Strap in for a vicious and epochal fight for No 10 as Sunak and Starmer double down after by-election blows

Published

2 years ago

July 21, 2023

admin

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.

Politics Live: Is Keir Starmer on course to be the next PM?

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

UK

Starmer and Reeves ditch plans to raise income tax in budget

Published

4 hours ago

November 13, 2025

admin

Starmer and Reeves ditch plans to raise income tax in budget

Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have scrapped plans to break their manifesto pledge and raise income tax rates in a massive U-turn less than two weeks from the budget.

The decision, first reported in the Financial Times, comes after a bruising few days which has brought about a change of heart in Downing Street.

I understand Downing Street has backed down amid fears about the backlash from disgruntled MPs and voters.

The Treasury and Number 10 declined to comment.

The decision is a massive about-turn. In a news conference last week, the chancellor appeared to pave the way for manifesto-breaking tax rises in the budget on 26 November.

She spoke of difficult choices and insisted she could neither increase borrowing nor cut spending in order to stabilise the economy, telling the public “everyone has to play their part”.

The decision to backtrack was communicated to the Office for Budget Responsibility on Wednesday in a submission of “major measures”, according to the Financial Times.

Tory shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith said: “We’ve had the longest ever run-up to a budget, damaging the economy with uncertainty, and yet – with just days to go – it is clear there is chaos in No 10 and No 11.”

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News App. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

UK

Economy grew by 0.1% in third quarter, official figures show

Published

15 hours ago

November 13, 2025

admin

Economy grew by 0.1% in third quarter, official figures show

The UK’s economic slowdown gathered further momentum during the third quarter of the year with growth of just 0.1%, according to an early official estimate that makes horrific reading for the chancellor.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported a surprise contraction for economic output during September of -0.1% – with some of the downwards pressure being applied by the cyber attack disruption to production at Jaguar Land Rover.

The figures for July-September followed on the back of a 0.3% growth performance over the previous three months and the 0.7% expansion achieved between January and March.

Money latest: The £110 benefit 1.1 million older Britons don’t claim

The encouraging start to 2025 was soon followed by the worst of Donald Trump’s trade war salvoes and the implementation of budget measures that placed employers on the hook for £25bn of extra taxes.

Economists have blamed those factors since for pushing up inflation and harming investment and employment.

ONS director of economic statistics, Liz McKeown, said: “Growth slowed further in the third quarter of the year with both services and construction weaker than in the previous period. There was also a further contraction in production.

“Across the quarter as a whole, manufacturing drove the weakness in production. There was a particularly marked fall in car production in September, reflecting the impact of a cyber incident, as well as a decline in the often-erratic pharmaceutical industry.

“Services were the main contributor to growth in the latest quarter, with business rental and leasing, live events and retail performing well, partially offset by falls in R&D [research and development] and hair and beauty salons.”

When measured by per head of population- a preferred measure of living standards – zero growth was registered during the third quarter.

The weaker-than-expected figures will add fuel to expectations that the Bank of England can cut interest rates at its December meeting after November’s hold.

The vast majority of financial market participants now expect a reduction to 3.75% from 4% on 18 December.

Data earlier this week showed the UK’s unemployment rate at 5% – up from 4.1% when Labour came to power with a number one priority of growing the economy.

Since then, the government’s handling of the economy has centred on its stewardship of the public finances.

The chancellor was accused by business groups of harming private sector investment and employment through hikes to minimum wage levels and employer national insurance contributions.

The Bank has backed the assertion that hiring and staff retention has been hit as a result of those extra costs.

There is also evidence that rising employment costs have been passed on to consumers and contributed to the UK’s stubbornly high rate of inflation of 3.8% – a figure that is now expected to ease considerably in the coming months.

Rachel Reeves has blamed other factors – such as Brexit and the US trade war – for weighing on the economy, leaving her facing a similar black hole to the one she says she inherited from the Conservatives.

Her second budget is due on 26 November.

She said of the latest economic data: “We had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year, but there’s more to do to build an economy that works for working people.

