Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer has admitted the local election results were “not good” for the Conservatives, but insists Rishi Sunak is “starting to deliver in a quiet way for the British people”.
Her party lost more than a thousand seats after voters went to the polls across England, seeing Labour take over as the largest party in local government for the first time in more than 20 years.
The minister told Sky News’ Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme that people were “angry and frustrated” with the government, and were finding the rising cost of living “difficult”.
But she blamed the long period the Tories have had in government, the impact of the pandemic and the fallout of the Ukraine war for the poor electoral performance, rather than Mr Sunak and his policies.
“I totally recognise we’ve had a really difficult few years,” she said. “[But] I do think that the prime minister, who’s been in office for six months, is getting the country back on track and is delivering, and I think we’re starting to gain the trust of the British public.”
Meanwhile, Labour’s Wes Streeting said his party was “confident but not complacent” after Thursday’s results, which saw them gain over 500 seats and control of another 22 councils.
Advertisement
The shadow health secretary told Sophy Ridge: “I think those results do point to enormous progress made under [Sir] Keir Starmer’s leadership.
“He’s changed the Labour Party – now he’s got a hearing to be able to change the country. But there’s more to do.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:26
Labour: ‘The best is yet to come’
Will Labour and the Lib Dems join forces?
Mr Streeting promised the party would be setting out more of its big “missions” in the coming weeks, including its plans to tackle issues in the NHS and education.
But while he insisted Labour would “win the next general election”, he did not rule out entering a coalition with the Liberal Democrats when pushed, instead saying he was “not entertaining the prospect”.
The shadow minister added: “This is a process, not an event. We’re not at the final destination yet in terms of the general election.”
Pressure on for Tories now focus is back on dire results
As coronation fever starts to fade and the bunting begins to come down, focus is returning to those dire local election results for the Conservative Party.
This is beyond the Tories’ worst nightmares. Ministers were predicting a 1,000-seat loss, but that was the worst-case scenario, and we saw more than that fall on Thursday night.
They also lost overall control of 49 councils, leaving Labour as the largest party of local government.
So, what does it mean for the prime minister?
We are starting to hear some rumblings of discontent on the Conservative benches, though it is the usual suspects like Sir John Redwood, saying there needs to be tax cuts.
We also had Tory MP Jackie Doyle-Price on Sky News earlier saying that tax cuts were needed, and that the party had been like a “soap opera” for the last 18 months, full of bickering.
But despite these noises of unhappiness, the government is pushing ahead with more of the same policies.
For Labour, it was obviously a good night. But our analysis suggests that if you took those results and put them into a general election, the party would not win an outright majority.
Sir Keir Starmer was pretty happy last week, but now he is facing difficult questions over whether he would do a deal with the Lib Dems or SNP to get into power.
This attack line is sure to come from the Conservatives over the coming months, but it is their party that is under pressure, not Labour.
If anything like these local election results happens when the whole country goes to the polls, the Tories will be out of government for the first time in 13 years.
The Lib Dems had a successful night on Thursday too, with more than 400 seat gains and control of an additional 12 councils under their belts.
Deputy leader Daisy Cooper told Sophy Ridge it was “a record-breaking set of results for us, and we really exceed all of our own expectation”.
Ms Cooper also didn’t rule out entering a coalition government with Labour, instead saying: “Everything we do between now and the general election will be about focusing on getting the Democrat MP elected.”
She pointed to some key areas in the so-called “Blue Wall” where the party was making an impact.
“Thisweekend there’ll be a number of the Conservative big beasts, Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, former prime minister Theresa May, even Nadhim Zahawi, who will have woken up to having a Liberal Democrat run council,” she said.
“And they’ll be looking over their shoulder, knowing that we’re coming for their parliamentary seats at the next general election.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:14
Lib Dems don’t rule out coalition with Labour
The final results
The final tallies from this week’s votes showed Labour with 2,652 seats across local authorities, up by 528, the Tories with 2,287, down by 1,064, and the Lib Dems with 1,615 seats, up by 407.
The Labour wins came in key battleground areas the party had been targeting, including Medway in Kent and Swindon in the South West, as well as Red Wall councils like Stoke-on-Trent.
Meanwhile, the Tories lost control of 49 councils, including Surrey Heath, Staffordshire Moorlands and Central Bedfordshire.
The Green Party also had a good night, adding 241 seats to their total, bring it to 481, and winning an outright majority on a council for the first time.
