Sources suggest that Kemi Badenoch has undergone something of a metamorphosis of late, transforming herself into a sort of “bloodthirsty performer”. There is something about her take-no-prisoners attitude that is to be admired – worshipped, even.
And yet, when I scanned the opposition front bench a few minutes past noon yesterday, this supposed personification of blood, guts and gore was nowhere to be seen. I blinked, hoping that my eyes had deceived me, but no such luck. Perhaps, as one Kemi loyalist suggested, I had indeed gone “blind.”
No. I don’t think so. What I saw at PMQs was hardly a bloodbath. Badenoch didn’t come armed with a violent streak about her. That is not to suggest that she performed badly. Quite the contrary, in fact. Compare and contrast her performances from around about a year ago, and she looks to be a lady transformed.
But the killer instinct was missing. Where once she tore a certain Sir Keir Starmer to shreds – a relatively easy feat, given the android-like dullness of the creature – she has looked rather less assured when taking on Andy Burnham, wobbling through the weekly exchange. Yesterday was no exception.
It began promisingly enough. Badenoch’s opening question concerned the Jackdaw gas field, which the government had approved early yesterday morning. She made some quick jibes about how the government had been “faffing around” and how, on account of their policies, jobs had been lost and money had been wasted.
Building on this, she asked whether the Prime Minister would “overturn Labour’s ban on all new oil and gas licences”. The supposed Mayor of Britain responded with the usual talk of processes and procedures, prompting Badenoch to remark that it “almost felt like it was Keir Starmer still standing there.”
Aha! There it is. In that one sentence lies the problem. Kemi yearns for Starmer. Perhaps not Starmer himself – let’s not kid ourselves – but the type of opponent he was. Someone who was predictable, and who would constantly provide her with tap ins and open goals. He was but a sitting duck, a man who wore his vulnerabilities on his sleeve for all to see.
Despairingly for Kemi, however, Andy Burnham is not Keir Starmer.
I know, I know. We are supposed to believe that the PM is ‘Keir Starmer 2.0,’ but let us not blind ourselves to reality. Whilst the pair may well agree that hiking taxes is the go-to solution for solving Britain’s problems, to pretend that they are one in the same is foolish.
Because, at present, Kemi, much like the rest of the country, is still trying to understand what Burnham is all about. He is a slippery fellow indeed, capable of changing shape and colour to suit the political needs of the day. A political chameleon who wears a red rosette. As the famed joke goes, a Blairite, a Brownite and a Corbynite walk into a bar. ‘What can I get you, Andy?’ asks the bartender.
The difficulty for Kemi is that what worked against Starmer will not necessarily work against our Andy. His political identity is far more malleable, something which can be adapted and improvised at a moment’s notice. To connect her blows, she must first figure out who Burnham is. What makes him tick, how to get under his skin – the nitty gritty things, so to speak.
So far, she seems not to have done so. Instead, she has retreated to familiarity, adopting the same line of attack that worked so effectively against Sir Keir. And yet she is left wondering why they no longer hit the mark. Her punches land, that much is certain, but they lack the follow-through. Burnham, in turn, is left bruised, or perhaps with a little nick on his eyebrow. But he is never left on the floor gasping for air.
Her MPs are aware of this as well. One texted me after the clash that she is “still finding the right line and length” at PMQs, whilst another argued that Kemi is very much in the “calibration stage”, tinkering with the tone and delivery to see what works best.
It is a pity, because the substance of her performance was rather stronger than its delivery suggested. On borrowing, welfare spending and the national debt, she had some perfectly respectable points to make. Nothing she said was wrong, it’s just that the delivery lacked in many places.
My hunch is that she will get there eventually. Week by week, she will learn what works and what doesn’t. A muddle through approach to PMQs, if you will, characterised by trial and error until she hits the sweet spot. But for now, she seems to still be trying to find her feet against a new opponent, and that’s ok. We just mustn’t delude ourselves.
Still, at least she mentioned the government’s plan to crack down on those who play loud music on public transport. God I hate those people.