It is ironic that the by-election result that helped Rishi Sunak avoid a 3-0 defeat should come courtesy of the Uxbridge and South Ruislip voters who elected Boris Johnson.
On paper, this was the hardest constituency to hold on to – requiring only a 7.5-point swing from the Conservatives to put it in Labour hands.
When we learned that Labour had requested a recount, the game was up. The Conservative majority was five votes short of 500 – the swing against them 6.7 points.
Labour’s critics will point out that such a swing applied nationally would see the Conservatives remaining the largest party in a hung parliament at the next general election.
But for the Tories, with no viable partners in Parliament, being the largest party would still likely leave them out of power.
The simplest explanation of why Uxbridge should behave so differently to the other two by-elections is a single issue: ULEZ.
More on Conservatives
Related Topics:
The London mayor’s decision to extend the Ultra Low Emission Zone to the entire London region has gone down badly with voters who see it as a Labour-imposed tax on those suffering most from the cost of living crisis.
The Labour candidate did his best to distance himself from Sadiq Khan’s policy, but obviously not to the satisfaction of enough of Uxbridge’s voters.
Other explanations will jockey for attention. One is that a dispute over taxation affecting different wings of the Labour Party gives hope to the Conservatives going into the next general election.
Labour’s tax and spend policies will undergo forensic examination. Another explanation is that the constituency is unusual, a rare Leave-voting London area with atypical demographic changes.
But without doubt, the outcome in Selby and Ainsty – a constituency lying close by Mr Sunak’s own seat – is deeply concerning for the Conservatives.
Previously, the largest Tory majority overturned by Labour at a by-election was 14,654 votes in the Mid-Staffordshire by-election held 33 years ago.
Labour’s winner this time, a youthful Keir Mather, demolished the more than 20,000 majority and replaced it with a 4,000-vote majority of his own.
This victory sends shockwaves throughout the Conservative parliamentary party and gives Labour a huge boost.
The swing to Labour in Selby is the second largest in a Conservative seat since the war – only the mammoth 29-point swing in Dudley West achieved by Blair’s New Labour in 1994 is larger.
Conservative incumbents, already pre-occupied with boundary changes affecting their constituencies, will look at their own majorities and wonder whether early retirement is a better option than waiting for the voters to ditch them – joining the 44 Tory MPs who have already declared they won’t be standing again.
Conservative MPs in seats that have stayed loyal to the party for a century – like Aylesbury, Basingstoke and Macclesfield – will fear Labour’s Selby advance.
And if these incumbents are worried, what about their colleagues representing seats that fell to Labour in 1997, a defeat so devastating it took the party the next four general elections to win another overall Commons majority?
There are so many members of the Conservative parliamentary party impacted by the Selby result that it is inconceivable spinning the Uxbridge outcome will override their concerns with the party’s leadership.
Humiliation for Tories in Somerset
The Liberal Democrats were so confident of their win in Somerton and Frome that they announced it with barely a vote counted.
The swing of 29 percentage points is similar to those in other by-election seats won by the Liberal Democrats in parliament.
The Conservative by-election vote share, 26%, is thirteen points lower than its previous low point seen at the 1997 general election.
This humiliation follows local elections that brought defeat for many Conservative councillors and delivered control of Somerset council to the Liberal Democrats.
Crumbs of comfort for the Conservatives are the collapse in Somerton’s turnout, suggesting supporters may have abstained, and that Lib Dem national poll ratings are currently struggling to reach double figures.
That is unlikely to settle the nerves of Conservative incumbents in the West Country – for example those elsewhere in Somerset in Wells and Yeovil, and further afield in Devon and Cornwall, who sense a Lib Dem revival is under way.
Generalising from by-election results is always a dangerous business. But when the outcomes disagree as much as these do, then it’s impossible to see a consensus emerging.
Both Mr Sunak and Sir Keir will try to convince their parties that the results give cause for optimism.
Significant numbers in both parties won’t believe them.
Dr Hannah Bunting is lecturer in Quantitative British Politics, University of Exeter. Professor Michael Thrasher is associate member, Nuffield College.
Newly released emails from Jeffrey Epstein include one in which the late paedophile financier describes how Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor did have his photo taken with victim Virginia Giuffre.
Ms Giuffre, who took her own life earlier this year, claimed in her recently released autobiography that – as a teenager – she had sex with Andrew on three occasions after being trafficked by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
The details have emerged after thousands of files from the Jeffrey Epstein estate were released by Republicans on the House Oversight Committee.
The email that discusses the photograph was one of those released and features an exchange with a journalist in 2011.
More on Andrew Mountbatten Windsor
Related Topics:
A picture emerged in 2011 of Andrew, which has become infamous, showing the former prince with his arm around Virginia Giuffre, apparently taken in Ghislaine Maxwell’s London home.