Image: Projected national estimated vote share
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:04
‘This is a big swing’ to Labour
Sky News’ election analyst Professor Michael Thrasher said that based on analysis of change in vote share across 1,500 wards, Labour was the most popular party with 36%, with the Conservative share 29%, Lib Dems with 18% and others standing at 17%.
And if this week’s results were translated into a national election, Labour would be on course to become the largest party the next time the country went to the polls – gaining 95 seats to an improved total of 298.
But while this figure would be the highest number since Labour won the 2005 general election, it would still be 28 short of an overall majority.
Donald Trump could meet Vladimir Putin in person as early as next week to discuss a ceasefire in Ukraine, a White House official has said.
They said the meeting would be conditional on the Russian president meeting his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Sky News’s US partner network NBC News reported.
It came days before the White House’s deadline for Russia to reach a peace deal with Ukraine or face severe economic penalties, which could also target countries buying its oil.
Asked during a news conference at the White House if the talks would take place, Mr Trump said: “There’s a very good prospect that they will.”
He said it had not been determined where the talks would take place, but added: “We had some very good talks with President Putin today.”
However, he said: “I’ve been disappointed before with this one.”
Asked if Mr Putin made any kind of concession to lead to the development, Mr Trump did not give much away, but added: “We’ve been working on this a long time. There are thousands of young people dying, mostly soldiers, but also, you know, missiles being hit into Kyiv and other places.”
Trump might finally be a step closer to ending the war
Seven hours is a long time in US politics.
At 10am, Donald Trump accused Russia of posing a threat to America’s national security.
At 5pm, Trump said there was a “good prospect” of him meeting Vladimir Putin “soon”.
There had, he claimed, been “great progress” in talks between his special envoy Steve Witkoff and the Russian president.
It’s difficult to gauge the chances of a meeting between the two leaders without knowing what “great progress” means.
Is Russia “inclined” towards agreeing a ceasefire, as Ukraine’s president now claims?
Is Putin prepared to meet with his Ukrainian foe Volodymyr Zelenskyy, too?
The very fact that we’re asking those questions suggests something shifted on a day when there was no expectation of breakthrough.
Trump repeatedly vowed to end the war within 24 hours of becoming president.
On day 198 of his presidency, he might, just might, be one step closer to achieving that.
More tariffs ‘could happen’
Mr Trump also said he could announce further tariffs on China similar to the 25% he announced on India over its purchases of Russian oil.
“Could happen,” he said, after saying he expected to announce more secondary sanctions intended to pressure Russia into ending its war with Ukraine.
Earlier, he imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, on top of a previous 25% tariff, over its continued purchases of Russian oil.
India’s foreign ministry spokesperson said the additional tariffs were “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable”.
Image: Vladimir Putin welcomes Steve Witkoff during a meeting in Moscow. Pic: Sputnik/Reuters
It came after Mr Putin held talks with Mr Trump‘s special envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow, with the meeting lasting around three hours.
In a post on Truth Social, Mr Trump said Mr Witkoff “had a highly productive meeting” with Mr Putin in which “great progress was made”.
He said he had updated America’s European allies, and they will work towards an end to the Russia-Ukraine war “in the days and weeks to come”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:11
Correspondents in Washington and Moscow break down a busy day of diplomacy
‘The war must end’
Mr Zelenskyy later said he and Mr Trump spoke on the phone after the meeting. He said “European leaders also participated in the conversation” and “we discussed what was said in Moscow”.
He added: “Our common position with our partners is absolutely clear: The war must end. We all need lasting and reliable peace. Russia must end the war that it started.”
Mr Zelenskyy later said: “It seems that Russia is now more inclined to agree to a ceasefire.”
He added that the pressure on Moscow “is working”, without elaborating, and stressed it was important to make sure Russia does not “deceive us or the United States” when it comes to “the details” of a potential agreement.
Ghana’s defence and environment ministers are among eight killed when a military helicopter crashed, the government has said.
The West African country’s military said the helicopter took off in the morning from the capital Accra and was heading northwest into the interior to the town of Obuasi when it went off the radar.
Footage of the crash site shows debris on fire in a forest as people circle around to help.
The cause of the crash was not immediately known. The military said an investigation was under way.
Defence minister Edward Omane Boamah and environment minister Ibrahim Murtala Muhammed were killed, along with the vice-chair of the National Democratic Congress ruling party, a top national security adviser and the helicopter’s three crew members.
