This is the story of two announcements – and the bigger lessons they tell us about the state of our politics.

First, there was a policy announcement by the Liberal Democrats as they gathered in Bournemouth for their annual conference.

Some Lib Dems were already aggrieved they do not get coverage commensurate with their parliamentary strength, given they have 72 MPs. But there is no one outlet or platform choosing to downplay their content – it’s worth analysing why their work does not travel further and wider.

The party’s main overnight policy call was for health warnings on social media apps for under-18s. The reason this was unlikely to garner a huge amount of attention is because it broadly falls in line with existing mainstream political consensus.

Politically, it was a safe thing to call for, tying gently the party’s anti-big tech and by extension anti-Trump agenda, but it was such safe territory that The Times reported this morning that ministerial action in the same area is coming soon.

Perhaps more importantly, the idea of mandatory warnings on social media sites used by teens feels like small beer in the age of massive fiscal and migration challenges. The party conference is its big moment to convince the public it’s about more than stunts and it can pose a coherent alternative: do its announcements rise to such a big moment?

Even more depressing for activists in Bournemouth is that the Liberal Democrat announcement is being eclipsed by Nigel Farage’s immigration statement. This is rightly getting more coverage – although also rightly, much of it focuses on whether this latest plan can possibly work, whether they’ve thought it through and whether their cost estimate is credible (probably not).

Even typing these words will draw a backlash from the parts of the political spectrum who resent the scale of the coverage a party with five MPs can muster. But just as the Lib Dems might draw lessons from their own failure to get noticed, Labour could do worse than to take note of why Reform leader Mr Farage is again hogging the headlines today.

Reform UK is proposing two things: that it will end Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) as we know it – that’s the right to settle in the UK, with access to benefits, after five years in the country. Within 100 days of entering office, Mr Farage says people would have to apply for five-year visas, qualifying only if they meet a higher salary threshold – closer to £60,000, from just over £40,000.

There are questions about the practical workings of the policy – a vastly bureaucratic and potentially destabilising plan to assess old IRL claims seems at odds with their plans to slash the size of the state. Some rival politicians would query the ethical stance of their latest intervention.

And Labour is loudly saying that Reform’s claim that UK benefits will be restricted to UK citizens will generate savings in the hundreds of billions is based on thinktank research that has since been withdrawn. But that is secondary.

The bigger thing Reform UK has done today is identify and loudly highlight an issue the Labour Party agrees with but does not dare make a big deal of. This allows Reform UK once again to set the terms of the debate in a sensitive area.

Underlying the Reform UK policy is a simple set of figures: That the result of the huge migration surge triggered by Boris Johnson and overseen through the Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak premierships, means those eligible for Indefinite Leave to Remain, five years after their arrival, is about to spike. This poses profound and complex questions for policymakers.

According to the government, last year 172,800 got Indefinite Leave to Remain. From next year there are estimates – not challenged this morning by the government when I checked – that about 270,000 migrants will become eligible to apply to live in the UK permanently. Then, up to 416,000 people will qualify in 2027, and 628,000 in 2028. These are huge numbers.

And here’s the key thing. While in public Labour have been trying to highlight aspects of this announcement that they say have “fallen apart”, privately they acknowledge that this is a problem and they too will come up with solutions in this area – but cannot yet say what.

Labour have already said they will increase the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain from 5 to 10 years, but it is unclear what will happen to those for whom the clock is already ticking – so, those in this coming wave. More on that is expected soon, but this is uncooked policy and the government is now racing to provide an answer.

Read more from Sky News
Minister defends France migrant returns deal
Lib Dems pledge windfall tax on banks

We seem to have politics stuck on repeat. Mr Farage has yet again put up in lights something that Labour privately concede is an issue but as yet have no answer in public. New home secretary Shabana Mahmood knows she has to show she can be quicker off the mark and more punchy than her predecessor – her rival has been first off the mark in this area, however.

