Strap in for a vicious and epochal fight for No 10 as Sunak and Starmer double down after by-election blows
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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
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.”
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.
Politics
Abolishing Ofwat and compulsory water meters – key recommendations from landmark report into ‘broken’ water industry
The system for regulating water companies in England and Wales should be overhauled and replaced with one single body in England and another in Wales, a once-in-a-generation review of the sector has advised.
The report, which includes 88 recommendations, suggests a new single integrated regulator to replace existing water watchdogs, mandatory water metering, and a social tariff for vulnerable customers.
The ability to block companies being taken over and the creation of eight new regional water authorities, with another for all of Wales to deliver local priorities, has also been suggested.
Money blog: Funeral director on why she speaks to dead people
The review, the largest into the water industry since privatisation in the 1980s, was undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, a career civil servant and former deputy governor of the Bank of England who oversaw the biggest clean-up of Britain’s banking system in the wake of the financial crash.
File pic: iStock
He was coaxed out of retirement by Environment Secretary Steve Reed to lead the Independent Water Commission.
Final recommendations of the commission have been published on Monday morning to clean up the sector and improve public confidence, as bills rise 36% over the next five years. Here are its nine key recommendations:
• Single integrated water regulators – a single water regulator in England and a single water regulator in Wales. In England, this would replace Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and water-environment related functions from the Environment Agency and Natural England. In Wales, Ofwat’s economic responsibilities would be integrated into Natural Resources Wales.
It’s hoped this will solve the “fragmented and overlapping” regulation, and more stable regulation will improve investor confidence. Communications regulator Ofcom was given as an example of how combining five existing regulators into one worked.
• Eight new regional water system planning authorities in England and one national authority in Wales to be responsible for water investment plans reflecting local priorities and streamlining the planning processes.
The new authorities would be independent, made up of representatives from local councils, public health officials, environmental advocates, agricultural voices and consumers. The aim is they could direct funding and ensure accountability from all sectors impacting water.
• Greater consumer protection – this includes upgrading the consumer body Consumer Council for Water, into an Ombudsman for Water to give stronger protection to customers and a clearer route to resolving complaints. Advocacy duties are to be transferred to Citizens Advice.
• Stronger environmental regulation, including compulsory water meters. Also proposed by Sir Jon are changes to wholesale tariffs for industrial users and greater water reuse and rainwater harvesting schemes. A new long-term, legally binding target for the water environment was suggested.
• Oversight of companies via the ability to block changes in ownership of water businesses when they are not seen to be prioritising the long-term interests of the company and its customers, and the addition of “public benefit” clauses in water company licences.
To boost company financial resilience, as the UK’s biggest provider, Thames Water struggles to remain in private ownership, the commission has recommended minimum financial requirements, like banks are subject to. This could mean utilities hold a certain amount of cash. It’s hoped this will, in turn, make companies more appealing to potential investors.
• The public health element of water has been recognised, and senior public health representation has been recommended for regional water planning authorities, as have new laws to address pollutants like forever chemicals and microplastics.
• Fundamental reset of economic regulation – including changes to ensure companies are investing in and maintaining assets to help attract long-term, low-risk investment. A “supervisory” approach has been recommended to intervene before things like pollution occur, rather than penalising the businesses after the event.
• Clear strategic direction – a long-term, 25-year national water strategy should be published by the UK and Welsh governments, with ministerial priorities given to water firms every five years.
• Infrastructure and asset health reforms – companies should also be required to map and assess their assets and resilience.
Nationalisation of the water industry was not in the Independent Water Commission’s terms of reference and so was not considered.
How has the report been received?
In a speech responding to Sir Jon’s report, Mr Reed is set to describe the water industry as “broken” and welcome the commission’s recommendations to ensure “the failures of the past can never happen again”.
The water industry lobby group Water UK said “fundamental change has been long overdue”.
“These recommendations should establish the foundations to secure our water supplies, support economic growth and end sewage entering our rivers and seas,” a spokesperson said.
“The Independent Water Commission has written a comprehensive, detailed review of the whole sector, with many wide-ranging and ambitious recommendations.
“Crucially, it is now up to government to decide which recommendations it will adopt, and in what way, but the commission’s work marks a significant step forward.”
Campaign group Surfers Against Sewage said the report “utterly fails to prioritise public benefit over private profit”.
“This is not transformational reform, this is putting lipstick on a pig - and you can bet the champagne is flowing in water company boardrooms across the land,” said its chief executive, Giles Bristow.
“Only one path forward remains: a full, systemic transformation that ends the ruthless pursuit of profit and puts the public good at the heart of our water services,” he said.
“We welcome Sir Jon’s calls for a national strategy, enshrining public health objectives in law and regional water planning. But we won’t be taken for fools - abolishing Ofwat and replacing it with a shinier regulator won’t stop sewage dumping or profiteering if the finance and ownership structures stay the same.”
US banking and credit union groups asked the OCC to delay deciding on bank license applications from crypto firms, arguing there are “significant policy and process concerns.”
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike