Badenoch's PMQs performance on Iran borders on disgrace, says John Crace

On a different occasion the scene could have been almost comical – the gap between Kemi Badenoch’s confidence and her output. Yet Wednesday’s prime‑ministerial questions were anything but light, as Donald Trump’s massive Iranian gambit risked spiralling into full‑scale conflict in the Middle East.

It was also a moment that invited the unthinkable: could Kemi be even less effective than Chris Philp? Undoubtedly she ranks among the poorest Tory leaders in recent history, a stark reminder that the pool of political talent appears shallow.

Occasionally the opposition leader must swallow pride during PMQs, suspending routine antagonism for national security. Keir Starmer did so repeatedly in the early phase of the Ukraine war, extending unequivocal backing to Boris Johnson. Such conduct is framed as serving the national interest and can yield long‑term dividends, as voters eventually view the figure as a credible statesman, potentially fit for the premiership.

Kemi, however, does not convey that gravitas. Perhaps she has accepted that the premiership is out of reach and therefore sees little point in restraint, though that would ascribe to her a self‑awareness she has not displayed. In reality, she comes across as a flat, two‑dimensional caricature of an opposition leader – a figure lacking nuance, repeatedly echoing the same queries and missing the core issues, a case of tonal deficiency.

One might excuse a breach of protocol in wartime if Kemi offered fresh, incisive insights. Since she does not, she appears to withhold them. More concerning for the Conservatives, the broader public seems to grasp the geopolitical stakes of a Middle‑East conflict better than she does. Consequently, her claim to speak for the nation rings hollow, reflecting another layer of self‑deception – a lightness that leaves her speaking only to herself.

The takeaways Kemi appears to have drawn from the past five days are clear: should the United States initiate hostilities, Britain must pledge immediate, unconditional backing. She seems content to let others tally the casualties later. Anything short of total war is portrayed as feeble. Questioning whether Donald Trump has considered the fallout of his moves, as if it were unthinkable, would, in her view, jeopardise the Special Relationship.

Starmer’s conclusions diverge markedly. Firstly, the experience of Iraq suggests that dragging the nation into another unlawful conflict is unwise. Secondly, markets have never suffered from wagering on the erratic whims of the Donald. It never occurred to the president to devise an exit strategy before ordering strikes on Tehran; his sole blueprint seemed to be to press on unabated.