Kemi Badenoch strode into the House of Commons, flush from being named “Leader Of The Year” by The Spectator, a lifestyle weekly. This was a particularly impressive given that she has been in the job for four weeks. Indeed it’s awe-inspiring when you consider that three of the other candidates, Keir Starmer, Ed Davey and Nigel Farage, all led their parties to separate triumphs in this year’s election. Frankly, were The Spectator not a magazine famous for its iron code of propriety, one would be tempted to suspect some form of match-fixing.

Come to think of it, match-fixing would be quite a good explanation for the way the Leader Of The Decade™ approaches Prime Minister’s Questions. Is there a Malaysian betting syndicate that’s making a weekly killing from Badenoch’s unique approach to the sessions, as gambling addicts across the globe weep at her decision once again not to ask about winter payments to pensioners and instead pursue some line she saw on Twitter?

Part of her problem is that she cannot resist bait. The question before her had come from Labour’s Olivia Bailey, who wanted to ask Starmer whether he agreed that he was doing a terrific job on illegal immigration. At this the Tory benches erupted in mocking laughter. On the front row Robert Jenrick turned bright pink with amusement: how can anyone suggest this when Labour hasn’t made a single ineffectual promise to send a person to Rwanda! (Jenrick was named “One To Watch” by the Speccy, which is, in fairness, both a terrific joke and good advice for Badenoch.)

It was a bicycle kick into goal from halfway down the pitch. But whose goal?

Of course Badenoch picked up on this. Why, Starmer had voted against the Conservative immigration measures. These were measures that Badenoch denounced as failures a week ago, but that’s not the point. She turned to her real question: “The prime minister knowingly appointed a convicted fraudster to be his transport secretary. What was he thinking?”

One could point out that the last Conservative defence secretary had peddled get-rich-quick schemes under a series of false names, or indeed that … well, let’s come back to that. The thing is that Starmer didn’t really need to get into any of that. The rules of PMQs are that he has to at least pretend to answer the questions put to him. But if multiple points are put to him, he gets to choose what he engages with.

So after briefly mentioning that Louise Haigh had resigned very quickly, the prime minister could spend a lot longer accusing Badenoch of having been a “cheerleader” for the high levels of immigration that she now denounces.

“I am not asking about migration,” the Leader Of The Century™ said. “I am asking about the former transport secretary.” Can you spot her mistake there? The prime minister could. “I am not surprised,” he replied, completely ignoring Haigh. “I advise her not to talk about the economy or immigration for another five years.”

It wasn’t clear why Badenoch was asking about Haigh at all. She had resigned already. She wasn’t going to resign any more. There are good questions about what it is that she did, and what she told Starmer, but unless Badenoch knew the answers to those things, there wasn’t much mileage to be gained from pursuing the matter. Perhaps it had all been a build-up to her next line: “The country needs conviction politicians, not politicians with convictions.”

This was a magnificent shot. You could hear the gasps of amazement in the press gallery. It was a bicycle kick into goal from halfway down the pitch. But whose goal? “I gently remind her,” Starmer replied, possibly wondering how he had got so lucky, “that two of her predecessors had convictions for breaking the Covid rules.”

They thought it was all over. Fortunately, the Leader of the Millennium™ had a way to make sure it was now. “We are here to stop him damaging the economy,” she began, before being interrupted by a wave of hilarity from the benches opposite. She should probably give it a couple of months until she tries that one again.

Afterwards, the Greatest Prime Minister The World Has Known, Boris Johnson, issued a statement via his spokesite, the formerly anti-establishment Guido Fawkes blog, which is now edited, in a brilliant satire-defying move, by a Tory peer. He pointed out that Covid Fixed Penalty Notices are not technically criminal convictions, and so the prime minister had misled the Commons. Take that, Starmer!

The Conservatives should definitely follow Johnson’s lead here. Can I suggest a campaign of points of order and opposition day debates? Perhaps Badenoch could use one of her questions next week — perhaps she could use all six! — to hammer home the point that neither Johnson nor Rishi Sunak had convictions for breaking the law, and that in fact the fixed penalty notices these two prime ministers got for breaking laws that they had brought in are quite different from criminal convictions. Perhaps a friendly select committee chair could get Johnson in to give evidence on misleading the House, a subject on which he is, to be fair, a noted authority.

Somewhere in Malaysia, a match-fixer is rubbing their hands together.