The Starmer government of 2024 is now very much in play

Unless every Labour local authority and mayoralty in the UK imposes an exorbitant ultra-low-emission zone (Ulez) charge on its residents, or similar, then Sir Keir Starmer can still count on becoming prime minister in about a year or so, on all the polling and election evidence available.

Admittedly, many Labour councils and mayors have introduced clean air and congestion schemes, to mixed reviews, but only Sadiq Khan has fashioned one that has generated a nationally significant political reaction – and pushed Labour back in the Uxbridge by-election.

With masterly understatement, the Labour leader called on the mayor of London to “reflect” on the political implications of his (entirely justified) drive for clean air in the capital.

Yet even a truncated swing of 6.7 per cent from the Conservatives was almost enough to take Uxbridge, and it is around the level that would secure a Labour minority government strong enough to govern for a while, given tacit support from the other opposition parties.

More realistically, the swing in Selby and Ainsty and the stunning performance of the Liberal Democrats in Somerton and Frome both point to a Tory collapse – and a Labour government with a comfortable working majority that it would be capable of sustaining in office for a full term. The Starmer government of 2024 is, then, very much in play.

Much has been made of Sir Keir’s numerous U-turns, his abandonment of solemn pledges made during his leadership bid, the vagueness of some of his plans, and the occasional policy confusion (such as the one on the Ulez expansion that proved so awkward in Uxbridge).

The Uxbridge result also suggests that those who run today’s Labour Party still have much to learn about spin and presentation. Much of the benefit gained by Rishi Sunak from this unexpected win is a result of Labour’s failure to control overheated expectations.

By the time Labour people managed to start pointing out what a tough nut Uxbridge has proved to be historically, the counting was well under way – and such spin was counterproductive. It would never have been allowed to happen in Tony Blair’s day.

All that said, the results of Thursday’s votes brought little comfort for Mr Sunak, even in Uxbridge. For whatever reason – and it may simply be a refreshing candour – the victorious Conservative candidate, Steve Tuckwell, openly declared that he had won because the by-election had turned into a local referendum on the Ulez. In other (unspoken) words, it was nothing to do with Mr Sunak or his five priorities.

It didn’t stop Mr Sunak from trying to take some credit, but no one is convinced. Such is the scale of disillusionment that many former Tory voters surged to the Labour or Lib Dem candidate most likely to defeat the Conservative, irrespective of party label. A satisfyingly tiny number defected to the hard-right alternatives, such as Reform UK – and a great many simply stayed at home in protest.

The scale of the defeats and the pattern of determined tactical voting suggest that, notwithstanding Uxbridge, the momentum behind the main opposition parties is, if anything, picking up. The fact is that Labour won Selby handsomely, and almost gained Uxbridge without trying very hard. The same goes for the Liberal Democrats in Somerton.

The present situation is a case study in the old adage that “oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them”. Policy seemed irrelevant in the rush to punish the government. The results confirm the trend that has been observed in polling, and in local elections and by-elections, since the end of the pandemic.

The Conservatives look finished, and it’s probably too late to do anything about it. Mr Sunak and his lieutenants seem to have nothing to offer besides updates on his five priorities. His party chair, Greg Hands, has a pitch that in effect says to a weary electorate: “Yeah, we’re useless, but the other lot are even worse.” That is not an inspiring message.

The next general election is shaping up to be a curiously negative affair. The two knightly leaders of the opposition are appealing to the voters to support them “because we’re not the Tories”. The Labour policy offering in particular will probably remain slim in volume and broad in its platitudes. The message is fiscal responsibility at all costs, even risking further child poverty through an eligibility cap on child benefit. Whatever else, it’s not much of a vision for the new Britain.

On the other side, the Conservatives insist on banging out tired cliches about the “magic money tree”, even though they themselves can’t answer the questions that Labour throws back at them about how they plan to fund their grand ideas in a stagnant economy.

Like a mirror image, the Tories seem to want people to support them, despite all the blunders of recent years, because they’re not Labour (or Labour’s Lib Dem accomplices). The heat on “wedge” issues and time spent on culture wars will be poor substitutes for a debate on the state of the nation, with neither side seeming quite ready to concede that there is very little they can do.

The voters, to their credit, seem to have worked that out already, and drawn the conclusion that they might as well try a change of approach – and of governing party, given that the present lot have run out of energy and ideas: “Time for a change.”

But there isn’t much buzz about the coming change of regime, as there was in, say, 1945, 1964, 1979, 1997 or even 2019. The voters, shrewdly, refuse to get their hopes up.