Although the name of the “girl” is redacted, Epstein appears in his email exchange to be referring to Ms Giuffre, who at the time had spoken to The Mail on Sunday, which had published the photo and her account of encountering Andrew while travelling with Epstein. After cutting ties with Epstein, she moved to Australia. She also changed her surname from Roberts to Giuffre.
An email from Epstein to the journalist read: “The girl has fled the country with an outstanding arrest warrant. The da (sic) after she accused others, said in writing that she has no credibility, she was never 15 years old working for me, her story made it seem like she first worked for trump at that age and was met by ghislaine maxwell.
“Total horseshit, the daily mail paid her money, they admitted it, with the statement that it took money to coax out the truth.
“Yes she was on my plane, and yes she had her picture taken with Andrew, as many of my employees have.
“I have never misled you, this girl is a total liar, they (sic) authorities should check her australian immigration form… I will ask if they will cooperate – Prince people.”
In a different email exchange in March 2011 about an inquiry from a news reporter, Epstein messages someone listed as “The Duke”, which is thought to be Andrew.
Epstein told him: “Im not sure how to respond, the only person she didn’t have sex with was Elvis.”
It prompted the following response: “Please make sure that every statement or legal letter states clearly that I am NOT involved and that I knew and know NOTHING about any of these allegations.
“I can’t take any more of this my end.”
It is not clear if Epstein, who killed himself in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges, was writing about Ms Giuffre.
In a separate email to a publicist in July 2011, Epstein writes: “The girl who accused Prince Andrew can also easily be proven to be a liar.
“I think Buckingham Palace would love it. You should task someone to investigate the girl Virginia Roberts, that has caused the Queen’s son all this agro (sic).
“I promise you she is a fraud. You and I will be able to go to ascot (sic) for the rest of our lives.”
Speaking to Newsnight in 2019, Andrew said: “I have absolutely no memory of that photograph ever being taken… you can’t prove whether or not that photograph is faked or not…
“That’s me but whether that’s my hand or whether that’s the position I… but I don’t… I have simply no recollection of the photograph ever being taken.”
Decades of abuse of thousands of young men by staff at a detention centre in County Durham was “ignored and dismissed” by the prison service, the police and the Home Office, an investigation has found.
Warning: Readers may find the content below distressing
The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) has issued a report into how “horrific” physical and sexual violence was allowed to continue against 17 to 21-year-olds at the Medomsley Detention Centre in Consett.
It named officer Neville Husband who was thought to have groomed and attacked hundreds of trainees in Medomsley’s kitchens. He was described by the ombudsman “as possibly the most prolific sex offender in British history”.
Image: Neville Husband in December 1983. File pic: NCJ Archive/Mirrorpix/Getty
The abuse at Medomsley continued “unchallenged” for the entire 26 years of its operation, from 1961 to 1987, according to the report from ombudsman Adrian Usher. There was, he said, “extreme violence and acts of a sadistic nature”.
The centre held inmates who were all first-time offenders and who had been convicted of crimes ranging from shoplifting and non-payment of fines to robbery.
More on County Durham
Related Topics:
Image: A sign for the centre in July 1998. Pic: Elliot Michael/Mirrorpix/Getty
Several members of staff were convicted after investigations by Durham Constabulary in 2001 and 2023 found widespread abuse of more than 2,000 detainees at Medomsley.
But the ombudsman investigated what authorities knew about the abuse, whether there were opportunities to have intervened at the time and what was done about any opportunities.
Husband ‘used power with devastating effect’
Husband was finally convicted of sexual assault and was jailed in 2003 and again in 2005. He died in 2010.
Mr Usher said: “The illegitimate power imbalance that existed between Husband and the trainees and other staff further flourished within a culture of collusion and silence from other employees.
“Husband used this power with devastating effect.”
Image: Then home secretary Leon Brittan visiting in 1985. Pic: Geoff Hewitt/Mirrorpix/Getty
Trainees ‘physically abused’
Trainees were physically abused from the moment they arrived, when they bathed, were strip searched, during physical education, while working and even during medical examinations, the PPO found.
Victims were targeted for being perceived as gay or weak. Inmates who failed to address staff as “sir” would be punched.
Witnesses said baths were either scalding hot or freezing cold. A number of them said if they were ill, painkillers could be taped to their forehead and they would be told to run around until the pill had dissolved.
Image: Ombudsman Adrian Usher (left) and senior investigator Richard Tucker
Medomsley leaders at every level ‘failed’
Mr Usher said: “Leaders at every level at Medomsley, including the warden, failed in their duty to protect the best interests of those under their charge. Either staff in leadership roles were aware of the abuse, in which case they were complicit, or they lacked dedication and professional curiosity to such an extent as to not be professionally competent.”
“The knowledge of abuse by the Prison Service, the police, the Home Office and other organisations of authority was ignored and dismissed. The authorities failed in their duty to keep detainees safe,” Mr Usher added.
