A surprise double by-election win for Labour that overturns records, sees two of the safest Tory seats in the country turn red and the Tory vote cut in half. Whatever Conservative ministers say, this matters.
The Tamworth by-election defeat is the second biggest Tory to Labour swing since 1945, and setting a record by overturning the 66% Tory majority at the last election. To put it another way, no governing party has lost a seat as safe as Tamworth.
Mid Bedfordshire, which some Tories hoped would remain in their hands at the start of the evening, went red because of – rather than in spite of – the Liberal Democrats.
What could have been a low point for tactical voting ended with Lib Dems claiming partial credit for Labour taking control of Nadine Dorries’s seat, to the gnashing of Labour teeth.
While true that by-elections are no automatic proxy for general elections, hearing a parade of Tory frontbenchers hiding behind this epithet doesn’t hide the fact that these results point to a comprehensive defeat for their party.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:43
‘Looking at exceptional swings’
If the 20 percentage-point swings to Labour seen in four recent by-elections were repeated in a national poll next year – an admittedly imperfect but nevertheless useful proxy – that would mean a comfortable Labour majority for Sir Keir Starmer.
Tory MPs with 10,000 and 15,000 majorities – which would usually be considered safe – now will be worrying whether they have a sufficient buffer to withstand any Labour tidal wave. Jitters divide parties at a time when they need to be united.
Yet the message from the government is that the response to this by-election is to carry on with the existing plan.
Advertisement
Maria Caufield, a Tory frontbencher, suggested that Rishi Sunak should be credited for having previously already shown an appetite for change – albeit that was revealed at a chaotic Tory conference and appears to have failed to move the dial with voters in this by-election.
She also played down the big Tory to Labour swings as “statistical”. It is true the number of Labour votes received in Mid Beds was down a fraction on the 2019 general election – a point clung on to by a succession of Conservative MPs – but this argument ignores that the Conservative vote was a quarter of what it was.
There is no easy way for the Tories to spin their way out of this beyond the opening bluster.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:11
Double by-election defeat for Tories
Meanwhile Andrew Bowie, a Scottish minister, said that while it’s important to listen “what is clear is that they do agree with our priorities” and “support what we are doing” but “they are not prepared to vote for us at the moment”.
When asked if he thought the Tories were doing everything right, he replied: “Obviously there’s always room for improvement but we are absolutely determined we are on the right course.”
This suggests a government that speaks the language of listening without any intention of action.
Perhaps it is too difficult for the Tories to upend the plan at this point.
Mr Sunak has already done one reset this autumn – changing policies, Cabinet members and the team in Number 10 and so far there is little sign it is paying off.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:50
Sam Coates questions Tory minister Andrew Bowie
There are enough things already on the agenda to have to cope with: the plan is coming together for next month’s King’s Speech with legislation which has little parliamentary time to pass, followed by an autumn statement which may unveil a mega fiscal black hole.
The final roll of the dice is a possible reshuffle later in the year if Mr Sunak thinks he is stronger than he was at the start of September.
This is enough change on the cards; inside Number 10 they likely do not think there is much need for any further revolution.
The question is how the wider Conservative movement now responds to the dreadful response.
The party conference in September suggested a membership already looking around for alternatives, and some MPs wanting to show they’re listening.
Will this mean restless Tory MPs, pushing for yet more bolder, more distinctive policies – often ideas that appease factions on the right of the party?
Or will it mean a rush for the exit in the new year – more Tory MPs sniffing the wind and deciding not to stand again?
Mr Sunak will try and shrug off wider discontent, but the question is whether he’s strong enough to do this successfully.
The unwelcome message the results send will be heard far and wide across the Conservative movement, meaning it is hard to predict what will happen next.
Southport child killer Axel Rudakubana received the second-longest life sentence in English history and the government does not ever want to see him released, Downing Street has said.
Sir Keir Starmer’s official spokesman said ministers “share the public’s disgust at [Rudakubana’s] barbaric crimes” but said imposing a whole life order (WLO) was not possible because of international law.
The 18-year-old was jailed for life with a minimum of 52 years on Thursday for the murder of Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, in July last year at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class.
However, the sentence prompted calls for a change in the law on WLOs, which are usually only imposed on criminals aged 21 or over but can be considered for those aged 18 to 20 in exceptional circumstances.
WLOs ensure that an offender will die behind bars, whereas a life sentence imposes a minimum term that must be served in prison before they are eligible for parole, with convicts then remaining on licence if they are released.
Rudakubana was 17 when he launched the attack, and his sentence is the second-longest tariff on record after Hashem Abedi, the brother of Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi, Downing Street said.
Abedi was sentenced to at least 55 years in prison for his part in the bomb attack that killed 22 people – a life order not being possible at the time because he was under 21.
Reforms passed by the Tories extended WLOs to young killers aged 18 upwards at the time of the offence.
Downing Street said on Friday ministers were not looking at further changes, claiming they were prevented from doing so by UN laws.
The spokesman did not name which acts the government was bound by, but Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that people under 18 should not be imprisoned for life with no chance of ever being released.
He said the government did not want to see Rudakubana leave prison and it was “likely he will never be released”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Those calling for a change in the law include Patrick Hurley, the MP for Southport, who has asked the attorney general to review Rudakubana’s jail term under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.
Outrage over the case has also promoted calls from two Reform UK MPs, Lee Anderson and Rupert Lowe, to bring back the death sentence, which was abolished in the UK in 1969.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:38
‘Our lives went with them – he took us too’
Number 10 said there were no plans to bring it back, citing parliamentary votes in recent history which have rejected capital punishment.
The prime minister has also said he will look at changing the law to recognise the “new and dangerous threat” of lone attackers not driven by one ideology.
Rudakubana was sentenced after earlier pleading guilty to the murders, along with the attempted murders of eight other children, who cannot be named for legal reasons, class instructor Leanne Lucas and businessman John Hayes.
He was also convicted of having a knife on the date of the killings, production of the deadly poison ricin, and possessing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism.
Judge Mr Justice Goose said he would have been given a whole life term if he had been nine days older.
The judge also said he “must accept” that the prosecution had made it clear the attack did not meet the legal definition of an act of terrorism because there was no evidence of attempting to advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
But he added: “His culpability for this extreme level of violence is equivalent in its seriousness to terrorist murders, whatever his purpose.”