Starmer highlights UK’s war record in implicit rebuke to Vance as Badenoch says she does not approve of ‘Twitter pile-ons’ – UK politics live

Keir Starmer told MPs that the government remains committed to national minority status for Cornwall during a St Piran’s Day PMQs

St Piran’s Day, or the Feast of Saint Piran, is the national day of Cornwall, held on 5 March every year.

As PA Media reports, the Cornish people were first recognised as a national minority group in 2014. It means they are classified under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the same as the UK’s other Celtic people – the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish.

Perran Moon, Labour MP for Camborne and Redruth, told Starmer that “hundreds of thousands of people in Cornwall and around the world” were today celebrating St Piran’s Day. He went on:

Will the prime minister confirm our government’s commitment to national minority status for Cornwall and will he join me in wishing Cornish folk the world over a very happy St Piran’s Day?

Starmer replied:

Let me wish him, his constituents and everyone in Cornwall a very happy St Piran’s Day.

We do recognise Cornish national minority status, not just the proud language, the history and the culture of Cornwall, but its bright future, and I know that he and Cornish colleagues will continue to be powerful voices for Cornwall.

As PA reports, neither St Piran’s Day nor St David’s Day on 1 March are bank holidays. St George’s Day, celebrated in England on 23 April, is also not a bank holiday.

But people in Northern Ireland and Scotland receive bank holidays to mark patron saints’ feast days – St Patrick’s Day on 17 March and St Andrew’s Day on 30 November.

Badenoch does not approve of ‘Twitter pile-ons’ against Vance, her spokesperson says

Peter Walker

Peter Walker is a senior Guardian political correspondent.

Kemi Badenoch is maintaining her position of seemingly being the only person in UK politics who did not think JD Vance was referring to the UK or France when he disparaged a planned European peace deployment to Ukraine as “20,000 troops from some random country that has not fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.

The US vice president’s comments provoked outrage and criticism from many British politicians, even Nigel Farage, but Badenoch said she believed Vance’s subsequent tweets saying he did not mean either country – although he did not specify which other nations he was referring to.

Speaking after PMQs, the Badenoch’s spokesperson said she did not believe in “inciting Twitter pile-ons on the vice president”. He said: “

The fact is that he didn’t say Britain or France in his original answer, and then when he saw that it was being alleged that he had, he came out and clarified that he wasn’t talking about Britain and France.

Asked who Badenoch thought was being referred to, he replied: “That’s for JD Vance to answer.”

The spokesman confirmed that after the Tory defence spokesman, James Cartlidge, joined the criticism of Vance, the party’s chief whip had told MPs “that views don’t necessarily need to be aired on Twitter”.

He added:

She wants to deal with facts. And what she would say is that when there is a very heightened international diplomacy going on, a sort of Twitter pile-on, on the vice president of our closest ally, is not helping to bring about a peace in Ukraine, which is what we should all be focused on.

Diane Taylor

A majority of British people think government should use money from frozen Russian assets to fund the rebuilding of Ukraine, according to new polling. Three in five Britons (58%) back this approach.

Over 70% of Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat voters back this approach, along with 48% of Reform voters.

The polling, conducted by More in Common, on behalf of the research and campaigning organisation Future Advocacy earlier this month, surveyed 2,000 people for their views on how the UK government should finance humanitarian assistance to Ukraine. This follows chancellor Rachel Reeves’ decision to loan more than £2bn of the UK’s approximately £18bn in frozen Russian assets to fund weapons in Ukraine.

Support for using Russian funds to finance humanitarian aid follows the government’s roll-back on international aid last week, which saw the UK’s aid budget slashed to support increased defence spending.

More in Common UK associate director Conleth Burns said:

This polling shows clear public support for using frozen Russian assets to support the UK’s commitments on humanitarian aid to help with the rebuilding of Ukraine. Even after last week’s cut to the aid budget, the public are open to alternative funding avenues for Britain to deliver on its humanitarian commitments to the people of Ukraine.

A united House of Commons is good for a government engaged in a complicated foreign policy negotiation, but bad for parliamentary sketchwriters, political reporters, partisan keyboard warriors and anyone else who thrives on a bit of conflict. For us, that PMQs was largely a quiet affair. The most memorable moment came right at the start, when Keir Starmer took a swipe at JD Vance. (See 12.04pm – I have updated the post with the full quote, but you may need to fresh the page to get the update to appear.) It was very skillfully done. Sometimes effective communication requires saying things bluntly and clearly and sometimes – for example, in dealings with foreign governments that are both powerful and over-sensitive – it is best to convey your message subtly, by implication. That is what Starmer did today. He did not say anything that will rile the vice president. But anyone listening will got the point (from the tone as much as the words) that, in terms of what he thinks about Vance’s comment yesterday, Starmer is on the exactly same page as the glorious Western Australian premier Roger Cook.

Kemi Badenoch used five of her six questions to ask soft questions about Ukraine that were mostly supportive of the government’s position. Starmer completely ignored the most interesting question (which Ed Davey asked too), which is whether or not it’s true that Washington has banned the UK from sharing intelligence with Ukraine. In other respects, what he said did not go much beyond what he told MPs about Ukraine on Monday. At one point he sort of implied that trade talks with the US were about to start (“we did discuss an economic deal and agreed that our teams would indeed sit down rapidly to talk through an economic deal”), but this sounded more like a routine generality than an announcement about 10 negotiators being about to jump on a plane.

There were moments, though, when Badenoch seemed to be suggesting that her support for Starmer’s Ukraine strategy was conditional, and that at some point she might flip. The first came when she asked about the dangers of a “blank cheque” approach.

As the opposition, we support efforts to resolve this conflict, but we cannot write a blank cheque. If British peacekeeping troops in Ukraine were attacked, whether directly or via proxies, we could be drawn into conflict with Russia. Can the prime minister reassure all those who are concerned about the UK being drawn into war?

And the second came when she said she was opposed to Europe going it alone.

We need to make sure that America does not disengage. There are some in this house who argue Europe should go it alone. But does he agree with me that without this country’s greatest ally, any peace agreement would place a terrible burden on Britain and our taxpayers?

Starmer insisted that he, too, did not want to see the UK drawn into war with Russia, and he said he agreed “wholeheartedly” that Europe and the US needed to work together, and so today there was no actual disagreement between the two positions. But was Badenoch hinting that at some point in the future the two parties might disengage? Or is is just that her combative manner means she is incapable of framing questions that don’t sound like disagreement?

We can’t tell at this point, and perhaps she does not know either. No one sensible would be confident predicting how this crisis is going to unfold.