Starmer vs Badenoch on Chagos Islands: Kemi 'slapped around the head by detail'

Read time: 5 mins

In brief…

• The UK foreign office says claims returning the Chagos Islands will cost the UK £18 million are untrue, but Labour is now facing hostile attacks from Tory rivals.
• Discussions around returning Chagos were begun, and mostly conducted, under the previous Tory government.
• The News Agents say that a clash during Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons raised questions about both Labour and the Tories approach to politics.

What’s the story?

White sands. Palm trees. Blue whales. Dugongs. Turtles.

This is, of course, Britain.

Not the Britain you might be thinking of, but the Chagos Islands, a stretch of more than 60 islands in the Indian Ocean, which has been under British sovereignty since 1965, evicting 1000 people in order to build the Diego Garcia military base.

The UK has been preparing to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius since two years of discussions, initiated under the previous Tory government, over the region's future concluded in October 2024.

But that deal is now under threat, with a new Prime Minister in Mauritius demanding negotiations be re-opened, and claiming the UK will now need to pay £18 billion as part of the return deal, double what was originally agreed.

This has been described as "inaccurate and misleading" by the UK foreign office, which says it will only sign a deal that is in the UK's national interest.

The deal had already been paused in order for the UK government to consult with President Donald Trump over the return of the territory, with concerns from the US over Chinese influence in Mauritius, as the two countries have an economic relationship.

Labour has been slammed today (Wednesday 5 February) by Tory rivals, with accusations of Starmer taking money from British children, and even claims he is a “traitor” to the country.

How have the Tories responded?

Speaking in the House of Commons, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch claimed that the money offered to Mauritius "belong to our children and their children", and that the deal – one which was begun in the Conservative government – was an "immoral surrender" that "North London lawyers can boast [about] at their dinner parties".

In response, Starmer said the deal – and payment to Mauritius – was essential for the UK's national security, which, he insisted, was why the Tories first began negotiations.

"They were right to do so," he added, before taking a swipe at what he considers Badenoch's lack of understanding of the situation.

"If the leader of the opposition is properly briefed on the national security implications when she is asking these questions, which she is perfectly entitled to do, then she knows exactly what I am talking about in terms of national security and legal certainty.

"If, on the other hand, she's not properly briefed on the national security implications, she's not doing her job, she's not concerned about national security, and she's not fit to be Prime Minister."

Lewis Goodall believes the PM's comments left the opposition leader with political egg on her face.

"She can never fail to see an absolutely open goal and then always hit the ball over the bar," he says, adding that she missed the mark entirely by failing to question reports of the Mauritius payments having been doubled.

"What Starmer did, which was intriguing, was hint that there may be something that he knows and that she ought to know that would mean that this deal has to be done," Lewis adds.

Jon Sopel believes Kemi Badenoch was simply looking to score with a snappy soundbite, but instead was "slapped around the head by detail" from the PM.

"It made Kemi Badenoch look like she really hadn't prepared properly, or wasn't being serious and grown up about this,” Jon says.

"It does look like it was the Tory government who did most of these meetings and set most of this in motion, and it's Keir Starmer who has finished it off since he became prime minister."

But Emily Maitlis believes Starmer should have been more transparent about the threats he was alluding to in his response to Badenoch.

"What he did tap into is something that I have been hearing from senior conservatives reflecting on how Kemi Badenoch does business at the moment, which is, she's quite scatty and underprepared," Emily says.

"If he had spelled out why we need to do this deal, and gave it to us in one sentence, I think he'd bring a lot of people on side.

"If he said this is a national security threat from China, I think people would get it much more clearly."

Elsewhere, Robert Jenrick described the Mauritius deal as nothing short of "traitorous", which Lewis describes as "disturbing language" from an elected politician.

What’s The News Agents take?

Control of the Chagos Islands aside, The News Agents believe what this current situation has highlighted is the stark contrast between how Labour and the Conservatives operate in the current political landscape.

“Here you've got, in a nutshell, the difference between the parties,” says Emily.

“Jenrick and Badenoch go straight for 10 on the richter scale, while Starmer is saying he needs to choose his words carefully.”

And while Lewis says this also highlights ongoing failings of the Labour government to communicate efficiently, especially when it comes to presenting its successes, he says the hostility of attacks from the Tories could be of concern.

“Whenever there are threats against MPs of violence, or actual violence against MPs, we go through the whole tedious conversation of how we need to be really careful with our language,” he says.

“Invoking that stab in the back, betrayal narrative, is just not helpful to anyone.

“We might think this could be a bad deal, and you could say it's a bad deal and he shouldn't be signing it. You don't have to suggest that someone is a traitor to their country.”

Listen to the latest episode of The News Agents