The dictat from Labour high command is that nothing can be taken for granted – certainly not the 99% likelihood which Sir John Curtice places on Labour forming the next government, after the general election.
The latest major survey, by YouGov, gives Sir Keir Starmer a landslide victory of a scale just short of Tony Blair’s landslide in 1997 when Labour won a 179-seat majority.
It gives Labour 403 MPs, the Conservatives 155, Liberal Democrats 49 and the SNP 23 – amounting to a 154 Labour overall majority.
Another recent large survey, by Survation using the same MRP technique of big samples analysed by region, is more apocalyptic for the Conservatives. It pushes the Tories down to around only 100 MPs and would give Sir Keir a record-breaking 256 majority.
Image: Keir Starmer faces the possibility of winning a majority akin to that seen by Tony Blair. Pic: PA
Labour’s current representation in the Commons would double while the Conservatives would be more than halved.
More on Conservatives
Related Topics:
The Reform Party would have no MPs.
In both these MRP polls and in the numerous national opinion polls over the last couple of years, prominent Conservative MPs and ministers are on course to lose their seats.
Advertisement
Those at risk include Iain Duncan Smith, Jacob Rees Mogg, Penny Mordaunt, Jeremy Hunt, Grant Shapps and James Cleverly.
Image: Rishi Sunak is seemingly facing defeat at the next election according to recent polls. Pic: PA
Public opinion seems remarkably settled. Many Conservative MPs feel nobody is listening to them anymore.
Who would be in a landslide Labour government?
Just suppose the polls are right for once and the gap between the parties does not narrow in the run-up to voting, the nation, if not the ever-cautious Labour leadership, needs to start thinking what a landslide Labour government would look like.
There is nothing like the enthusiasm there was for the charismatic Tony Blair in 1997 – Keir Starmer has negative personal ratings, only much better than Rishi Sunak.
Voters are more disillusioned by politicians of any kind than they were then but a landslide would be a landslide and there are some comparisons to be drawn.
Image: The polls paint a rosy picture for Labour. Pic: PA
When a team wins comfortably it is difficult to change the line-up. It must be assumed that Prime Minister Starmer will flank himself with the same shadow cabinet in the same jobs.
In the great offices of state, neither David Lammy at the Foreign Office nor Chancellor Rachel Reeves would arrive with anything like the authority and reputation enjoyed by Robin Cook and Gordon Brown.
They would also be coming in at more difficult times economically and internationally.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
At the Home Office, the veteran Yvette Cooper is a match for Jack Straw. She will need to deal credibly with immigration, currently the most inflamed topic of public concern.
Fresh creative thinking is more likely to come from less senior ministers such as Wes Streeting at health and deputy leader Angela Rayner.
Image: Angela Rayner
Starmer plans to keep control by building up an executive government consisting of himself, Reeves, Rayner and Pat McFadden. Reeves and McFadden are primarily enforcers of economic discipline. Tensions may soon emerge even in this top group as Starmer and Reeves come under internal pressure to deliver tangible improvements in public services.
Labour will lack excuses if the polls are accurate
An overwhelming majority would deprive Labour of excuses not to deliver on what it has promised.
In its first 100 days, the new Labour government will have to enact what little it has trailed including VAT on private schools and a new deal for workers and trade unions.
It would be able get anything through parliament. This, along with trying not to put up unnecessary targets for the Conservatives, may explain the lack of specificity about the five missions which Starmer has set himself.
It may be that something similar to Blair’s pledge card, which set up modest achievable goals in the main areas of public concern, emerges during the campaign.
At present there are little more than warm words from Labour on improving growth, the NHS, green energy, education and childcare. Similarly Reeves is promising reorganisation and new quangos which only relate remotely to the high growth economy Labour says it needs.
In a landslide, more than half of Labour’s MPs will be first-timers at Westminster. There has been an effort to select “Starmtroopers” in winnable seats, but the leadership will not know them all.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
The new Labour parliamentary party will be younger. Millennial concerns such as housing and the cost of universities will be higher up the agenda.
The backfiring of Brexit on the Conservatives and gender self-ID on the Scottish government is likely to discourage bids to force the pace on divisive issues.
Neither his MPs nor the party conference gave Blair much trouble during his first term. Starmer would likely benefit as well from a mix of inexperience and gratitude.
With the new prime minister simultaneously committed to executive government and “powering up” the regions, challenge from within Labour is likely to come from the mayors in Manchester, Liverpool and London, assuming they are re-elected in their own right this year.
Her Majesty’s Opposition cannot be expected to put up much actual opposition if crushed in a landslide.
The Conservatives would be impotent in parliament and, if 1997-2005 is anything to go by, more interested in their own internal battles over party leadership.
The Liberal Democrats would relish their restoration as the UK’s official third force at the expense of the SNP. Little beyond virtue signalling can be expected from either of those parties.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
For much of Blair’s time in office, constructive scrutiny of the government was led by the mainstream media, courted and cajoled by Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell.
There will be no repeat of this. The print and broadcast landscape has fragmented with many outlets more committed to campaigning than reporting fairly.
Like Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the US, Starmer should expect to come under vicious assault from day one. There will be no honeymoon.
After what will have been a “time for a change” election, the electorate may be inclined to give the new government the benefit of the doubt for a long period – but how long?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:55
The Labour leader says there wasn’t much ’emotional space’ for him growing up.
Starmer has repeatedly signalled that his government will need two terms to deliver real change. A landslide victory would provide the best basis on which to build.
