Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has said Andy Burnham isn’t much better or exciting than Sir Keir Starmer after his performance at Prime Minister’s Questions.
Speaking on GB News he said: “We have a new prime minister, Parliament is back, Prime Ministers’ Questions takes place. How did Mr Burnham do?
“Well, it’s a bit of a sticky wicket for prime ministers. PMQs is not the easiest place in which to get away with things. It’s not the same as addressing an adoring audience in a museum of Manchester Life.
“But he’s new, and yet Labour is still questioning him, even though he’s only been in the job for a few weeks.
“Look at this from Tan Dhesi on defence:
‘It is imperative that we invest in our Armed Forces in the here and now, rather than be sorry later. Indeed, defence is definitely one area where vibes alone just isn’t going to be enough. Will the Prime Minister urgently commit to charting a pathway to reach 3% of GDP spend on defence by 2030 which, as his chancellor rightly noted, is critical to keep our country safe.’
“Unfortunately, it’s been reported that Downing Street is backtracking on that 3% comment, and this really matters because that’s the trap of PMQs.
“There is the prime minister; he has a folder full of papers. He has every bit of information at his fingertips. But in the pressure, the noise, the excitement of the chamber, it’s not always easy to get the details right.
“And yet, the defence of the realm is the most important question that the prime minister faces. When Kemi Badenoch was bowling at him, she was asking about defence, but she was also asking about where the money was coming from.
“And having promised a different form of politics, a new politics, something politicians do the whole time. We’re going to work together. We’re going to be cooperative. He went straight back to traditional old Punch and Judy politics.
“He started blaming everybody but himself, avoiding the question. Suddenly we’re beginning to think that Sir Keir Starmer wasn’t so bad after all. Sir Keir may have been dull; he may have been nasal, but he managed to win an election which is more than Burnham has done; I know he hasn’t gone to the country yet, and he had a certain rugged honesty about him that people liked.
“Whereas Burnham has got in having defenestrated the previous leader, having organised quite an effective coup, and doesn’t seem that much better, that much different, that much more exciting.
“So even when one makes allowances for him and says Prime Minister’s Questions is difficult, and he’s been out of the house as he reminded people for 16 years, is that enough, or do we expect a prime minister who can come to the wicket and start scoring runs quickly?
