Tories fume at council by-election results
It seems that all is not well with the once-mighty Tory ground game. After a thumping set of election defeats last month, a worrying new trend has developed for the Conservatives. They are not only losing more wards in council by-elections; they now seem unable to field candidates, even in seats still represented at Westminster by the surviving 120 Tory MPs. Hardly a healthy sign…
Three weeks ago, the party was unable to field candidates for two by-elections in King's Lynn and West Norfolk – a seat still held in the Commons by the Tory James Wild. Then, this week, the party could not find someone to stand for a vacant ward in Mel Stride's patch on Mid Devon District Council. Even when the party does field a candidate in Tory-held constituencies, it seems that there are very few wards that could now be considered truly safe territory.
A devastating example of that was offered last night in Essex. Reform UK won its first seat on Basildon Council after polling 922 votes in the Wickford Park ward, ahead of the Tories on 840. It prompted a late-night ding-dong on the official Tory MPs' WhatsApp group between local MP Mark Francois and Nigel Huddleston, the party's co-chairman. Shortly after the count, amid some crowing on the group about a seat held in South Staffordshire, Francois wrote at 00:56 that:
We lost in Wickford.. by 82 votes. Despite absolutely knocking ourselves out, for the best part of six weeks. The fault didn't lie with the front line troops – it was back at the Chateau.
It prompted Huddleston to reply: 'Sorry Mark. Know how hard team worked.' Francois responded 'No you don't – you've no idea.' Ouch. One MP told Mr S tonight: 'It's hard to say what's more embarrassing: not fielding a candidate – or losing supposedly safe wards. No change, no chance.'
Let's hope the renewal programme starts soon eh?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Maybe we can start talking about the issue we've been ignoring
A commentary on the new survey written by Sir John Curtice (love him, who doesn't) delves into some of the stuff that might be going on with the figures. The public are well aware of Britain's problems, he says; indeed, lots of them are feeling it directly. But Sir John also says that rather than turning their backs on the state, for the most part the public are still inclined to look to government to provide solutions. They also feel that most people on low and middle incomes are paying enough tax already but suspect some of the better-off could pay more. If the people who run the survey had asked me for my opinion, I would have said pretty much the same thing. However, it's the consequences of all this for the political parties that really interests me because the public's view of how it's working now is remarkable. For example, just 19% think the current system of governing Britain needs little or no improvement. As for trust in government, only 12% trust it to put the country's interests before party interests 'just about always' or 'most of the time'. This is even lower than the previous record low of 14% in 2023. It's bad. The specifics of the findings are particularly troubling for Labour. The report says only 30% of people in what sociologists call semi-routine and routine occupations voted Labour, compared with 42% in professional and managerial jobs. To put it another way, Labour won the election but failed to reconnect with its traditional base of working-class voters, which is a big change. The working-class Tory and the posho socialist have always been a thing, but broadly speaking, support for political parties in this country has always been pretty much in line with social class. Now the traditional class-based support for parties is breaking down. Read more Tunnock's is being blamed for society's problems. Step away from the teacakes Are you 'upset'? The dangers of flags in Scottish schools These are the latest plans at the Glasgow School of Art. Really? The Social Attitudes Survey suggests that one of the new alternative influences on voting could be age: only 6% of 18 to 24-year-olds voted Tory compared to 36% of those aged 65 and over. But the age factor isn't new really: young people have always been drawn more to the left before tending to become conservative as they grow older. Again, there have always been exceptions – the teenage Tory like William Hague in the 70s or the ageing socialist with a mortgage and an ISA – but on the whole, oldies are less likely to be lefties. Education as a factor is also hard to pin down. The Attitudes Survey says just 5% of graduates voted for Reform compared with 25% of those with less than an A level or equivalent, but this isn't a completely different issue from class if we consider how levels of education are broadly linked to background. And we know Reform is polling better than Labour among working-class voters. A recent YouGov poll found that among the social and economic groups C2DE – I hate all this pseudo-scientific terminology but it's hard to avoid – Reform has around 30% support compared to 20% for Labour. In other words, it's class that's the factor here. Even the Attitudes Survey's results on the culture war and 'equalities' issues follows the same sort of pattern. The survey says people with liberal attitudes on culture war and equalities issues mostly voted Labour (53%), Lib Dem (17%) or Green (14%) while those with more conservative views were more likely to support the Tories (32%) or Reform (28%). You could take issue with the terms liberal and conservative here, but the survey's conclusion is that the way people vote reflects their views on culture war issues – trans, gender, race, DEI, all that – just as much as where they stand in the traditional debate between left and right. Nigel Farage of Reform (Image: Ben Birchall) But again, it's all about class. Is it any surprise that identity politics focused on gender and race has failed to catch on in working class communities when they're the ones dealing with the effects of economic inequality based on class? Thanks to multiple reports from the Social Mobility Commission, and the fact that we can see it for ourselves every day, we know that although only 7% of the population is privately educated, they're dominant in politics, business and the media. And yet when it comes to diversity quotas or lessons on DEI, social class doesn't get a mention. There are at least some people talking about it though. The Education Select Committee did a good report on the subject in 2021 in which they said ideas such as 'white privilege' were the opposite to what disadvantaged white children experience and were alienating to working class communities. They hear all the talk about their privilege and they don't hear much talk about how disadvantage affects their lives and, as we can see in the Attitudes Survey, it's started to have an effect on how they vote. Bottom line: class. Where we need to go from here would seem obvious then. As the survey points out, trust in government and party politics is low. The connection between Labour and its traditional working-class base has also been severed and it won't be restored while politicians and commentators, with that Nelsonian blindness, are talking about other things instead. Reform are scooping up votes because they're benefitting from voters who feel ignored. So stop ignoring them. Start talking seriously about economic inequality. Start suggesting solutions (it might be taxing the better-off more, who knows). But above all, start talking about what's really going on here: class, class, class.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Silence of the Goats: Slaughtered animals reveal how SNP is creating £4.7bn black hole in public finances
