Holding on to Uxbridge and South Ruislip on Friday morning at least gave Rishi Sunak a life jacket to cling to in the by-election wash-up – a 2-1 defeat rather than a 3-0.
Popping up in Uxbridge, the prime minister used his wafer-thin victory (winning Boris Johnson’s old seat by just 495 votes) to insist that the outcome of the next general election was “not a done deal”.
But these results won’t give the Conservatives much confidence that they are on course to avoid going under at the next general election.
Be it the Labour win in Selby and Ainsty, or the Liberal Democrat triumph in Somerton and Frome, the common thread in both these results are two opposition parties performing at levels matching by-election results in the dying days of the 1992-1997 Conservative government which came crashing down with the Tony Blair landslide.
That was an epochal election – and these results only reinforce the idea that the next one is likely to be too.
For Labour, the win in Selby is historic.
More on Conservatives
Related Topics:
It was the biggest ever Tory majority – more than 20,000 – overturned by Labour in a by-election, and the second biggest swing – 23.7 per cent – away from the Tories to Labour since the Second World War, beaten only by Tony Blair in Dudley West in 1994.
Sir Keir Starmer finds himself in the sort of territory – in the polls and in this election – that was claimed by Mr Blair ahead of this big victory.
Advertisement
He needs a swing of 12 per cent – Blair got a record 10.7 per cent swing in 1997 – to gain 124 seats and win a majority.
Selby is the Conservatives’ 249th most vulnerable seat and losing in a rural Tory stronghold like this will make Tories with majorities of 15,000 feel very unsure.
For the Lib Dems, winning Somerton and Frome is their fourth consecutive by-election win this parliament, a feat not achieved since the days of Paddy Ashdown in 1992-1997.
It has given the Lib Dems belief that they can rebuild in the West Country, having been nearly wiped out by the Tories after five years of coalition government in 2015.
Somerton was the Lib Dems’ 53rd most marginal seat in the 2019 general election, so they have plenty to go for into next year.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:15
By-elections: What the results mean for UK politics
Sunak sees a way to destabilise Labour
For the Conservatives though, there is a glimmer of something in all of this.
One person in Mr Sunak’s top team told me that Uxbridge had given the prime minister hope that if he can pin Labour on issues of substance, there is an opportunity to create dividing lines between Labour and the Tories that gives Mr Sunak a chance.
“We’ll have a sharper political take next term, force Starmer out of the shadows and stop him being a grey man. In September you’ll be hearing more about wedge issues,” they said.
I’m told that Mr Sunak is not much of a “culture wars” PM, but will fight on issues where he believes he can disrupt Mr Starmer’s policies and put himself on the right side of voters.
Already the Tories are talking about Labour’s now diluted £28bn-a-year investment into green energy in order to deliver green power by 2030 as an obvious area to hit.
For Labour, the narrative would have of course been cleaner if Mr Sunak had lost all three by-elections.
But the results in some ways reinforce the patterns and political strategy we have seen since the Truss debacle and emergence of Sunak as PM – the Conservatives are miles behind in the polls, local and by-elections reinforce a likely change of power in the next general election and Labour can’t take anything for granted, with the top team borrowing Blair’s “warriors against complacency” in their approach from now to election day.
“The result might not be clean, but it is crystal clear,” says one senior Labour figure. “Selby shows how far we’ve come and the potential of what we can do.
“To win the trust of so many voters who have never voted for us in a strong Tory part of the country is remarkable.”
But it’s true too from Uxbridge that support can’t be taken for granted, and Labour can be de-stabilised when a campaign cuts through.
“Uxbridge shows that support from voters is conditional and if we don’t act in their interests they will not support us,” says the senior Labour figure. “We must put the voters first, our priorities must be the public’s.”
Image: Labour secured a historic victory in Selby and Ainsty
Sunak and Starmer will both double down
From sticking to the two-child cap on child benefit, to only making spending commitments that have been costed via other tax rises (such as ending non-dom status and charging VAT on private school fees), Labour is determined not to open up any flank on economic ill-discipline.
This, I’m told, is all about focus and convincing ‘small c’ Conservatives to come into the Labour column at the general election.
There will be no radicalism from Starmer that costs money.
Instead, he will try to signal “change” through policies that don’t cost money – reforming the planning system and devolution (although I think the Tories might target the green investment plan as an exposed flank).
The overall swing away from the Tories over these three by-elections of 21 per cent is obviously disastrous for Mr Sunak.
But he knows too his party won’t switch him out now – even those who don’t like or support him accept the Conservatives can’t change PM again – and so he will double down on his five pledges while sharpening up attack lines on his opponent.
This trio of by-elections reinforce that it is Mr Starmer with the most to lose and Mr Sunak with everything to win in the race for No 10.
We could be up to 18 months away from the short election campaign, but these leaders will be firing the starting guns on the long campaign in earnest in September.
