Keir Starmer made Boris Johnson look like a chancer merely playing at politics during PMQs

At their first clash since the summer recess, the Labour leader managed to make the prime minister appear as if he were trying to score cheap points, writes John Rentoul

Keir Starmer had a strong first PMQs since the parliamentary recess (Parliament Live)

Either Keir Starmer is a better actor than we thought, or he really was furious about being accused of supporting the IRA. The giveaway was that the Labour leader started speaking about twice as fast as usual as he demanded that the prime minister withdraw the suggestion.

Boris Johnson, having had weeks to prepare for the clash with someone who is now the preferred candidate among the British public for his job, thought it would be effective to point out that Starmer had loyally served in the shadow cabinet of someone who refused to condemn the IRA.

It was certainly effective in provoking a reaction. The sketch writers in the press gallery were debating whether the right phrase to describe Starmer was “popped his lid”, “come over all unnecessary” or “thrown a wobbly”.

I suspect that Starmer was so cross because the prime minister was right. Starmer knows the compromises he made to get to where he is today, which must have included squirming in silent embarrassment in meeting after meeting of Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet. He had no time for Corbyn’s equivocations about IRA terrorism – he made that clear today – but he bit his tongue on most subjects apart from his Brexit brief and the live and unavoidable question of antisemitism.

So Johnson struck a nerve, but it did him no good at all. No normal member of the public thinks that Starmer supports or supported violence to achieve a united Ireland. All the prime minister did was provide material for journalists who are now asking again why he gave a peerage to Claire Fox, the former Brexit Party MEP who has never fully renounced her past support for the IRA.

The prime minister only succeeded in giving Starmer a chance to express what looked like justified indignation and to demand that he withdraw the calumny. Johnson made matters worse by ignoring the demand, until he was forced by the Speaker to respond to it – whereupon he simply repeated that Starmer had served in his predecessor’s shadow cabinet.

And this was after Starmer had already accused him of “just playing games” when, in their earlier exchanges, Johnson had responded to a question about the A-level fiasco with a question of his own, asking if Starmer agreed that students “deserve the grades they’ve got”.

Johnson appeared to be playing games with the next question too: he challenged Starmer to say that schools are safe. To which the Labour leader replied, with a touch of exasperation, that he had said so many times: “There is no issue on this. My own kids have been back at school throughout.”

Once again, Johnson seemed to be trying to embarrass Starmer with his past associations – in this case, his previous shadow education secretary’s reluctance to urge schools to reopen – but only ended up looking as if he were trying to score cheap debating points.

Their final exchanges were inconclusive. Starmer asked why the prime minister had changed his mind about meeting families of coronavirus victims – to which Johnson said he wanted to, but “it turns out that this particular group are currently in litigation with the government”. It wasn’t a convincing reason – there would be nothing to stop him simply listening to the families, and in any case, the group says it has not begun legal action yet – but it was good enough to get him through the session.

Starmer’s questions were not in the least bit forensic, but they didn’t have to be. He seemed serious, earnest even, and possibly even a bit prim. But that only highlighted the contrast with the prime minister, who seemed to answer questions with more questions; to resort to silly insults, such as calling Starmer “Captain Hindsight”; and to be playing political games at a time of grave national crisis.