In hindsight, Tony Blair has repeatedly bemoaned that his government got off to a slow start and failed to deliver as much as it could have done in its first term.
Far from planning for a landslide, his campaign team before his first victory were preoccupied with preparations for coalition with Paddy Ashdown’s Liberal Democrats.
Caution is one thing, making the best of your opportunities is another. The many voters telling the pollsters that they want a Labour victory must hope that someone, somewhere in Starmer’s rigid hierarchy is thinking hard about what they would do with a big win.
Looking to live tax-free with crypto in 2025? These five countries, including the Cayman Islands, UAE and Germany, still offer legal, zero-tax treatment for cryptocurrencies.
The education secretary has said children with special needs will “always” have a legal right to additional support as she sought to quell a looming row over potential cuts.
The government is facing a potential repeat of the debacle over welfare reform due to suggestions it could scrap tailored plans for children and young people with special needs in the classroom.
Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Bridget Phillipson failed to rule out abolishing education, health and care plans (EHCPs) – legally-binding plans to ensure children and young people receive bespoke support in either mainstream or specialist schools.
Laura Trott, the shadow education secretary, said parents’ anxiety was “through the roof” following reports over the weekend that EHCPs could be scrapped.
She said parents “need and deserve answers” and asked: “Can she confirm that no parent or child will have their right to support reduced, replaced or removed as a result of her planned changes?”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:45
Sophy’s thought on whether to scrap EHCPs
Ms Phillipson said SEND provision was a “serious and complex area” and that the government’s plans would be set out in a white paper that would be published later in the year.
More on Education
Related Topics:
“I would say to all parents of children with SEND, there is no responsibility I take more seriously than our responsibility to some of the most vulnerable children in our country,” she said.
“We will ensure, as a government, that children get better access to more support, strengthened support, with a much sharper focus on early intervention.”
ECHPs are drawn up by local councils and are available to children and young people aged up to 25 who need more support than is provided by the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) budget.
They identify educational, health and social needs and set out the additional support to meet those needs.
In total, there were 638,745 EHCPs in place in January 2025 – up 10.8% on the same point last year.
Datawrapper
This content is provided by Datawrapper, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Datawrapper cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Datawrapper cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only.
One Labour MP said they were concerned the government risked making the “same mistakes” over ECHPs as it did with the row over welfare, when it was eventually forced into a humiliating climbdownin the face of opposition by Labour MPs.
“The political risk is much higher even than with welfare, and I’m worried it’s being driven by a need to save money which it shouldn’t be,” they told Sky News.
“Some colleagues are rebel ready.”
The MP said the government should be “charting a transition from where we are now to where we need to be”, adding: “That may well be a future without ECHPs, because there is mainstream capacity – but that cannot be a removal of current provision.”
Later in the debate, Ms Phillipson said children with special educational needs and disabilities would “always” have a “legal right” to additional support as she accused a Conservative MP of attempting to “scare” parents.
“The guiding principle of any reform to the SEND system that we will set out will be about better support for children, strengthened support for children and improved support for children, both inside and outside of special schools,” she said.
“Improved inclusivity in mainstream schools, more specialist provision in mainstream schools, and absolutely drawing on the expertise of the specialist sector in creating the places where we need them, there will always be a legal right … to the additional support… that children with SEND need.”
Her words were echoed by schools minister Catherine McKinnell, who also did not rule out changing ECHPs.
She told the Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge that the government was “focused on reforming the whole system”.
“Children and families have been left in a system where they’ve had to fight for their child’s education, and that has to change,” she said.
She added that EHCPs have not necessarily “fixed the situation” for some children – but for others it’s “really important”.
Victims will no longer have to “suffer in silence”, the government has said, as it pledges to ban non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) designed to silence staff who’ve suffered harassment or discrimination.
Accusers of Harvey Weinstein, the former film producer and convicted sex offender, are among many in recent years who had to breach such agreements in order to speak out.
Labour has suggested an extra section in the Employment Rights Bill that would void NDAs that are intended to stop employees going public about harassment or discrimination.
The government said this would allow victims to come forward about their situation rather than remain “stuck in unwanted situations, through fear or desperation”.
Image: Zelda Perkins, former assistant to Harvey Weinstein, led the calls for wrongful NDAs to be banned. Pic: Reuters
Zelda Perkins, Weinstein’s former assistant and founder of Can’t Buy My Silence UK, said the changes would mark a “huge milestone” in combatting the “abuse of power”.
She added: “This victory belongs to the people who broke their NDAs, who risked everything to speak the truth when they were told they couldn’t. Without their courage, none of this would be happening.”
Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner said the government had “heard the calls from victims of harassment and discrimination” and was taking action to prevent people from having to “suffer in silence”.
More from UK
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:51
Weinstein found guilty of sex crime in retrial
An NDA is a broad term that describes any agreement that restricts what a signatory can say about something and was originally intended to protect commercially sensitive information.
Currently, a business can take an employee to court and seek compensation if they think a NDA has been broken – even if that person is a victim or witness of harassment or discrimination.
“Many high profile cases” have revealed NDAs are being manipulated to prevent people “speaking out about horrific experiences in the workplace”, the government said.
Announcing the amendments, employment minister Justin Madders said: “The misuse of NDAs to silence victims of harassment or discrimination is an appalling practice that this government has been determined to end.”
The bill is currently in the House of Lords, where it will be debated on 14 July, before going on to be discussed by MPs as well.