Tory councillors CAN form pacts with Reform at local elections, says Kemi Badenoch
The Tories expect to lose hundreds of seats to Reform this week but remaining councillors will be allowed to work with their rivals.
Predictions circulating in Conservative Campaign HQ suggest that as much as 80 per cent of the 960 council seats the party gained four years ago will be wiped out in Thursday's local elections, it can be revealed.
The Tories believe they will suffer the 'loss of control in all currently Conservative-controlled local authorities', according to documents seen by the Mail.
And the 'majority of anticipated losses' will be to surging Reform UK, which is projected to pick up 500 seats.
A gloomy assessment states the upcoming elections are in a 'markedly different electoral landscape' compared with the 'exceptionally high water-mark' of 2021 when the council seats were last fought, as the party and government enjoyed a Covid vaccine bounce.
'Given the challenging nature of the national political landscape, we should be prepared for our on-the-night performance to be in line with current national polling, if not worse,' the internal Tory memo warns.
Yesterday party leader Kemi Badenoch repeated her insistence that the Tories would not enter into an official pact with Reform on a national level, despite calls among some in the party to defeat Labour by 'uniting the Right'.
But she agreed Tory councillors may end up working with their opponents in town halls where they lose overall control.
She told Sky News: 'I'm not going into any coalition whatsoever with Nigel Farage or Reform at national level. At local level, it's different . . . there might be no overall control.
'We are in coalition with Liberal Democrats, with Independents, we've been in coalition with Labour before at local government level. They have to look at who...they're going into coalition with and see how they can deliver for local people.
'What I don't want to hear is talks of stitch-ups or people planning things before the result is out. They have to do what's right for their communities.'
It comes despite Tory Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen telling the BBC: 'If at the next election, there is a number of MPs from the Tory Party and Reform that would create a significant majority, obviously there will be a conversation to create a coalition or a pact.'
Maurice Glasman, the founder of the influential Blue Labour group, said Labour 'will get its head kicked in' by Reform in the local elections.
In an interview with The Observer, he said: 'Labour must be a pro-worker, patriotic party, not talking gibberish about diversity.'
Reform is the favourite to win mayoral votes in two Red Wall Labour heartlands in East Yorkshire and Hull, and Greater Lincolnshire, as well as council seats across the country.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
British manufacturing could disappear for good under Labour
Sir Keir Starmer is gaslighting the great British public. The news that net zero taxes will be slashed for thousands of manufacturers in the long-overdue industrial strategy is of course to be wholeheartedly welcomed. Yet, the idea that this means 'Britain is back and open for business,' as the Prime Minister declared last week, really is preposterous nonsense. Perhaps, if Starmer extricated himself from the Westminster bubble even just for a few seconds, he may be able to spot something deeply troubling unfolding across the country on his watch: far from being open, Britain's industrial base is in grave danger of shutting down for good. It's not as if it's happening gradually. The pace at which UK heavy industry is collapsing under the dead hand of Labour is truly extraordinary. Barely a day goes by without another major factory waving the white flag. The latest casualty is Lindsey Oil Refinery in north-east Lincolnshire – one of the country's last remaining refineries and a vital regional employer, as my own father will attest to. The plant provided him with much-needed work in the late 1980s after he left the RAF. With its parent company forced to call in the administrators on Monday morning, a facility that churns out nearly 5.5m tonnes of oil a year – equivalent to roughly about one tenth of the country's capacity – is now in the hands of a government-appointed special receiver. At this rate, the Humber estuary and Teesside may soon be competing to become the country's biggest industrial graveyard as one-by-one, the big plants that dominate the east coast threaten to crumble into the North Sea. In Hull, the owners of Vivergo, the UK's largest bioethanol plant, are threatening to pull the plug. Further north in Redcar, the axe hangs over another big bioethanol producer, while barely a stone's throw away, the Olefins chemicals complex is scheduled for permanent closure. Among the largest of its kind, the site has been a feature of the Teesside skyline since it began operating in the late 1970s. With Labour asleep at the wheel, it is no exaggeration to say that this Government could conceivably preside over the total disappearance of this country's manufacturing capabilities. The North Sea oil and gas industry is surely past the point of no return. The future of other so-called foundational industries such as chemicals, cement, glass, paper, ceramics are all similarly bleak with catastrophic consequences for regional growth, national output, and our self-reliance. Every factory closure threatens to make us even more reliant on foreign imports. It's not as if the Government has any answers, other than the usual hurried handouts. With Jonathan Reynolds reportedly willing to offer support to Lotus to persuade the struggling Chinese-owned carmaker not to shift production to the US, subsidies are at risk of becoming the default solution for ministers bereft of proper ideas any time a fire needs putting out. But history tells us that's never a real solution. Lotus may yet stage a miraculous recovery, but this is a company that has survived for years on handouts amid a tortuous battle to make money. Most of this has come in the form of generous loans from its owners running into the hundreds of millions of pounds, but it has also been the recipient of government funding on several occasions. Taxpayers are entitled to ask why they should have to keep picking up the bill whenever a company is in trouble. In the case of Lindsey Oil Refinery, its owners are facing calls for an official inquiry after they were 'unable' to answer