General elections are always bloody and epochal ones are even more vicious. Strap in.
Environment Agency bosses have been accused of “failing” to tell a cross-party committee of peers about three large-scale illegal waste sites – including one that was recently exposed by Sky News.
Our investigation into waste crime in Wigan heard from residents who repeatedly complained to the Environment Agency that 20 to 30 lorries a day drove down their street last winter and dumped industrial amounts of waste.
The rubbish now sits at a staggering 25,000 tonnes. It burnt for nine days in July, and has seen local homes infested with rats and flies.
Since then, a similarly sized site in Kidlington near the River Cherwell in Oxfordshire sparked national outrage. One man has been arrested in connection with the dumping.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
8:32
‘Epidemic’ of waste crime in Britain
Despite the scale of these two locations – which were well known to the Environment Agency – it neglected to name them when asked by the Lord’s Environment Committee’s inquiry into waste crime how many “significant” sites there were around the country.
Phil Davies and Steve Molyneux of the Environment Agency gave evidence on 17 September.
Just six sites were cited, but three more have been exposed in the past few weeks alone. These are Wigan, Kidlington and a mound of dumped waste in Wadborough.
Now, the Lords are worried there are more environmentally destructive locations the public aren’t aware of.
In a letter to the EA’s chair Alan Lovell and chief executive Philip Duffy, Baroness Sheehan, chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, said: “We are increasingly concerned that there may be other sites of a similarly large and environmentally damaging scale.”
She asked how much progress has been made to remove waste from the various sites, why restriction notices in places like Wigan weren’t served sooner – and for a full list of other sites of a similar size.
Baroness Sheehan also expressed her “disappointment” that these three new locations “were not deemed necessary to bring to the committee’s attention”, though she thanked journalists for “bringing these sites to the public attention”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:17
UK’s ‘biggest ecological disaster’
Her original report saw the Lords call for an independent “root and branch” inquiry into how waste crime is tackled. She said the crime, which costs the UK £1bn every year, has been “critically under-prioritised”.
A new long-awaited child poverty strategy is promising to lift half a million children out of poverty by the end of this parliament – but critics have branded it unambitious.
• Providing upfront childcare support for parents on universal credit returning to work • An £8m fund to end the placement of families in bed and breakfasts beyond a six-week limit • Reforms to cut the cost of baby formula • A new legal duty on councils to notify schools, health visitors, and GPs when a child is placed in temporary accommodation
Many of the measures have previously been announced.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:44
Two-child cap ‘a real victory for the left’
The government also pointed to its plan in the budget to cut energy bills by £150 a year, and its previously promised £950m boost to a local authority housing fund, which it says will deliver 5,000 high-quality homes for better temporary accommodation.
Downing Street said the strategy would lift 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030, saying that would be the biggest reduction in a single parliament since records began.
More on Poverty
Related Topics:
But charities had been hoping for a 10-year strategy and argue the plan lacks ambition.
A record 4.5 million children (about 31%) are living in poverty in the UK – 900,000 more since 2010/11, according to government figures.
Phillip Anderson, the Strategic Director for External Affairs at the National Children’s Bureau (NCB), told Sky News: “Abolishing the two-child limit is a hell of a centre piece, but beyond that it’s mainly a summary of previously announced policies and commitments.
“The really big thing for me is it misses the opportunity to talk about the longer term. It was supposed to be a 10-year strategy, we wanted to see real ambition and ideally legally binding targets for reducing poverty.
“The government itself says there will still be around four million children living in poverty after these measures and the strategy has very little to say to them.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:56
‘A budget for benefits street’
‘Budget for benefits street’ row
The biggest measure in the strategy is the plan to lift the two-child benefit cap from April. This is estimated to lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030, at a cost of £3bn.
The government has long been under pressure from backbench Labour MPs to scrap the cap, with most experts arguing that it is the quickest, most cost-effective way to drive-down poverty this parliament.
The government argues that a failure to tackle child poverty holds back the economy, and young people at school, cutting their employment and earning prospects in later life.
However, the Conservatives argue parents on benefits should have to make the same financial choices about children as everyone else.
Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: “Work is the best way out poverty but since this government took office, unemployment has risen every single month and this budget for Benefits Street will only make the situation worse. “
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:08
OBR leak: This has happened before
‘Bring back Sure Start’
Lord Bird, a crossbench peer who founded the Big Issue and grew up in poverty, said while he supported the lifting of the cap there needed to be “more joined up thinking” across government for a longer-term strategy.
“You have to be able to measure yourself, you can’t have the government marking its own homework,” he told Sky News.
Lord Bird also said he was a “great believer” in resurrecting Sure Start centres and expanding them beyond early years.
