26 FEBRUARY 2026 | OPINION
The PM gave us the usual stuff yesterday.
Edward Argar (Con): “Would he scrap impending business rate changes?”
PM [effectively]: …
Mrs Badenoch, LOTO (repeatedly): “Would he cut interest rates on student loans?”
PM [effectively]: …
Fleur Anderson (Lab): “Would he remain committed to the Equality Act?”
PM: Natch. And [irrelevantly again], would Nigel Farage apologise for what one of his Party said (“she should be shot”) about Bolsover’s Natalie Fleet (Lab)? [The Speaker has recently told off Sir Keir for asking the Opposition a question – but hey, who cares?]
Farage: “What about the right of Chagossians to live on their land?”
PM: “So the Honourable Gentleman has neither the decency nor the backbone to condemn a death threat against a Member of this House.” He said that Reform’s Gorton and Denton candidate denies non-whites can be English and “has been endorsed by Tommy Robinson”. Vote Labour tomorrow.
[As for Chagos, his reply was: … ]
I have just bought a copy of ‘Punch & Judy Politics: An Insider’s Guide to Prime Minister’s Questions‘. Sir Keir regularly turns the baby of a serious question into sausages, and his nasal twang is already halfway to being a swazzle. How we long for the day when we can have politics for grown-ups.
More interesting was the next session: Farage’s ‘Urgent Question’ about Diego Garcia / Chagos.
The relevant Minister should have been the Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, but she was returning from the USA; in her stead was Hamish Falconer, PUSS for foreign affairs and more specifically the Middle East. In rugby terms, he had been given a “hospital pass” (says my wife). James Cartlidge (Con) noted Falconer’s deflections and said: ”Surely, we should have a Minister in front of us who can answer our fundamental legal questions on the treaty?”
Falconer betrayed the pressure he felt under by twice addressing Farage directly (“you”), which of course should be the (Madam Deputy in this case) Speaker, who picked him up on it.
For pressure there was. Four different MPs asked him about Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which says in part:
a State may … declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures … with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes: […]
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service…
The Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh, noted the “apparent” discrepancy between answers given on 22 May 2025, when it was said that without a quick resolution on Diego Garcia, HMG would run into problems with international law, and written answers given on 4 and 12 February 2026 that acknowledged this opt-out. He gave notice that he would table an Urgent Question on this discrepancy for Monday.
The earlier role of Jonathan Powell was also an issue – he may have been given confidential information on the ‘deal’ before his appointment as special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territories. Ben Obese-Jecty (Con) had previously asked about it re Chagos, and a reply was due on 12 February, but had not yet been received as of this date. “One can assume that a response will be forthcoming very quickly,” said a stern Madam Deputy Speaker.
Nor was it just the Conservatives who turned up the heat. Labour’s Graham Stringer quoted the Labour manifesto on protecting the British Overseas Territories and “defending their sovereignty and right to self-determination” – but noted that the Chagossians had not been consulted. The Lib Dem spokesperson Dr Al Pinkerton also supported Chagossian rights.
There was a further complication, said Farage, in that the Maldives might be about to launch a counter-claim on Chagos via the ICJ .
However much Falconer harped on about eleven previous rounds of discussion on Diego Garcia and Farage’s stunt trip to the Chagos Islands, it was clear that the matter remains far from settled. Thank goodness Parliament is still capable of holding the Government to account. What was the point of capturing the Crown in 1689, if all it achieved was to allow the Prime Minister carte blanche?
We need another John Dunning, he who said in 1780: “The influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.” But this time, to address the shogunate that has taken over from the monarch.