The report highlights a complaint, written in 1965, of an officer striking an inmate with “a distinct blow”. The handwritten response below dismisses it as “playfulness”.
Staff ‘took law into own hands’
A letter sent to all detention centre wardens in 1967 refers to the “increasing number of complaints of assault” and warns of staff “taking the law into their own hands” with discipline going “beyond the legitimate”.
The police officers who delivered 17-year-old Eric Sampson to Medomsley in December 1977 told him he was going to “get the hell kicked out” of him there, he said.
Image: Eric Sampson called the centre ‘hell on earth’
Victim – ‘I could have been killed’
“The violence I had done to me was terrible. I could have been killed in there,” said Mr Sampson. “Every day and night was hell on earth for the full nine weeks.
“With all the abuse, and obviously the sexual abuse, it totally ruined my life. It should never have happened in the first place, or it should have been stopped.”
The inquiry spoke to 79 victims and witnesses.
Over 2,000 former inmates came forward to give their testimony to Operation Seabrook, a police investigation that led to five retired officers being convicted of abuse in 2019.
Lawyer David Greenwood, who represents victims of the abuse at Medomsley, said he has been contacted by men who were held at 20 other detention centres around the country, alleging similar violence.
“I think it was a systematic thing. These prison officers were cogs in a big machine which was designed, culturally or by training, to treat boys really badly,” he said.
Image: Lawyer David Greenwood suggested abuse may have been widespread
Mr Greenwood is calling for a wider inquiry into abuse at all of the detention centres.
What have the police said?
The ombudsman’s report found police officers from both Durham and Cleveland police were “aware that physical and sexual abuse was taking place at Medomsley from as early as 1965 due to complaints of abuse made at police stations”.
It said officers who ignored, dismissed or took no action “failed in their duty to report and investigate crime”.
In response to the report, Durham Constabulary has publicly apologised for “the force’s historic failure to investigate decades of horrifying abuse”.
Chief Constable Rachel Bacon said: “This report makes for extremely difficult reading. It exposes shameful failings by police at that time: both to recognise that the physical violence meted out by staff at Medomsley amounted to abuse or to adequately investigate allegations by those victims who did have the bravery to come forward and report what happened to them.
“I am satisfied that policing standards at Durham Constabulary are worlds apart from those which sadly appear to have existed at that time.”
Cleveland Police said in a statement: “All victims of any form of abuse or exploitation should always be listened to and action taken to prevent any further forms of abuse, and we acknowledge this was not the case many decades ago.
“We know cases like this have a lasting impact upon victims and Cleveland Police has, and continues to, improve its service and support to all those affected by abuse, especially those in cases of children and young people.”
The ombudsman’s report pointed out that the victims have never received a public apology and the complaints process for children in custody remains the same today as it was at the time of the abuse.
Mr Usher said: “I leave it to all of the bodies in this investigation to examine their organisational consciences and determine if there is any action taken today, despite such an extended passage of time, that would diminish, even fractionally, the trauma that is still being felt by victims to this day.”
Seven men have been charged with more than 40 offences against 11 teenagers after an investigation into child sexual exploitation in Bristol.
The alleged offences took place between 2022 and 2025 when the victims were in their mid to late teens.
Police said an investigation into claims of group-based sexual abuse in the city began in late 2023.
The men were arrested in April 2024 and bailed, but were detained again yesterday and are due to appear at Bristol Magistrates’ Court this morning.
The seven charged are:
Mohamed Arafe, 19, (Syrian): Six child sexual exploitation charges and one count of sexual assault. He also faces two counts over the supply of cocaine and ecstasy.
Sina Omari, 20, (Iranian): Two counts of rape; five child sexual exploitation charges; two counts of making an indecent photo of a child; two counts over the supply of cocaine and ecstasy.
Wadie Sharaf, 21, (Syrian): One count of rape; one count of attempted rape; three counts of sexual assault; one count of sexual activity with a child.
Hussain Bashar, 19, (British): One count of rape.
Mohammed Kurdi, 21 (British): Two counts of rape; two child sexual exploitation charges; two counts over the supply of ecstasy and cannabis.
Unnamed 19-year-old man: Four counts of rape; one child sexual exploitation charge; one count of distributing an indecent photo of a child, two counts over the supply of cocaine and ecstasy.
Unnamed 26-year-old-man: Two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault.
All five men named by police are from Bristol. Police also released details of their nationalities, along with their names and ages.
Officers said safeguarding measures and support have been made available to the victims.
Superintendent Deepak Kenth said the case would be a “huge shock to our communities” but they were working “tirelessly” to stop child sexual exploitation in the city.
“We’ve held events in Bristol city centre and continue to work with hotels, taxi drivers, and other businesses, to raise awareness about the signs of exploitation and the need to report any concerns or issues to the police,” he said.