PMQs live: Starmer states MPs will vote on possible troop deployment to Ukraine
Starmer asserts that MPs will have a vote on any decision regarding sending troops to Ukraine. He informs MPs about the Coalition of the Willing meeting held yesterday and mentions that he will provide the details to MPs in a forthcoming statement. He emphasizes that should troops be deployed, MPs will be given a vote on the matter.
ShareKey eventsShow key events onlyPlease activate JavaScript to utilize this feature. Badenoch states that Ben Wallace mentioned on the Today programme this morning that defence spending has decreased under both major parties. She notes it was last at 3% under the Conservative government. Badenoch claims that Starmer served in the shadow cabinet under a leader who did not even support NATO. She also mentions that SAS veterans have stated that the government’s Northern Ireland Troubles bill poses a threat to the SAS. Starmer expresses that Badenoch’s response is embarrassing, pointing out that the Conservatives were in power for 14 years. He highlights that Badenoch has a shadow attorney general who is acting on behalf of Roman Abramovich and asserts that the Conservatives granted immunity to IRA terrorists through their Northern Ireland legislation. If Badenoch wishes to revisit this issue, she should openly state that she does.
ShareBadenoch warns that the dispatch of British troops to Ukraine may escalate to war with Russia. She inquires when the government plans to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP. Starmer reveals that he spoke to President Trump twice during the Christmas period regarding Ukraine, indicating that there is no disparity between the UK and the US concerning the Ukraine strategy. On the topic of defence spending, he states that the funding for the proposed increase is included in the budget. He cites Ben Wallace, the former defence secretary, who stated that the armed services became “hollowed out” under Conservative leadership. Starmer mentions that he aims to elevate defence spending three years sooner than what was promised by the Conservatives without funding.
ShareBadenoch questions how many British troops might be sent to Ukraine and what their role would be. Starmer shares that he was in discussions with NATO allies throughout yesterday. He notes that the Ukraine agreement was outlined last night, explaining that British troops would be deployed to Ukraine “to support Ukraine’s capabilities should it conduct deterrence operations and to establish and secure military hubs.” He adds that the specifics on troop numbers will be provided at the appropriate time.
Badenoch remarks that today represents the earliest opportunity for Starmer to address MPs concerning the Ukraine situation, claiming that he seems “scared” to answer questions on the topic. She asks if he would request an urgent meeting of NATO leaders to discuss Greenland. Starmer responds that previously Badenoch criticized him for missing PMQs to attend an international summit. Badenoch expresses that it is “astonishing” Starmer is not making a statement to MPs about the Ukraine decision today. She believes he should have done so, given the commitment to deploy troops. Despite the US being the UK’s closest ally, she asserts that the sovereignty of Greenland must not be undermined, questioning what Starmer is doing to convey this to Donald Trump. Starmer explains that the agreement reached yesterday was a political declaration and that further steps would be necessary prior to troop deployment. He assures that he will deliver a statement to MPs as soon as possible.
Starmer expresses that MPs will be able to vote on any troop deployments to Ukraine. He reiterates to MPs that he will provide the particulars of yesterday’s Coalition of the Willing meeting in a subsequent statement. He confirms that if troops were to be deployed, MPs would indeed have a vote on the matter.
Keir Starmer begins by wishing that all MPs enjoyed a joyful Christmas, noting it probably feels like a long time ago. However, he points out that for Reform UK, “today is the day they celebrate Christmas in Russia.”
ShareStarmer engages with Badenoch during PMQs.
PMQs is set to begin. Here is the list of MPs with questions.
PMQs Photograph: HoC
ShareFarage states that the Reform UK mayoral candidate should apologize for suggesting Lammy should “go home to the Caribbean”. The final question during the press conference concerned Chris Parry, the Reform UK mayoral candidate, who posted on social media indicating that David Lammy should “go home to the Caribbean.” He has made similar remarks about other black politicians. Farage contends that while Parry is “intensely patriotic,” he believes his comments regarding Lammy were excessive and that he should retract them. Reform UK has not previously commented on Parry’s remarks.
ShareCunningham gripes about the influx of migrants to London who aren’t willing to integrate. Q: London is recognized as one of the most diverse cities globally. Do you believe it is excessively diverse? Cunningham agrees that London is indeed diverse. However, she insists that immigrants must integrate, just as her parents did upon arriving in London. She argues that nowadays, newcomers expect the city to change to accommodate them. She asserts:
You don’t arrive in London expecting it to alter for you. Some individuals expect it to adjust on their behalf, and when it doesn’t, they label it as racism. There is nothing racist about that; it is called patriotism.
Farage agrees, stating that her point is “absolutely right”.
ShareFarage declares that Reform UK will oppose lifting the two-child benefit cap. Q: [From the Guardian’s Alexandra Topping] Reform UK’s stance on the two-child benefit cap [which would be lifted solely for families where both parents are working full-time] would only benefit 1% of the children impacted. Will you support or oppose the Labour plan to fully lift the cap? Farage explains that his position against the two-child cap was misconstrued. He was intending to advocate for family support. His emphasis is on prioritizing benefit expenditures for British-born individuals. Consequently, Reform UK will vote against lifting the cap, he declares.