But Mr Farage is also tackling the Tories too, punching the bruise by labelling the surge in migration post-2021 as the “Boris-wave”. Understandably, the Tories themselves have been shy to dwell on this. But they have also tried to make it harder for people who arrived post-2021 to get ILR and have vowed to allow those on benefits to be able to apply. But they would draw the line on retrospective ILR claims, which could turn into one of the big dividing lines at the next election. And they are not shouting about a plan which effectively criticises the migration record of the last government.

Mr Farage has come up with a deeply controversial policy. Retrospectively removing people who thought they could live indefinitely in the UK is a major shift in the compact the UK had with migrants already here. But he managed to put his rivals in a tangle this morning.

The two biggest parties give the impression they still have little confidence when dealing with migration. Until they do, can they really take on Mr Farage?

Sir Ed Davey has refused to rule out striking a deal with Sir Keir Starmer in order to stop Nigel Farage from entering Number 10.

Speaking to Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby, the Liberal Democrat leader said he would “wait to see the result of the next election” before deciding on any agreement with Labour.

Asked whether he would ever do a deal with Sir Keir, the party chief said: “Look, when it comes to deals with other parties beyond Reform, let’s wait to see the result of the next election.”

Politics latest: Farage announces plan to deport legal migrants

Sir Ed, who was speaking during the party’s conference in Bournemouth, categorically ruled out doing any kind of deal with Mr Farage’s party, despite its current lead in the polls.

He said: “That’s not going to happen. The truth is with the Reform Party, they represent values which are the complete polar opposite.”

The Lib Dem leader said he believed Mr Farage was seeking to mimic the politics of US President Donald Trump.

“I think people are worried about the direction of our country, because often in the past, sometimes we have seen a bit of American influence in our country,” he said.

“We’re seeing a lot more of it. And people look at Trump’s America and what he’s doing to it and are really fearful for democracy.”

‘If we win the right seats, it stops Reform getting a majority’

Asked whether he felt he had a “moral responsibility” to keep Reform out of power by forming an alliance with other progressive parties, Sir Ed suggested it was not necessary because “we can stop Reform by ourselves”.

“If Liberal Democrats keep winning seats and build on our best result for 100 years, at the last general election, we can stop Reform by ourselves,” he said.

“We can deprive them of the seats that they would need to form a majority. And then the arithmetic of them getting to power falls to pieces.

“If we win the right seats, it stops them getting a majority and I am determined to target our resources to stop them winning the seats that will put them into power. And that’s because in our elections, it’s seat by seat, so many seats we took off the Tories last time, if we hadn’t done, Reform might have done.”

He added: “We didn’t have pacts last time. We’re not going to have pacts in the future.”

Sir Ed has been the only English party leader to explicitly criticise Mr Trump, and even refused an invitation to the state banquet with the King at Windsor Castle as part of the US president’s state visit last week.

He has also criticised on Sky News’ Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips the president’s former ally Elon Musk, branding the billionaire tech tycoon a “criminal” for “allowing online harm to children” on his social media platform X.

The Lib Dem leader refused to apologise for the remark and denied it was “irresponsible” to call Mr Musk a criminal when no charges had been laid against him.

He said he was not concerned about being sued by Mr Musk – who has previously called Sir Ed a “snivelling cretin”.

Will Davey continue with his stunts?

Elsewhere in the interview, Sir Ed was challenged about his leadership style and whether the publicity stunts he famously relied on in the election were “appropriate” when the country was going through profound political and economic challenges.

Beth Rigby highlighted reports showing that his own MPs had expressed a desire for their leader to “drop bullshit stunts and raise your game”.

Read more from Sky News:
Gatwick second runway given green light
What will UK’s ‘recognition’ of Palestine achieve?

In response, Sir Ed said he didn’t think politics was “a joke” and that he was able to make “serious points” while engaging in stunts to attract attention.

“What happened was the cameras came there and they interviewed me and allowed me to give my serious points,” he said.

“And, in previous elections, we haven’t been able to do that. And when I was able to give the serious points on behalf of Liberal Democrats, we got our best result for 100 years.”

He added: “The huge number of MPs who want to be part of my stunt suggests that they want to be part of it.

“We’re not just stuffy old politicians, we’re ordinary people like them”.

On the question of whether he would lead the Liberal Democrats into the next election, Sir Ed replied: “Yes.”