Prime Minister's Questions (asking, as Leader of the Opposition)
Official record: UK Parliament, Hansard (House of Commons). Retrieved 3 Oct 2026.
Same event
9 Sep 2026Everyone in our line-up who spoke here, each rated by the same rules on their own words. Our model rated this. The BS Index is not compared here because the speakers were scored on different measures (for example, one asked the questions and the other answered them). Compare the measures instead.
The words of Kemi Badenoch as published in the official record. Questions are shown in grey boxes. Tap a marked sentence to see the label and its sources. Other speakers' full contributions are in the official record.
After last week’s session, the country was thrown into confusion over whether the Prime Minister was or was not going to fund 3% for defence by 2030. After today he will have another five weeks off PMQs, but there are some serious threats to national security that cannot wait. His Chancellor resigned as Defence Secretary because the Labour Government would not increase defence spending to 3% by 2030. Does the Prime Minister think that he was right to quit?
The Prime Minister wants to talk about the past on defence spending, so let me refresh his memory and that of the House. I remember when he was the shadow Home Secretary, when the then Labour leader wanted us to leave NATO, disarm our nuclear deterrent and defund the Army, so I will not be taking any lectures from him.
The Prime Minister says the target is 2035. That is a decade away. If he cannot get to 3% by 2030, why should we believe he will get to 3.5% by 2035? The spending review is next year. Last week, I set out how we would get to 3% by 2030. The threats are now. Argentina is threatening the Falklands—now. Russia is threatening us in the North sea—now.
The Prime Minister did not answer my question. I asked him if the Chancellor was right to quit. The Chancellor was right to quit, which is why it is so wrong that he is not sticking to his principles. The Chancellor used to say that not hitting 3% by 2030 would put our troops at risk. He also said that Keir Starmer was “unable”, and the Treasury “unwilling”, to provide that funding. So is the Prime Minister unable, or is he just unwilling, to get that money by 2030?
It is unbelievable that the Prime Minister would say that. He is clearly unwilling. We need to fund our defence, not spend all our money on welfare. I cannot believe that he would actually say that. He is clearly unwilling, but there are ways to do this—he is not unable.
On Monday, Chris Rokos, Britain’s third biggest taxpayer, announced that he was leaving the country. That is £330 million of taxes walking out the door because of this Labour Government—every year, £330 million. His taxes could be going on defence. The Prime Minister is talking about spending more on welfare. The benefits bill is set to rise by £32 billion under him—that is not all of it; that is the rise. That money could be going on defence. The Prime Minister will not approve the Rosebank oilfield—£1.4 billion of tax revenue that could be going on defence. So, will the Prime Minister tell the country: where is he going to find the money to fund our defence?
No, it is not. The truth is the Prime Minister does not know where he is going to find the money. He is talking about anything except defence, including council housing. He will not fund the military. I will tell you what he is funding though, Mr Speaker—Keir Starmer’s £35 billion surrender of the Chagos islands and its crucial military base. That is British sovereign territory. That is a weak decision, and it is no wonder that Argentina is now threatening the Falklands. We need to project strength. We need to show that British sovereign territory is non-negotiable. So why, just like Keir Starmer, is he planning to surrender the Chagos islands?
We are talking about paying £35 billion to give away British territory, and all of that is happening while the Prime Minister’s Government are cancelling £30 million of vital training for British soldiers. He may be new to the job, so let me tell him what may not be in his briefing paper. Last year, defence funding fell in real terms—that is on this Government. To govern is to choose, so why is he choosing to send £35 billion to Mauritius when they cut the money to train our troops?
The Prime Minister seems to think that the last Government were a Conservative Government. The last Government were a Labour Government and they failed, which is why Keir Starmer resigned. He keeps talking about their record as if it was fantastic. If it was, then why is Keir Starmer not sitting there? Where Britain needs leadership, what we have at the moment is just vibes. He said he appointed the Chancellor because he cares about defence, but he will not fund it. Other countries are making claims over our sovereign territory. They smell weakness. He is pretending that he is the change candidate, but the fact is he is still failing to cut welfare, he is still paying to hand over a sovereign territory, and he is still not funding defence. On the issues that really matter, is he not just continuity Keir?