly, there is not space for all the other worthwhile contributions to PMQs today, but it is interesting that, maybe not for the first time, a controversial and potentially troublesome matter was relegated to the end. Richard Holden (Con) asked whether Starmer would think again before instructing his Whips to block Holden’s Bill banning first cousin marriage.

Sir Keir responded with a brusqueness that may have taken some by surprise: “Mr Speaker, we have taken our position on that Bill.”

The hot potato rolled in the aisle, steaming.

Crossposted from Wolves of Westminster