The New Labour programme offered support services for pre-school children and their parents and is widely seen to have improved health and educational outcomes. By its peak in 2009-2010 there were 3,600 centres – the majority of which closed following cuts by the subsequent Conservative government.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:50
Lord Bird on the ‘great distraction’ from child poverty
PM to meet families
Sir Keir Starmer’s government have since announced 1,000 Best Start Family Hubs – but many Labour MPs feel this announcement went under the radar and ministers missed a trick in not calling them “Sure Starts” as it is a name people are familiar with.
The prime minister is expected to meet families and children in Wales on Friday, alongside the Welsh First Minister, to make the case for his strategy and meet those he hopes will benefit from it.
Several other charities have urged ministers to go further. Both Crisis and Shelter called for the government to unfreeze housing benefit and build more social rent homes, while the Children’s Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, said that “if we are to end child poverty – not just reduce it” measures like free bus travel for school-age children would be needed.
The strategy comes after the government set up a child poverty taskforce in July 2024, which was initially due to report back in May. The taskforce’s findings have not yet been published – only the government’s response.
Sir Keir said: “Too many children are growing up in poverty, held back from getting on in life, and too many families are struggling without the basics: a secure home, warm meals and the support they need to make ends meet.
“I will not stand by and watch that happen, because the cost of doing nothing is too high for children, for families and for Britain.”
Nigel Farage has launched a tirade against the BBC after he was asked about claims he used racist and antisemitic language when he was at school, which he denied.
The Reform UK leader accused the broadcaster of “double standards”, pointing to its past television shows when he claimed the BBC “were very happy to use blackface”.
The outburst comes as he faces continued pressure over allegations he made racist and antisemitic comments while a pupil at top private school Dulwich College nearly 50 years ago.
Mr Farage was asked by the BBC about an interview his deputy, Richard Tice, gave on Thursday, in which he claimed those accusing his boss of racism were engaging in “made-up twaddle”.
The Reform leader said the framing of the question by the BBC interviewer had been “despicable”.
“I think to frame a question around the leader of Reform’s ‘relationship with Hitler’, which is how she framed it, was despicable, disgusting beyond belief,” he said.
“The double standards and hypocrisy of the BBC are absolutely astonishing.
More from Politics
“At the time I was alleged to have made these remarks, one of your most popular weekly shows was ‘The Black and White Minstrels’. The BBC were very happy to use blackface.”
He added: “I cannot put up with the double standards at the BBC about what I’m alleged to have said 49 years ago, and what you were putting out on mainstream content.
“So I want an apology from the BBC for virtually everything you did during the 1970s and 80s.”
Image: Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. Pic: PA
Turning to the substance of the allegations, Mr Farage read out a letter that he said was from someone who he went to school with.
He quotes the unnamed Jewish pupil as saying: “While there was plenty of macho, tongue-in-cheek schoolboy banter, it was humour. And yes, sometimes it was offensive […] but never with malice.
“I never heard him racially abuse anyone. If he had, he would have been reported and punished. He wasn’t.”
Mr Farage went on to quote the unnamed former school mate as saying claims from former pupils reported by the Guardian and BBC were “without evidence, except for belatedly politically-dubious recollections from nearly half a century ago”.
He said the former pupil who had written to him had described the culture in the 1970s and at Dulwich College as “very different”, and “lots of boys said things they’d regret today”.
Mr Farage has been under pressure since mid-November when reports from former classmates of alleged racist comments surfaced. The Guardian claims it has spoken to 20 former classmates who recall such language.
Challenged in an interview on 24 November if the claims were true, Mr Farage said: “No, this is 49 years ago by the way, 49 years ago. Have I ever tried to take it out on any individual on the basis of where they’re from? No.”
He added: “I would never, ever do it in a hurtful or insulting way. It’s 49 years ago. It’s 49 years ago. I had just entered my teens. Can I remember everything that happened at school? No, I can’t. Have I ever been part of an extremist organisation or engaged in direct, unpleasant, personal abuse, genuine abuse, on that basis? No.”
Challenged again about whether he had racially abused anyone, Farage responded: “No, not with intent.”
“Nigel Farage just called a press conference and used it to rant at journalists over historic allegations of racism and antisemitism – allegations he has just admitted are true.
“Farage is too busy furiously defending himself to defend democracy from the Labour Party’s elections delays.
“Reform’s one-man band is in chaos once again.”
Labour Party chair Anna Turley said: “Nigel Farage can’t get his story straight. It really shouldn’t be this difficult to say whether he racially abused people in the past.
“So far, he’s claimed he can’t remember, that it’s not true, that he never ‘directly’ abused anyone, that he was responsible for ‘offensive banter’, and deflected by saying other people were racist too.
“Instead of shamelessly demanding apologies from others, Nigel Farage should be apologising to the victims of his alleged appalling remarks.”
She added that Reform UK was “simply not fit for high office”.