Keir Starmer doesn’t like Prime Minister’s Questions – and that is a big problem for Labour

The prime minister seems to relish being at the despatch box, and seems to revel in delivering his prepared lines, whereas Starmer looks as if he would rather be somewhere quieter where he could concentrate, writes John Rentoul

Starmer’s failure to win PMQs ought not to be significant, but it is (Parliament Live)

The government’s record on criminal justice is shocking. The leader of the opposition had a striking example of its failure, namely a people smuggler who escaped jail for attacking a prison officer because of delays in bringing him to justice, and because of prison overcrowding.

And yet Keir Starmer could not make the charge count in the chamber of the House of Commons. He started off well enough and predictably enough, quoting the words of Greg Hands, the Conservative Party chair, who said that public services are in “pretty good shape”.

The Labour leader then worked his way through the people-smuggler case. His first question on it sounded as if it was intended to be a trap for Rishi Sunak. Starmer said, in words that echoed the Labour attack ad, that the prison officer’s assailant had received a jail sentence. “Quite right, in my view,” he said. “Does the prime minister agree?”

The prime minister could see that one coming, and gave a general defence of the government’s sentencing policy, before Starmer, in his next question, revealed that the criminal had received a suspended sentence.

Just as with Labour’s attack ad, though, the attack failed to work, because MPs could not judge whether a suspended sentence was right or not, given that the offender was obviously in prison at some point, having attacked a warder.

Sunak ignored the details of the case and called Starmer “Sir Softy, soft on crime, soft on criminals”. It provoked outrage from the frontbench chorus on Starmer’s right – Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, sternly shaking her head; Steve Reed, shadow justice secretary responsible for the attack ad, shouting and red in face; and Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general.

Starmer himself was indignant: “I have prosecuted thousands and thousands of criminals.”

Matters then became personal, as Sunak quoted Thornberry, who had criticised Starmer when he was in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service for “letting down victims” of crime. Starmer defended his own record, at length, waving at the Tory side: “When I was in office as director of Public Prosecutions, those benches were my greatest supporters.”

Distracted by the attack on his honour, Starmer went on and on, citing Theresa May as a supporter of his when she was home secretary, and accusing Sunak of “trying to rewrite history”. Starmer had lost the House by then, but still hadn’t started to ask his last question, which was one of those monologues listing everything wrong about the government’s record – “our roads, our trains, the NHS, the asylum system, policing, mental health provision”.

Sunak was withering. “I can’t quite remember, but I think he started by talking about when he was DPP.” That gave him the chance to wave a copy of the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013, making special provision for the DPP’s pension.

It was a cheap shot, but it allowed Sunak to end with: “It’s literally one law for him and tax rises for everyone else.” Politics trades in cheap shots and that was an effective one.

Perhaps Starmer’s failure to win Prime Minister’s Questions ought not to be significant, but it is. Especially at this moment, when you can almost see the air coming out of Labour’s opinion-poll lead, and when Labour nerves are jangled by the misfired personal attack on Sunak over the Easter recess.

Labour has a problem with a leader who dislikes the basic skills of politics. We knew this at the time of his leadership election – he said afterwards that he had “hated” “selling myself” to the membership. And he doesn’t like Prime Minister’s Questions, a contest that rewards chutzpah, quick thinking and brevity.

Sunak turns out to be much better at those base arts than his mild public manner suggests. Indeed, he was able to deliver the ridiculous “Sir Softy” line so much better precisely because he is not a clown. It was absurd for him to attack Starmer for “tax rises”, when he has put taxes up to a 70-year high as chancellor and prime minister, and yet Sunak seems to enjoy this knockabout.

The prime minister seems to relish being at the despatch box, and seems to revel in delivering his prepared lines, whereas Starmer looks as if he would rather be somewhere quieter where he could concentrate.

Maybe it sounded different in the chamber. The video clips on the news and social media might seem more balanced, not least because the government’s record is so objectively poor. But today’s Prime Minister’s Questions was not a good augury for Starmer’s chances in the general election campaign, which will be fought in crude primary colours.