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... My MSP of the week, she might be surprised to learn, is Rachael Hamilton, the Tory who represents Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire, for an eloquent plea on behalf of goats, in a Holyrood committee. In a week when the SNP admitted it has dug a £4.7 billion black hole for itself – or rather, for all of us – it is a significant story not only for goat-lovers but as an illustration of how money is squandered without any understanding of what it is intended to achieve. I'll get back to the goats. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The bleak warning from Shona Robison, the hapless Finance Secretary, was slipped out in time for MSPs to go off on a two-month break. If I were taking a scythe to public expenditure, Holyrood and its countless apparatchiks would be a symbolically good place to start, before moving on to the quangos. A feral goat with a kid in the Tarras Valley near the town of Langholm | Katharine Hay Bad spending decisions For openers, Ms Robison promised cuts of £1bn a year to 'administration costs'. These are a symptom of the malaise as well as a cause but at least it seems to have dawned that spending money they don't have, then blaming 'Westminster' for not sending enough, has hit the buffers of credibility. The mission of the devolved government should be straightforward if the rules are observed – ie, you have a fixed budget, plus tax-raising powers, and your job is to spend it efficiently and effectively. The SNP have never respected these rules because they crave for entirely different ones. That conflict is incapable of resolution. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad By any reasonable standard, the Scottish Government is very well funded and receives far in excess – £22bn at the last count – of the revenues raised in Scotland. So get on with it. Instead, there has been no real fiscal discipline because the escape clause will always be to blame someone else. The £4.7bn black hole is made up of hundreds of spending decisions, few of them open to meaningful challenge at Holyrood, and many devolved to quangos which control massive budgets. There is no equivalent of the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster, which might penetrate the culture of waste and obfuscation. Ancient, wild herd But let me return to the goats of Newcastleton, whose plight is deserving of attention in its own right. They are, Ms Hamilton explained, victims of the Scottish Government's efforts to promote a market in 'natural capital' which requires large areas of Scotland to be flogged off to 'green' speculators intending to make large profits out of carbon credits. To be fair, she didn't put it like that, but it is a fair summary. In this case, an Exeter-based outfit called Oxygen Conservation Capital acquired 11,400 acres of Langholm moor in 2023 and now intend 'to cull 85 per cent of the ancient herd of wild goats on the moor'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This, Ms Hamilton told the Scottish Parliament, 'is causing distress in the community. Those goats are not only of ecological importance but are of significant cultural and heritage value. More than 12,000 local residents have signed a petition for the goats' protection'. Alas, Ms Hamilton reported, the cull was already underway and 'the goat meat is in the butcher's shop'. Then came the nub of her argument. 'I do not think that the issue is really about goats, though… my point speaks entirely to the fact that grants from the Scottish Government have gone to an offshore investment company that is creating very few jobs and has upset 12,000 people,' she told MSPs. She added: 'The government needs to look at this, because we are at the very start of the natural investment process. Pension companies will buy up swathes of land and do pretty much what they want, without the say of communities.' Well spoken, Ms Hamilton. Carbon credits That, in SNP terms, is what passes for 'land reform' and, of course, it is also inflating land values to make Scotland's land ownership structure even more grotesque. Simple question: Why are many million pounds of Scottish Government money encouraging this speculative process rather than taking community interest as the starting point? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I can find no trace of that fundamental question having been debated at Holyrood before it became an assumed good that subsidising speculators in carbon credits should be the preferred approach on the road to net zero. Once that silo was created, it was there to stay. For the sake of completeness, I should acknowledge that Ms Hamilton moved an amendment to the Land Reform Bill calling for an 'ethical framework for natural capital investment... developed in consultation with individuals and communities that have a legitimate interest'. That sounds pretty reasonable but it was defeated by five votes (four SNP, one Green) to four. Greens Against Goats, apparently. Proper funding for high priorities The Scottish Government's approach to spending imposes no requirement to take an overview of priorities in order to review them. Just keep adding… more commitments, more quangos, more civil servants. It has taken nearly 20 years to embed these silos and they have no intention of being disturbed. Ms Robison certainly isn't going to do it. A day-one commitment by the SNP's opponents must be to a Comprehensive Spending Review, with no line of expenditure exempt. The highest priorities must be funded properly. However tenaciously guarded by vested interests, the spending silos, large and small, must be challenged. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There has to be a real sense of change from a devolved government which respects the rules and has no agenda other than to deliver for Scotland. And if that involves not handing money to 'green' speculators to slaughter much-loved goats, I will make sure Ms Hamilton gets her share of the credit.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Steve Baker on how to organise a successful rebellion
As Labour rebels appear to have forced concessions from Keir Starmer over welfare this week, former Conservative MP Steve Baker joins James Heale to reflect on his own time as a rebel, and to provide some advice to Labour MPs. Steve, an MP for 14 years and a minister under Theresa May, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, tells James about the different rebellions he was a part of (from Brexit to Covid), explains how to organise a successful one and reveals how he has lost close friends when he has made the decision to compromise. He also blames Labour's problems on their 'bombs not benefits' approach, explains why the current welfare rebellion demonstrates that 'the facts of life are Conservative' and argues that it has been a mistake for the Conservatives not the support Labour's original approach to reducing the winter fuel allowance. Produced by Patrick Gibbons and Megan McElroy.