ShareFarage reveals he is ‘very concerned’ about sexualized deepfake content on X but refrains from committing to stop accepting money from it. Q: [From Rob Hutton from the Critic] Over the previous 18 months, you have received £13,000 from X due to the popularity of your posts on the platform. However, now X is allegedly offering “child porn” on demand. Will you continue to accept “child porn money”? For perhaps the first time in this press conference, Farage appears flustered. He suggests that the external earnings figure he is required to disclose may be misleading, as these are gross sums and do not account for costs. Regarding the concerning deepfake features, he admits to being “very worried” about the issue. He mentions that Sarah Pochin is leading on this matter for his party and is encouraging the government to compel X to eliminate it. He expresses optimism that X will heed the criticisms received. However, he stops short of committing to stop taking funds from X.
ShareFarage rejects claims indicating crime is down in London, arguing that crime survey data isn’t reliable. Q: [From the Financial Times] How do you address assertions that you are being misleading about crime levels in London? “London’s murder rate is the lowest it has been in decades, considerably lower than that of Chicago, New York, and LA. Knife crime has dropped significantly in the last ten years. Additionally, the percentage of adults victimized by personal crimes has decreased to the lowest level since 2002. Do both of you concede that, across multiple crucial metrics, London has actually become a much safer city?” Farage disagrees. He contends that the Crime Survey is utilized to provide crime statistics based on individual responses. However, he claims many people simply disregard that survey. He argues that this data collection approach is “entirely outdated and ineffective”. Furthermore, he notes instances when his family members were crime victims but chose not to report the incidents. Cunningham concurs with Farage, stating:
I was a senior crime prosecutor in London. I can assure you, crime is not down. Crime is increasing.
She further explains that while police recorded crime data is supposed to be dependable, law enforcement does not always document every offense. She proceeds:
I believe it’s a dangerous narrative to propagate that London is safe because it is profoundly disrespectful to victims.
ShareFarage labels Zack Polanski, the newly appointed Green party leader, as “clearly a lunatic.” However, he mentions that if one is against drug policies and supports open borders, “then the Greens are clearly the party for you”.
ShareFarage characterizes additional restrictions on drink-driving as ‘entirely unnecessary.’ Q: [From the Telegraph] Will you endorse the Telegraph’s Save our Pubs campaign, initiated in reaction to the government’s road safety strategy? Farage humorously comments on having saved numerous pubs over the years. He then criticizes the government’s initiatives, stating:
This drink-driving issue is utterly absurd and completely unnecessary.
He explains that the practices currently in place have remained effective since 1967 and that the nation’s road safety records are impressive. He notes,
When reviewing road casualty statistics, the safety levels in this country are remarkable—much safer than France and significantly safer than Germany. Furthermore, we have achieved a level of accidents that is nearly impossible to surpass, as human error will always be a factor to some extent.
He also critiques the proposal requiring young individuals to wait up to six months after completing their theory exam before being eligible for a driving test. (See 9.32am.)
ShareReform UK’s candidate for London mayor asserts that the Met commissioner should resign due to the handling of grooming gangs. Q: Is Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan police commissioner, responsible for the crime situation in London? Cunningham claims that Rowley asserted there was no issue with grooming gangs in London, which she disputes. She mentions that they reviewed 9,000 cases, leading her to demand Rowley’s resignation, stating, “under my oversight, we cannot have 9000 grooming cases mishandled.” Farage counters that the chief constable of West Midlands police should be the first to go, calling the performance at the Commons home affairs committee yesterday to be “completely abject.” He expresses appreciation for Nick Timothy, the Conservative MP, for campaigning for the removal of WMP chief constable Craig Guildford, who supposedly misrepresented police evidence justifying the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans attending a match at Villa Park last year.
ShareFarage claims the era of rules-based international order is ‘outdated,’ suggesting that a shift towards ‘national self-interest’ could be beneficial. Q: Do you view the end of the rules-based international order as a positive development? Farage comments that in light of the atrocities of World War II and the Nazis, he comprehends the desire for new arrangements, including the European Convention on Human Rights. However, he argues that many of these institutions are now “hopelessly outdated.” He elaborates:
We are transitioning into a new era defined by national self-interest, where countries will prioritize their own interests. This, by the way, may not be detrimental, assuming those nations are governed democratically and have accountable leaders.
He warns that the real risk lies not in the existence of nation-states but in those that lack democracy or accountable leadership. Farage claims that he cannot think of instances where two mature, functioning democracies have engaged in warfare against one another. He remarks that the notion of international law may be “frightfully popular in Islington and Hampstead, as well as among many members of this government,” but it is now misaligned with its initial purpose.
ShareCunningham hints at eliminating the congestion charge in London. Q: What are your plans regarding the congestion charge and the Ulez charge? Cunningham states that she does not see how a campaign against motorists would benefit anyone. She expresses a desire to abolish these charges because “I prefer a battle against criminals rather than against motorists.” (It remains unclear from her statement if she intends to eliminate both the congestion charge and Ulez or solely Ulez. She appeared to imply both, yet she was not explicit.)
Published: 2026-01-07 12:09:00
source: www.theguardian.com