questions about its finances, energy minister Michael Shanks said. Lotus's latest issues, meanwhile, are largely the result of US tariffs, and the bioethanol sector says it will be unable to withstand the onslaught of 1.4bn litres of duty-free ethanol allowed under the UK-US trade deal. Ultimately, the responsibility for a crisis as serious as this has to lie with those in power. It is the consequence of a lethal cocktail of long-term neglect, complacency, short-termism and muddled decision-making. Labour's long-awaited Industrial Strategy will provide some relief – but only some. A reduction in green levies will be meaningful for many manufacturers, but for a great number it is a case of too little, too late. If Sir Keir really wanted to protect British industry and commerce, he would temper the green crusade of his fanatical Energy Secretary, which almost seems deliberately designed to put swathes of perfectly viable companies out of business just to satisfy the militant activists at Greenpeace and Just Stop Oil. The plight of Lindsey is a stark reminder of the folly of over-burdening companies with environmental costs. In corporate filings, the company talks glowingly about its embrace of eco-friendly initiatives such as LED lighting, electric cars, and renewable energy. It even felt compelled to swap face-to-face meetings for zoom calls in the name of saving the planet. One wonders whether the plant may have fared better if management had been less distracted by box-ticking green initiatives. But the Prime Minister is weak, as proven by the horribly one-sided trade agreement he returned from Washington with. Starmer's deal with Trump sold Britain's ethanol makers down the river. One thing that's for certain is that repeated handouts are unsustainable. Somebody needs to get a grip on the tsunami of issues – not just green taxes but other energy costs, along with reams of red tape, and National Insurance rises – that threaten to drown businesses. Starmer faces a choice: find a way to allow more businesses to survive without taxpayer money or allow a slew of failing companies to shut down and accept that the foundations of the economy must change. The current approach is neither one nor the other. It harks back to the days of British Leyland – but in some ways it's worse. At least then the policy of nationalising everything was deliberate. In the absence of anything remotely coherent under the bumbling duo of Starmer and Reeves, the flurry of interventionism seems almost entirely accidental.
Spectator
38 minutes ago
- Spectator
Labour MPs are still sceptical of the Welfare Bill
Liz Kendall tried to use her Commons statement on the government's U-turn on some of the disability benefit cuts to persuade her colleagues that the changes made the legislation worth supporting. Not all of them sounded very convinced: there were repeated complaints about a 'two-tier system' whereby two people with the same needs would get completely different levels of support. MPs were also concerned they were signing 'blank cheques' by voting on the bill tomorrow when full details of the changes won't be available until later in the year. And there were suspicions that the changes won't be as meaningful as ministers have suggested. The Work and Pensions Secretary gave a very forceful opening statement about the importance of reforming the welfare system, which she said was 'failing on all fronts', and was in danger of falling over entirely as the number of claimants increased. She argued that 'MPs on this side of the House have welcomed many aspects of our reforms', listing some of those changes such as the 'right to try' which will allow people to attempt to get back into work without fear of losing their benefits. She added: 'There have also been real concerns about our initial proposals. We have listened carefully, and we are making positive changes as a result.' It was the classic language of a U-turn, but it was probably also easier for Kendall to sound positive about making the changes given most of her colleagues lay the blame for the cuts at the door of the Treasury, rather than her. She said she 'fully' understood that the changes had 'caused deep and widespread anxiety amongst existing claimants'. She then explained that the new requirement for someone to score a minimum of four points on at least one aspect of the assessment for personal independence payment would only apply to new claims from November 2026, meaning no existing claimants would lose money. The Conservative front bench was critical, as you'd expect, but that was of far less interest than the reaction from Labour backbenchers. Debbie Abrahams, one of the main signatories to the reasoned amendment against the Welfare Bill, said that while she agreed the government 'must reform our social security system', she didn't understand why the review of PIP being carried out by welfare minister Stephen Timms was reporting at the same time, pointing out that: 'Surely the PIP review should determine the new process – if this is being truly co-produced with disabled people and their organisations – the review should determine both the new process, the new points and the new descriptors and we shouldn't determine it at four points at the moment.' Similarly, Meg Hillier, who tabled the amendment, thanked Kendall 'for the movement made in the last week', but added that 'it would have been good to have had those conversations earlier'. She asked for 'the rationale for settling on those four points in one category prior to the Timms review'. Kendall's argument was that the government needed to focus the benefit on those with higher need so that it was sustainable for the future. Throughout the question and answer session with MPs, Kendall kept emphasising that existing claimants would now not be affected by the changes, and that it was quite common for the benefit system to have different levels of payment which maintained old benefits. Neither argument seemed to fully satisfy Labour backbenchers, who sounded very cautious and sceptical. One of the problems is that Kendall wasn't able to explain why the four-point requirement had been designed in this particular way, underlining their suspicions that this isn't so much about reform as it is about cutting. The minister argued that it was a good thing to be able to listen and change course, which it undoubtedly is, but the question still remains of whether ministers really know why they're on this current, slightly adjusted, course anyway.
