PMQs 04/03/2026: War Abroad, Pressure at Home

A sharp clash between Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch revealed competing visions for Britain’s security, economy and international role.

Prime Minister’s Questions on 4 March was dominated by the escalating conflict in Iran, producing one of the sharper exchanges between Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch in recent weeks. While the debate began with questions about Britain’s role in the conflict, it quickly expanded into a wider argument about defence spending, energy security and the economic consequences of war.

From the outset, Starmer adopted a measured tone, telling MPs that the government must respond to the situation “with clarity, with purpose, and with a cool head”. Badenoch, however, framed Labour’s approach as overly cautious. In a pointed line that drew audible reaction across the chamber, she accused the prime minister of “catching arrows rather than stopping the archer” in his handling of the crisis.

The exchange highlighted a fundamental difference in emphasis between the two leaders. Badenoch pressed for a more assertive response to the conflict, arguing that Britain was already implicated in the crisis and should act accordingly. Starmer, by contrast, stressed restraint and coordination with allies, pointing to defensive actions already taken, including allowing US aircraft to operate from UK bases.

Defence spending quickly became the next battleground. Starmer defended Labour’s record, telling the House the government had delivered the biggest increase in defence funding “since the Cold War”. Badenoch challenged the claim, citing projections suggesting the UK will not reach defence spending of 3% of GDP for several years. With war “happening now”, she argued, the government was leaving the most difficult decisions for the next administration.

She also criticised the government’s fiscal priorities following the Spring Statement, claiming the chancellor had chosen to direct additional resources toward welfare rather than defence. Starmer responded by pointing to improving economic indicators, arguing that falling inflation, lower interest rates and reduced borrowing were essential foundations for long-term security spending.

The debate soon moved beyond military strategy and into energy policy, an issue where international conflict can quickly translate into domestic pressure. Badenoch warned that instability in the Middle East could push oil and gas prices higher, intensifying the cost-of-living challenges already facing UK households. She also criticised Labour’s stance on North Sea drilling, arguing that restricting domestic production risks weakening the country’s energy security at a moment of global uncertainty.

Starmer acknowledged that energy supply was now a central concern, confirming that the chancellor would be meeting oil and gas companies while continuing discussions with international partners to ensure the stable movement of energy supplies.

For many observers, this exchange illustrated the wider economic stakes of the conflict. Global energy markets remain sensitive to instability in the Middle East, and any sustained disruption to oil or gas supply could feed directly into household energy costs across the UK.

The conversation also touched on national security more broadly. Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey raised concerns about the threat posed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, noting previous plots targeting individuals in Britain and asking whether the government would introduce emergency legislation to strengthen protections. Starmer responded that security agencies were already working “24/7” to address potential threats and had disrupted multiple Iran-linked plots.

Taken together, the exchanges revealed a government balancing competing pressures: responding to international instability while managing economic risks at home. For people across the UK, including recent arrivals who often feel the impact of security and immigration debates most acutely, these discussions ultimately shape the policies that affect energy bills, national security and public spending.

Behind the familiar theatre of PMQs, the debate reflected a genuine dilemma facing British policymakers: how to navigate an increasingly unstable world without deepening the economic pressures already felt at home.

Photo by Jake Willett on Unsplash