New Angus Council leader George Meechan on 'public squabbling'
Kirriemuir and Dean councillor George Meechan will lead a 13-strong Conservative/Independent/Labour alliance which dumped the SNP from power on Tuesday.
It came just weeks after his formal resignation from the administration he was part of since being elected in 2022.
One-time ruling group colleague David Cheape delivered a blistering attack on the outcome of this week's no confidence motion.
It saw the SNP ousted by 14 votes to 13.
Carnoustie Independent Mr Cheape, who was Deputy Provost of Angus, said: 'Make no mistake, this is not a coalition.
'This is now a Tory-controlled council, and those who now propose to act as crutches to allow the Conservatives to run Angus Council will, I believe, come to rue the day they signed up to this.'
He added: 'The new Conservative administration is propped up by not only the usual 'fake' Independents but, unbelievably, a Labour councillor and an SNP defector.
'They should enjoy it while it lasts as they have been played.
'The only real reason Cllr Meechan left the previous administration was because votes didn't go his way.'
Mr Cheape said the new leader should 'resign immediately'.
'The SNP paid his election costs and voters elected him on that ticket. He did not get elected to support a Tory council now,' he added.
'Most of all, I feel sorry for the constituents of Angus standing back and watching this debacle.
'Equally so the council officers having to pick up the pieces of a coup of this nature more than halfway through a council term.
'The ensuing chaos will be felt most by the electorate.'
Mr Meechan responded: 'The recent changes in leadership are about moving Angus forward, not playing political games.
'This new administration is focused on delivering results, not fostering division.
'It's time to put the past behind us and work for the people of Angus.
'I am sorry that Councillor Cheape has chosen to lower himself to petty bickering.
'I, however, hold higher standards so will not be participating in public squabbling.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Labour has tied itself in knots over welfare reform
The problem with having principles is that they're very expensive. This is proving an enormous headache for Starmer's government, which is still trying to slash disability benefits in plain sight rather than raise taxes, only to be forced into another embarrassing U-turn by hundreds of its own backbenchers. These rebel MPs kicked up a fuss on the basis that they didn't run for office to push hundreds of thousands of disabled people into poverty. Most of these MPs ran for office on the basis of not being Tories. The party leadership apparently believed that it could legislate like Tories and get away with it, but to get away with that sort of flagrant regressive policy, you have to be – well, a Tory. That's the downside of liberalism as a lifestyle choice. You can't just show up with unbrushed hair and a swindler's grin and expect a round of applause. You have to do vulgar things like telling the truth and being accountable to the public. There's nothing inherently embarrassing about changing your mind on the basis of new information – unless the new information is that you haven't a clue what you stand for, and you're out of step with the party and the public. Party insiders are still arguing that Reeves messed up here by not making the moral case for kicking people off benefits. Presumably the reason she didn't make one is because there isn't one – at least not one that the public will believe. The implications, however, are unavoidable: if disability claims are rising, if the benefits bill is ballooning, it must be because poor people are cheating the system. The problem with this implication is that it's wrong – not morally, but factually. An enormous proportion of British people who receive benefits – including disability benefits – are in work, and welfare has long been used to spackle over the fractures in our healthcare and our job market, and to subsidise our broken housing system. And no matter how costly a crutch this might be, you can't cure anyone by kicking it away. It was, in fact, New Labour who really leaned into this practice, just as it was Labour who kicked off a generation of punitive welfare reforms on its way out the door in 2010. There is an ugly, parsimonious impulse to the Labour party when in power, just as there is with any centre-left party trying to line up its historical claims to fairness with its twofold terror of both the markets and the voting public. The parts of the Labour party which pride themselves on their electability have always had a puritan streak, and that tendency has been polished by years in opposition fighting off nonsensical accusations of spendthriftery from Tory governments running the economy on deranged goblin mode. This economic dysphoria is unwarranted, given that the Conservative party will not be trusted to run the economy for a very long time, for the same reason I cannot be trusted to consume Absinthe in a goth club: because of the incident. Fourteen years of swindling, scandal and chaos seem to have marinated the legacy of Labour politicians in the sense that they have become the party of modesty and discipline. This conviction plays into the social darwinism that is particular to the centre-left in power: that welfare must come with deterrents and that requiring state support is a sign of moral weakness. This is a hangover from centuries spent trying to sleep at night inside the racket of a machine that grinds out human misery. Underpinning it all is the conviction that there is something shameful about poverty. That sort of shame runs livid under the skin of the British class system. It's why every effort to actually help those who have been shut out and worn down by the system still has to be buttoned up in appeals of restraint and moral instruction. Labour has long been suspicious of pleasure, of anything that could possibly be seen as self-indulgent – setting itself against the excesses and depravity of the Tory old guard. As principles go, that one's cheap, but like most cheap things, it breaks down just when you need it most. Unfortunately, after gambling away the social democratic settlement, the Tories also gambled away the excuses. Nobody believes that taking away money from sick, poor and disabled people is an acceptable way to pay off the debts the last lot ran up. That's a song the British electorate has been hearing for too long, and we are sick of it. Nor can Reeves plausibly tell the public that we're all in this together, even though she, at least, seems to be shouldering her share of the national misery – unlike, for example, Osborne, who delivered this line while clearly having a fabulous time holding the country upside down to see what shook out of the pockets of the working poor. Reeves has the decency not to look pleased with herself – just as what remains of the Conservative party has had the decency not to show up for these debates.