Scotsman
39 minutes ago
- Scotsman
How Keir Starmer's biggest mistakes have revived the SNP from the dead
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... It was thanks to Sir Keir Starmer's general election victory in July 2024 that the SNP became a zombie party in Scotland, falling from 45 to only nine MPs. Now, after a desperately poor performance in his first year of government, Keir Starmer has brought the walking dead nationalists back to life. Within another year, we shall know the result of the Scottish Parliament elections (and for the Welsh Senedd too). The SNP will still decline but Starmer remains the political defibrillator that keeps their hopes alive. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Rather than help achieve a stunning win for Anas Sarwar as the largest party in parliament, as things stand the best Labour can hope for is being the largest UK-supporting party in parliament. If Starmer has another year like his first, even that is not even assured. Keir Starmer's U-turns over benefits reform have created multi-billion-pound holes in the government's budget for Chancellor Rachel Reeves to fill (Picture: Oli Scarff) | AFP via Getty Images The Hamilton by-election was a face-saving and morale boosting fillip to Scottish Labour, but as the Westminster rebellion of his own backbenchers shows, there is still a great deal of anger at the choices Starmer and his lieutenants keep making. The truth for Labour is his sidekicks are no better, for it is the likes of Rachel Reeves, Ed Miliband, Angela Rayner, Wes Streeting and David Lammy who have sold him hospital pass policies. With lengthy A&E waiting times still a problem don't expect a political recovery in time to save Sarwar. For every U-turn Starmer orders, his Chancellor has to find the cost of that policy change. Back in October when Reeves cut the winter fuel allowance (and introduced other very unpopular policies), she claimed it was vital to save the public finances. It was meant to save £1.3 billion this past winter and £1.5bn every year thereafter, but that saving has now been reduced to an estimate of only £450 million a year. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The same goes for the planned cuts in disability benefits; originally expected to save £5bn a year – again vital to shoring up public finances – Starmer's latest U-turn reduces the saving to only £2bn – so where will the other £3bn be found? 'Tax the rich' I hear someone shout… would that be the 10,800 millionaires that left the UK last year or the 16,500 expected to leave this year? Then there are the 12 billionaires that left last year, equivalent to another 12,000 millionaires. No, what Starmer's reversals mean is there will be real increases for ordinary taxpayers, pushing up the cost of living for those who can least afford it. By the time the next budget comes (expected in October), tax revenues will have underperformed so much I expect tax rises will simply not raise enough to balance the Treasury's books. That means there will be more borrowing, either disguised in some way (such as through new forms of private-finance initiatives already being used by the EU) or by changing Reeves's fiscal rules designed to buttress market confidence in the government. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Long-suffering and previously patient, analysts' confidence in public finances is gossamer thin. By failing to bring about any significant welfare reform, Starmer's Labour is signalling that even with a huge majority it cannot keep to its targets. Labour is about to cannibalise itself unless it presses the reboot button and changes direction – but will that reassure markets any better? A general election could yet come long before 2029. Add to that the continued adoration of net-zero policies from Miliband that forces up both industrial and domestic energy prices – pricing whole sectors, such as our once world-leading chemical manufacturers, out of business – and now Rayner is looking to adopt French-style net-stupid regulations on house building that will literally send the costs through the roof. Still, Streeting proceeds with his Tobacco and Vape Bill that will introduce a ridiculous escalating minimum age-ban on smoking tobacco – and now he's proposing to ban alcohol advertising. It won't be too long before we have plain-packaging rules for bottles and cans so they only show post-mortem photos of livers pickled by excessive alcohol intake. The Tobacco Bill will undoubtedly be subject to a legal challenge as legal opinion by former Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland KC suggests it's in conflict with both the Windsor Framework and Belfast Good Friday Agreement. Yet politically deaf Streeting still presses ahead. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Labour puritans will not save lives but they will lose their party votes as others, especially Reform UK, appeal for the bully state to get off our backs. We can console ourselves with the unchallengeable fact the UK is still world class for diplomatic ineptitude. What other country that had previously paid £148m to remove any future claims on its territory would then pay an unreliable neighbour an estimated £30bn over 99 years to keep a military airbase run by the US? Even more absurd is the agreement stipulates the UK or US will be obliged under the deal to give notice if there are plans to launch an attack from the Diego Garcia military base, despite critics raising security concerns over the close ties between Mauritius, China and Russia. The Chagos islanders evacuated to London in the 1960s were not even consulted. Does that approach not suggest to nationalists there's a bargaining price to be put on the UK keeping Faslane were there to be Scottish independence? Would the UK have to tell an independent Scotland about its subs movements in Faslane? Lammy's concession removes a significant argument from pro-UK supporters and provides a bounty that would help finance independence – a more ridiculous policy cannot be conceived. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So it is in the light of all these (and many more policy failures) that Starmer has seen his satisfaction ratings plummet and those of the SNP revive. Starmer really needs to up his game, but the alternatives don't look any better.