“At my budget later this month, I will take the fair decisions to build a strong economy that helps us to continue to cut waiting lists, cut the national debt and cut the cost of living.”

Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride responded: “Today’s ONS figures show the economy shrank in the latest month, under a Prime Minister and Chancellor who are in office but not in power.”

UK

Scottish government yet to pay up after losing legal battle over definition of a woman

Published

15 hours ago

November 13, 2025

admin

Scottish government yet to pay up after losing legal battle over definition of a woman

The Scottish government and For Women Scotland’s long-running legal battle over the definition of a woman is yet to come to a close.

For Women Scotland (FWS) won the case in April when the country’s highest court ruled “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to “a biological woman and biological sex”.

The Scottish government was ordered to pay a portion of the campaign group’s legal costs.

FWS told Sky News the bill of costs for the Supreme Court element of the case was more than £270,000, however various parts have reportedly been disputed by the Scottish government.

That has now been submitted to the court for determination and a decision is awaited.

The Outer and Inner House element of the case at the Court of Session in Edinburgh was said to be more than £150,000.

Trina Budge, co-director of FWS, said the group is also due an uplift – a small percentage of the final expenses awarded.

Ms Budge claimed Scottish ministers are yet to enter into any negotiations on settlement and a date has been set in January for a hearing before the Auditor of the Court of Session to confirm the amount the government will have to pay.

Ms Budge said: “The delay always suits the paying party but I think it’s quite unusual to decline to enter into any discussions at all.

“It’s highly likely this is a deliberate tactic in the hope of starving us of funds to prevent us continuing our latest case on the lawfulness of housing male prisoners on the female estate.

“However, it should come as no surprise to the government that we have massive support and we will, of course, be continuing regardless of any sharp practices.”

It is understood the bill of costs for the Supreme Court case was lodged by FWS in August, while the expenses linked to the Court of Session action was submitted in September.

Figures revealed by a recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request show the Scottish government has spent at least £374,000 on the case.

Final costs are yet to be confirmed but will be published once complete.

A Scottish government spokesperson said: “There is an established process to be undertaken to agree the final costs for a legal case and these will be calculated and published in due course.”

In August, FWS lodged fresh action at the Court of Session.

The group claimed Holyrood’s guidance on transgender pupils in schools and the Scottish Prison Service’s (SPS) policy on the management of transgender people in custody were both in “clear breach of the law” and “inconsistent” with the Supreme Court judgment.

The following month, the Scottish government issued updated guidance which said schools across the nation must provide separate toilets for boys and girls on the basis of biological sex.

If possible, schools can also provide gender neutral toilets for transgender students.

However, court proceedings continue over transgender prisoners.

Current SPS guidance allows for a transgender woman to be admitted into the female estate if the inmate does not meet the violence against women and girls criteria, and there is no other basis “to suppose” they could pose an “unacceptable risk of harm” to those also housed there.

First Minister John Swinney and Justice Secretary Angela Constance have both dodged questions on the case, citing it would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings.

On Tuesday, Ms Constance was accused by former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross of “misleading” Holyrood, saying she could give full answers under contempt of court legislation.

Scottish Tory MSP Tess White, the party’s equalities spokesperson, added she was “spine-chillingly concerned” of a repeat of the Isla Bryson case.

Bryson, a transgender woman born Adam Graham, was initially sent to a women-only prison despite being convicted of raping two women.

The offender was later transferred to the male estate following a public outcry.

Speaking to Sky News, Ms White said: “John Swinney was quick to waste taxpayers’ money fighting a case which confirmed what the vast majority of the public knew beforehand: a woman is an adult human female.”

The MSP for North East Scotland urged the SNP administration to “pay up and finally respect the clear judgment from the Supreme Court”.

A Scottish government spokesperson said: “It is the Scottish government’s long-held position that it is inappropriate for Scottish ministers to comment on live litigation.

“In all cases, we have an obligation to uphold the independence of the judiciary. We do not want the government to ever be seen as interfering in the work of the independent courts.”