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Matt Hancock says care home plans 'as good as useless' as chilling texts emerge
Matt Hancock has admitted that pandemic plans for care homes were "as good as useless" before Covid struck. The shamed former Health Secretary lashed out at local authorities and Public Health England as he faced questions at the Covid Inquiry. Bereaved families have said failure to protect people living in care homes amounted to "generational slaughter". The inquiry was shown a chilling message he was sent in April 2020 by health minister Helen Whately - now a key figure in Kemi Badenoch's team - warning that data on deaths was "not good". Mr Hancock said local authorities were responsible for planning the impact of a pandemic on care homes. He told the inquiry he was horrified when he was shown the plans that two had put in place. "It was a really shocking moment," he said. "It didn't long to work out they were wholly inadequate." The top Tory - who stepped down at the general election last year - said the "penny dropped" in February 2020 that local plans were "as good as useless". He also hit out at Public Health England, which issued guidance on February 25 saying: "It remains very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected." Mr Hancock said he was "in a battle" with PHE and said: "By this time we knew there was a really serious problem so I have no idea why PHE said that." The inquiry was shown messages between Mr Hancock and health minister Ms Whately - who is now Kemi Badenoch's Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary. On April 9 2020, Ms Whately said: "I'm afraid been sent first proper data on care home deaths just now and it's not good." She said she would discuss it with health officials. The then-Health Secretary then responded simply: "Ok". Ms Whately then went on to warn her boss - who was due to give a Covid press conference just over an hour later: "Care home data may come up... we expect official ONS data on Tuesday will show a big jump in deaths." Earlier messages showed Ms Whately flagged a care home with 11 suspected deaths, with staff refusing to work. She said international experts say care home residents and staff should be tested. Mr Hancock responded: "I'm up for this and the capacity to do this is growing fast." Hitting out at his critics, he said: "I've seen even from this very chair people who were upset about me taking action that was necessary. "They were rude about me at the time, they've been rude about me since but it saved lives and that was my job as Secretary of State." It comes after bereaved families said Government failings around care homes amounted to "generational slaughter". In an earlier hearing Pete Weatherby KC, representing Covid 19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, said: "Although the phrase 'generational slaughter' within care homes may sound hyperbolic or rather colorful language, it chimes with the experience of thousands of our families. He added: "We call out the callous way that family members were treated by politicians and policy makers, referring to them as bed blockers and people nearing the end regardless of the virus. This statement reflects that those in charge of policy lost their moral compass in dealing with those receiving care." A 2022 High Court judgement ruled the care homes discharge policy was unlawful as it failed to take into account the risk to elderly and vulnerable care home residents of asymptomatic transmission. Between early March and early June 2020, nearly 20,000 care home residents in England and Wales died with Covid-19. That was about a third of all care home deaths during that period.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Tory councillor suspended over 'inappropriate' Travellers comment
The Conservative suggested that 'Gypsies are not British people' at a Kincardine and Mearns area committee meeting back in November 2023. Her comments were made during discussions around plans to change the use of the Findon Park football pitch near Portlethen into a camp. The issue flared up due to the retrospective nature of the application being voted on. Mrs Agnew suggested this showed a willingness to ignore rules on behalf of the applicants. READ MORE: Former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell granted legal aid in embezzlement case She said: 'If they're ignoring this, they may ignore other things. That's my problem.' When pressed by colleagues to retract her remarks, she added: 'I don't want to refute it. Anything could happen there. That's all. It's slightly worrying to me. 'And I'm not saying it's just because they're Gypsies. It would be the same if they were British people. I'd be worried about this massive site. That's all.' The incident sparked some controversy and resulted in Mrs Agnew stepping down as committee chairwoman in the aftermath. By standing down she lost out on an extra £10,000 each year. Now more than 18 months later, she has faced standard watchdogs. An investigation has now been carried out by the ethical standards commissioner. The Stonehaven member faced the Standards Commission today. Ethical standards commissioner Ian Bruce said: 'The respondent made inappropriate comments about Gypsy Travellers and the appropriateness of granting a retrospective planning application for a site, including insinuating that they are not British. 'This was deemed a failure to treat everyone with courtesy or respect, and also a failure to advance equality of opportunity.' At the meeting, Mrs Agnew stressed she didn't 'feel hatred' towards gypsy travellers and blamed her comments on 'clumsy language'. The councillor also argued she had 'no intent to be disrespectful'. Before the recording of the fateful 2023 meeting was shared on YouTube, it had been edited to remove Mrs Agnew's comments. READ MORE: Ryanair cancels more than 800 flights due to conflict in the Middle East The council's head of legal and people, Karen Wiles, admitted this had been done to prevent the local authority from facing any potential legal challenges. She said: 'It was apparent to me that people of a Gypsy Traveller community may have seen themselves as being differentiated from British people. 'That could be offensive since the two terms are not mutually exclusive.' Standards Commission member and chairwoman of the hearing panel, Helen Donaldson, said members found Mrs Agnew had treated the applicant 'less favourably' because she was a Gypsy Traveller. They based this on Mrs Agnew's suggested knowledge of unauthorised use of a different site and an assumption that Travellers were 'more likely to breach planning conditions'. Ms Donaldson added: 'The provisions that state councillors … must avoid any perception that they are not acting fairly and without bias when making decisions on quasi-judicial matters. READ MORE: LIVE: Latest updates as MPs vote on proscribing Palestine Action 'The panel noted that a failure to comply with the code's provisions in this regard can have a detrimental impact on the right of an applicant to be treated fairly, and can erode public confidence in the role of a councillor. 'Such a failure also had the potential to bring the committee, the council and its decisions into disrepute and open it up to the risk of a successful legal challenge.' Members then decided to hand the Stonehaven councillor a two month suspension. This means she will not be allowed to attend any meetings or represent Aberdeenshire Council during this time.
