Trump brings peace to PMQs. No one knows what to argue about | Zoe Williams

“Does the prime minister agree with me,” asked Labour’s Alex McIntyre, “that we are delivering opportunity for the next generation?” The soft-soap question from your own team is such a well-worn convention of PMQs that it was previously impossible to imagine anyone bringing anything new to it, but McIntyre was so trite and banal, with so much incongruous passion, nay, fury, that it was genuinely diverting. Good job, that man. Someone put a sticker on his suck-ass chart.

The real business was the prime minister’s trip to Washington; and what a vast amount of business this encompasses. It’s three years this week “since Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine”, Starmer reminded the house, and that grinding war still holds a unique place in the chamber: the issue on which every serious person is agreed.

Every party is proud to support Ukraine, proud of the generosity of the British people in opening their homes to refugees. If Kemi Badenoch was looking for one of her clip moments – where she asks a question so hostile and overbaked that the answer comes back, “Eh? What are you on about?”, but it doesn’t matter, because she just needed 45 seconds for an Insta Reel – she wasn’t going to get one on this topic. She and the prime minister do not meaningfully disagree.

And on the one hand, you might think: fair, it’s a war of aggression, naturally all decent people side with the aggressed. But on the other, you think, why the hell not? The real reason Ukraine is dominating political business now is not that grim anniversary, but rather, the actions of Donald Trump since he came into office. Some people in this house agree with Trump and rejoiced in his victory, but it’s taking them a long time to marry that to a Russia/Ukraine position that was previously so simple.

Other people regard Trump as the vanguard of a hard-right global surge that is terrifying to behold, and even if they never said anything to that effect, it would be possible to guess it from everything you know about social democratic values, juxtaposed against everyone he appoints, everything he says, and everything he does. So why aren’t they actually arguing? What’s the holdup?

OK, on Badenoch’s first question, I can see the delay: “The prime minister and I are completely united in our support for Ukraine,” she began, “as a proud and sovereign nation. What specific steps will he take to ensure that Ukraine is at the negotiating table for any peace settlement?” Complete unity is not easily posable, as a question, and the way she framed it as one wasn’t easy to answer. “It is right,” Starmer replied, “and I think the whole house will think it’s right, that there can be no negotiations about Ukraine, without Ukraine.” But before the spectacle of Trump and Putin negotiating alone, this wasn’t even a live question, so what specific steps could you take, against two monomaniacs trying to carve up the world to their own liking? I guess, as with any daunting, gigantic task, the same way you’d eat an elephant, one bite at a time – but that would involve actually opening your mouth.

Starmer remains determined that the US is as important an ally as ever. As he reminded Labour’s Rosena Allin-Khan, we have a “special and deep relationship with the US, and that’s not just words. That’s to do with security, defence, intelligence capability, all vitally important.” Fine, fine, don’t disagree with Trump then, not when you’re flying out to see him this very afternoon and you haven’t even decided what house gift to bring. But would it be remiss to ask whether there’s anything you disagree with him on, given that your support for Ukraine is the exact opposite of what he stands for?

Round and round they all went. Badenoch distracted herself by fixating on whether the Chagos deal was going to come out of the new defence spending figure, and whether it was in response to her suggestion that Starmer had taken that money out of the aid budget (to which she got an answer so salty from Starmer, it was almost teenage – “She didn’t feature in my thinking at all. I was so busy over the weekend I didn’t even see her proposal”).

But whether from Allin-Khan or the Conservative Simon Hoare, asking whether the prime minister intended to protest against Trump’s degrading noises about turning Canada into a 51st state; whether it was Ed Davey, suggesting that now’s the time to focus on the EU (tsk, typical remainers, always ready to rejoin through the back door), or the Tory John Lamont, invoking the spirit of Churchill every which way, the foundation of each question was the same: the US is no longer speaking recognisable foreign policy. The grammar is all shot, the language is different, diplomacy is over, and while Trump’s precise ratio of meaning to posture is not yet clear, one thing we cannot call this is “all on the same page”. So we’re going to, what? Not mention that? Mention it in a nice way? It’d be great to have a clue.

Not so fast, whippersnappers; the prime minister’s intention is, as it has always been, to remain an ally to all important allies. The facts may have changed, but he has not changed his mind.

In the end, the real bone-throw of a question came from Rishi Sunak, who asked him one about prostate cancer screening. You can’t play party politics or indeed any politics with prostates. It took the wind out of everyone, and geopolitically speaking, the session ended as it had begun: wait and see.