James Cleverly knocked out of Tory leadership race in shock move – UK politics live | Politics

Here are the results.

Kemi Badenoch: 42

Robert Jenrick: 41

James Cleverly: 37

That is a massive surprise.

A reader asks:

@Andrew – what happens if two of the leadership contenders get the same number of votes – coin toss, paper/scissors/stones or pistols at dawn?

Probably what happened last time. This happened in 2001, when the late Michael Ancram and David Davis were tied in last place. There was no provision in the rules for what should happen, and so Michael Spicer, the 1922 Committee chair, ordered a rerun the following day, with the proviso that both candidates would drop out if they were tied again. But on the second vote Ancram was eliminated.

On Friday Keir Starmer is due to host the first meeting of his Council of Nations and Regions in Scotland. But the SNP are claiming it will be an “insult” to Scotland because English mayors have been invited, but not Scottish ones. In a statement issued by the SNP, the MSP Bob Doris says:

There is no excuse for Keir Starmer excluding the leaders of Scotland’s cities from a forum which is designed to boost intergovernmental cooperation which their counterparts in England will attend …

Hosting this meeting on a day trip to Scotland but choosing to snub our local leaders while inviting leaders in England is not just an insult – it is yet another gaffe from a prime minister who is stumbling from mistake to mistake and increasingly looks like he doesn’t know what he is doing.

Here is the PA Media story from PMQs.

Keir Starmer has been accused of considering raising employer national insurance contributions and changing borrowing rules after he failed to rule out either proposal.

The prime minister was repeatedly urged by Conservative party leader Rishi Sunak to clarify his position amid reports that chancellor Rachel Reeves is eyeing up ways to unlock billions of pounds for additional spending.

After Starmer said he would not be drawn on such matters ahead of the budget on October 30, Sunak claimed his successor in Downing Street had “opened the door” to raising employer national insurance including on pensions and “fiddling the figures” to ensure more can be borrowed.

At the general election, Labour said it would not increase taxes on working people and included a commitment not to increase national insurance, income tax or VAT.

The party also outlined its fiscal rules to ensure it balanced day-to-day costs with revenues and getting debt falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of forecasts.

Reports have suggested Reeves has been considering whether to use a different debt measure to the one she inherited from the previous Tory government.

Speaking at PMQs Sunak mocked Starmer over the ousting of Sue Gray as his chief of staff before switching attention to the economy.

The former prime minister said: “I know that not everything or everyone has survived his first 100 days in government, so can he confirm that when he promised not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT, that commitment applies to both employer and employee national insurance contributions?”

Starmer replied: “We made an absolute commitment in relation to not raising tax on working people. He, of course, was the expert’s expert on raising taxes. What did we get in return for it? We got a broken economy, broken public services, and a £22bn black hole in the economy. We’re here to stabilise the economy, and we will do so.”

Sunak said he did not think Labour donor Lord Waheed Alli was “buying any of that nonsense”, adding: “I’m not asking about the budget, I’m asking specifically about the promise he made to the British people.

“So let me ask him again, just to clarify his own promise. Does his commitment not to raise national insurance apply to both employee and employer national insurance contributions?”

Starmer replied: “We set out our promises in our manifesto. We were returned with a huge majority to change the country for the better, and I stick to my promises in the manifesto.”

Turning attention to fiscal rules, Sunak said: “Before the election his chancellor said changing the debt target in the fiscal rules would be tantamount to fiddling the figures. Does he still agree with the chancellor?”

Starmer said: “This is literally the man who was in charge of the economy, 14 years they’ve crashed the economy. What did they leave? A £22bn black hole in the economy. Unlike them we won’t walk past it. We will fix it. And it’s only because we are stabilising the economy that we are getting the investment into this country.”

Yesterday Byline Times reported, on the basis of a briefing from the Home Office, that John Woodcock (Lord Walney) was no longer in post as the government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption. But Woodcock, a former Labour MP who published a report recommending sweeping, and even draconian restrictions on protests, seems to have had a reprieve. At the post-PMQs lobby briefing a No 10 spokesperson said he remains in place for now. The spokesperson went on:

The home secretary is reviewing the landscape in relation to our approach to counter extremism, and that work will consider the role in the round as part of part of the government’s approach to counter extremism.

In his final months as prime minister, PMQs was a terrible ordeal for Rishi Sunak, and there were not many occasions where he made the weather. But today, unburdened by the need to defend the record of the Conservative party in government, and able to deploy the standard PMQs technique of answering a question to which the PM either can’t or won’t reply, he had a successful outing. He mostly challenged Keir Starmer on two issues – employers’ national insurance contributions, and fiscal rules – and came away with evasive non-answers that were strong enough to make news.

Of the two topics, national insurance is probably more significant. There has already been ample talk of the government using the budget to change the definition of debt it uses for its debt target – as Kiran Stacey reports, Rachel Reeves raised this at cabinet this week – and Starmer’s wriggling on this issue was more a confirmation of what we expect than anything very surprising. But his national insurance answer will attract a lot more attention, particularly from the Tory papers. As Sunak pointed out, Labour never quite clarified during the election campaign what not raising taxes for “working people” meant, and if Reeves needs to raise significant money in the budget, employers’ NICs must be a potential target.

That said, the exchanges were all relatively low-energy, and neither Sunak nor Starmer seemed very interested in treating PMQs as a gladiatorial contest. Sunak, of course, is on his way out, and he seemed preoccupied with proving that he was right all along during the election campaign when he warned about Labour raising taxes – ie in winning an argument about the past, not the future.

And Starmer seems to have almost zero interest in the yah-boo, performative side of PMQs. He was not very compelling in the chamber today, but his authority remained intact and his MPs did not seem to mind. Against another opposition leader, his lack of interest in jokes and clever put-downs might be a problem for him. But it wasn’t today.