Lib Dems predict victory in Eastleigh, with UKIP in second

Counting in the by-election continues as the Lib Dems say they have held the seat and predict that UKIP has beaten the Tories.

The counting is ongoing in Eastleigh, with the Lib Dems increasingly confident that they've held the seat. The party, which first won the constituency in 1994 (another by-election), expects its majority to be in the thousands, not the hundreds (it is currently 3,864).

Both the Lib Dems and Labour are predicting that UKIP has finished second, pushing the Tories ino third place. If true, this would be a disastrous result for David Cameron. His old rival David Davis was likely right when he suggested earlier this week that it would provoke a "crisis". But Cameron's right-wing critics will have trouble explaining why the Tories performed so poorly after a hard-edged campaign that focused on immigration and welfare and after the promise of an in/out EU referendum.

Labour is resigned to finishing fourth, although the party believes it has increased its share of the vote from the 9.6 per cent recorded in 2010. The result will undermine Ed Miliband's "one nation" narrative but shadow ministers point out that while the seat is 16th on the Tories' target list, it is 258th on Labour's. The swing required to win Eastleigh would put Labour on course for a majority of 362.

Turnout was a relatively impressive 52.8 per cent, down from 69.3 per cent at the general election. We'll bring you the result as soon as it's announced around 4am.

Party representatives watch as votes for the Eastleigh by-election begin to be counted. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.