PMQs Rhetorical Analysis
PMQs Rhetorical Analysis — 9 September 2026
Mrs Kemi Badenoch
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?
Statement 1
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.
My Analysis: “The country was thrown into confusion” — this claim might be hard to back up, because how do we prove that the entire United Kingdom was in total confusion regarding the Prime Minister’s stance on increasing defence spending? Was there commotion as a result of his answer? I did not watch last week’s PMQs, but I think this statement could be verified by polling the public’s reaction to it. On the other hand, the statement is a good setup for her later, unstated point that the Prime Minister and his party are reluctant to increase military spending. In terms of its argumentative benefit, it implies uncertainty of direction from the Prime Minister.
Statement 2
After today he will have another five weeks off PMQs, but there are some serious threats to national security that cannot wait.
My Analysis: This statement helps to buttress her earlier point about confusion arising from the uncertainty over whether or not there will be an increase in defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. It also stresses the urgency of the need for an answer, since there are serious threats to national security that cannot wait, pressing the Prime Minister to respond. Why are there serious threats to national security? Are we certain that increasing defence spending would reduce those threats?
Statement 3
His Chancellor resigned as Defence Secretary because the Labour Government would not increase defence spending to 3% by 2030.
My Analysis: “His Chancellor resigned” — this is a true-or-false statement, and the fact is that the current Chancellor, who was formerly the Defence Secretary, did resign. But what I would question is the rationale for why he resigned. Maybe or maybe not he resigned because the Labour Government would not increase defence spending to 3% by 2030; or maybe he resigned because he was appointed Chancellor. You can take a given fact and read meaning into it, whether that meaning is true or false.
Statement 4
Does the Prime Minister think that he was right to quit?
My Analysis: With everything she had done in the build-up, I think she could have asked a better question — for example, whether the Prime Minister could clarify his position on the increase to defence spending. But I think she knows he might be in agreement, and she does not want to give him an easy out. So the question of whether the Defence Secretary was right to quit is a tougher one. Answering yes would mean that the Labour party was not fully committed to defence, and the reason she gave for his resignation also underscores her point about the importance of increasing defence spending. Answering no would mean he was disagreeing with the decision of the Chancellor he appointed to resign his previous post. In a way, the question she chose had framed him in [sentence incomplete in the original — needs finishing].
The Prime Minister
As I said last week, I appointed this Chancellor because of his strong commitment to the defence of this nation—that was the reason—and we will honour our NATO commitments: 3.5% by 2035, and a target date for 3%. That will all be set out in the spending review. I do not feel, though, that the right hon. Lady gets the right to come to this House and claim the moral high ground and point fingers wherever possible, when defence spending was 2.3% of GDP and fell during 14 years of a Conservative Government. On this issue, I think we should do more problem solving than point scoring, and I say to the right hon. Lady that we would do our armed forces well if we could agree more on this crucial issue across the House.
Statement 1
As I said last week, I appointed this Chancellor because of his strong commitment to the defence of this nation—that was the reason—and we will honour our NATO commitments: 3.5% by 2035, and a target date for 3%. That will all be set out in the spending review.
My Analysis: He comes to the defence of the Chancellor whom he appointed, but he does not answer the question Badenoch asked; instead he goes on to say that he will honour the commitments for the increase to 3%. This itself is clever, as he answers the important question that was not asked directly while sidestepping the actual question. This is a tactic I have noticed in PMQs, where the question being asked is not always the one that gets answered.
Statement 2
I do not feel, though, that the right hon. Lady gets the right to come to this House and claim the moral high ground and point fingers wherever possible, when defence spending was 2.3% of GDP and fell during 14 years of a Conservative Government.
My Analysis: Here he goes on the offensive, bringing up the shortcomings of the Conservative government, of which she is a member — though I am not sure whether she was part of the leadership. The offensive approach he uses assumes that the 3% goal was in place throughout the Conservative government and that they failed to meet it. That assumption makes her and her party look like hypocrites.
Statement 3
On this issue, I think we should do more problem solving than point scoring, and I say to the right hon. Lady that we would do our armed forces well if we could agree more on this crucial issue across the House.
My Analysis: I love how he is then able to move from attacker to mediator, calling for the two of them to work together.
Thread
I see that both parties are out for each other’s heads, each showing the weaknesses of the other, though the Prime Minister showed some grace.