NASA is accelerating plans to put a nuclear reactor on the moon, and they claim it could happen by 2030.
In a directive – a written or oral instruction issued by the US government – to NASAstaff earlier this month, Sean Duffy, US transport secretary and the new interim administrator of the space agency, said it should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years.
Plans to get a reactor on the lunar surface are not new. The NASA website states the space agency is working on the Fission Surface Power Project to create a system capable of generating at least 40 kilowatts of power – but that is less than half of what Mr Duffy has now proposed.
He also stressed the importance of America’s space agency deploying the technology before China and Russia.
“To properly advance this critical technology, to be able to support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space, it is imperative the agency move quickly,” the directive, which was first reported on by Politico, states.
Image: Sean Duffy says NASA should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years. Pic: Reuters
A nuclear reactor on the moon would be considered a key step towards building a permanent base for humans to live on the lunar surface.
But Mr Duffy warned that the first country to deploy a reactor “could potentially declare a keep-out zone” which he said could significantly inhibit NASA’s Artemis mission – the lunar exploration programme which aims to land astronauts back on the moon in 2027.
When quizzed about the plan on 5 August, he told reporters: “We’re in a race to the moon, in a race with China to the moon. And to have a base on the moon, we need energy.”
Why use a nuclear reactor?
Unlike solar power, which is used on the International Space Station, a small nuclear reactor can operate continuously, Dr Sungwoo Lim, a senior lecturer in space applications, exploration and instrumentation at the University of Surrey told Sky News.
This is critical for infrastructure on the moon, which spends two weeks in complete darkness as it slowly orbits the Earth.
Nuclear reactors therefore diminish the need for sunlight, and can be used to power life support, communications and other critical science instruments, even in darkness.
Image: An artist impression of a nuclear reactor on the moon. Pic: NASA
“In practice, this means astronauts could use a reactor to establish sustainable bases and extend exploration to places where solar energy is impractical,” Dr Lim adds, including in the moon’s permanently shadowed region, where scientists believe ice water exists.
Professor Mike Fitzpatrick, an expert in nuclear technology at Coventry University, adds that the proposal of a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor, is relatively small compared to most that are built on Earth.
To put it in real terms, it takes around three kilowatts to power the kettle in your home.
But Prof Fitzpatrick says a smaller reactor could pose as “demonstrator technology”, something small and compact that makes it easier to transport it to the moon.
“Then you can have a whole array of them,” he says.
So, what’s the catch?
While scientists agree that nuclear energy seems like the necessary way to make progress on the moon, Prof Fitzpatrick says questions still remain about safety.
“Shipping the fuel to the moon is relatively safe, because at that point it is not particularly toxic, it is the highly reactive fission products that become the issue,” he says.
“What’s going to be the strategy for long-term storage and disposal on the moon after these plants have operated for certain periods of time? The sooner those conversations are had, and you have international consensus, the less likely it is you’ll get future friction.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:55
Four astronauts launch to ISS after delay
Dr Lim also questioned Mr Duffy’s timescale of 2030, saying meeting the target depends heavily on the space agency’s budget.
NASA’s future funding is currently unknown after Donald Trump’s 2026 budget request sought a cut of $6bn (£4.5bn) and the termination of dozens of science programs and missions.
Over 2,000 agency employees are also set to voluntarily leave NASA in the coming months under the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation” programme.
Is this the new space race?
Last year, Russia’s space agency Roscosmos said it was planning to build a lunar nuclear reactor alongside China’s National Space Administration by 2035, in order to power the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS).
The collaboration was never formally announced by China but the joint plan was included in a presentation by Chinese officials in April this year, which outlined the 2028 Chang’e-8 lunar mission which aims to lay the groundwork for the ILRS.
“Duffy explicitly described it as a competition,” says Dr Lim, adding that the move towards lunar exploration signals a renewed moon or space race among major parties like China, Russia, India and the US to claim strategic lunar territory and technology.
However, Rossana Deplano a professor of international space law at the University of Leicester, says there is a lot of misunderstanding around “keep out” or safety zones, which Mr Duffy’s directive mentions.
“Safety zones are explicitly recognised in the Artemis Accords,” she says.
“They are a notification and consultation zone to be declared in advance in order to avoid harmful interference.
“They must be temporary in nature and do not establish state jurisdiction, e.g. they cannot be enforced.”