Why Reform was the other big winner in the Hamilton by-election
The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election is a surprise win for Labour - giving the party a much needed boost with eleven months to the full Scottish Parliament vote.But the other big winner was Reform UK who finished third behind the SNP.They recorded their best ever parliamentary election result in Scotland - with a 26% share of the vote.If John Swinney is to remain as Scotland's first minister, it seems he cannot rely on presenting the SNP as the only alternative to Nigel Farage and Reform UK.
Follow reaction to Scottish Labour's by-election victory
Both the SNP and Labour lost vote share in this by-election but the punishment for the SNP, in power at Holyrood for the last 18 years, was far greater.They repeatedly framed this contest as a two horse race between them and Reform UK. Their billboards in the constituency still make that claim. It was obviously wrong.In reality, this was a three horse race that Labour won by a nose to take the seat from the SNP - which now has big questions to ask itself about its strategy for 2026.
If Reform can do half as well in the contest next May, they can expect to have their first MSPs elected and gain a significant foothold at Holyrood.That would break the traditional consensus that Scotland needs more immigration to fill job vacancies and offset the effects of an ageing population.The established parties acknowledge that concerns about immigration featured in this by-election in a way they have not before.The biggest losers in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse are the Conservatives who finished a distant fourth and appear to be struggling to counter the rise of Reform.Defeat here is a significant setback for the Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay and offers no encouragement to Kemi Badenoch and the UK party.
This is also not a victory that Sir Keir Starmer can really claim as his own. Labour said in recent days that they had identified enough support to beat the SNP and it seems a successful ground operation got those voters to turnout.But Starmer's popularity in Scotland has plummeted since he swept to power last summer, heavily defeating the SNP.Decisions like cutting winter fuel payments for pensioners seem to have harmed his standing and that policy is to be revised, perhaps as early as next week.The prime minister made no appearance in the campaign despite announcing the strategic defence review in Glasgow on Monday.
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has acknowledged public discontent with the UK Labour government.He said that voters had made clear their frustrations and that Sir Keir Starmer must now go further and faster in delivering the economic change he promised at the general election.This by-election outcome alters the prevailing narrative in Scottish politics.After defeating the SNP across much of the central belt of Scotland last summer, Labour has lost ground.National opinion polling has them heavily trailing the SNP in Holyrood voting intentions. This by-election result runs counter to that trend, albeit that it is a localised win on a low turnout.
Voters consistently told anyone who would listen that they were fed up with politicians of all stripes, not least those in power at Holyrood and Westminster.Before next May's election, John Swinney hopes to be able to demonstrate improvements in public services like the NHS. And labour will argue the nationalists have already had too long and that a change of government is required.This by-election has restored some confidence in Scottish Labour and reminded the SNP that they can take nothing for granted. But it has put all parties on notice that Reform UK could - for the first time - be a significant force in Scottish politics.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
SUV drivers should pay more tax, Sadiq Khan told
Sir Sadiq Khan is under pressure to tackle 'car-spreading' by hitting bigger vehicles in London with even higher taxes and parking fees. In a motion passed by the London Assembly, the Mayor has been urged to write to the Government to demand higher vehicle excise duty for heavier vehicles and tighter restrictions on car sizes. Assembly members, 11 of 25 of whom are the Mayor's Labour allies, also urged him to write to councils across the capital to ask them to adopt higher parking fees for bigger cars – a policy some have embraced already. The motion blamed larger cars for clogging up London's streets, putting pedestrians at greater risk of injury or death and causing road surfaces to wear down more quickly. Elly Baker, the Labour assembly member who proposed it, said the capital's streets 'weren't designed for larger vehicles like SUVs'. She said: 'Their greater size, weight, and higher bonnets put vulnerable road users at greater risk, reduce available parking spaces, and cause more wear and tear on our roads. 'It's time we took sensible steps to manage the impact of oversized cars and ensure our streets remain safe and accessible for everyone.' A spokesman for the Mayor said on Friday: 'The Mayor, Transport for London and borough partners are working to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on our roads, by expanding the cycle network, making road crossings and junctions safer, reducing speed limits on our roads, and making larger vehicles like HGVs and buses safer. 'This year the Mayor will be refreshing his Vision Zero Action Plan, to restate his commitment to reducing road danger and responding to new and emerging risks on our roads'. The assembly's call comes after several English local authorities have proposed higher charges for larger or heavier vehicles, amid complaints they occupy more space, produce higher levels of pollution and take a bigger toll on road surfaces. Such charges have been proposed in Haringey, Bath, Oxford and Bristol, among other places, with many councillors taking a lead from Paris, where Left-wing French politicians have launched their own crackdown on SUVs. Sir Sadiq currently lacks the formal powers to introduce such charges himself but has said he is watching developments in the French capital closely. 'SUVs take up more space and we know there's issues around road safety, we know there's issues around carbon emissions and so forth,' he said in February. 'We know some councils in London are taking bold policies in relation to parking fees, in relation to your tickets and so forth. It's really good to work with those councils.' 'Car-spreading' SUVs have grown in popularity in recent years, with many drivers favouring their higher seating position. They accounted for a third of all new car registrations in the UK last year, compared with just 12pc a decade earlier. SUVs are generally taller, wider and heavier than traditional cars, and less fuel-efficient. The increase in the size of cars has been described as car-spreading. However, Edmund King, the president of the AA, said it should be 'up to Londoners to choose the type of vehicle that best fulfils their needs'. He said: 'It is not really the role of the London Assembly to dictate what cars individuals should drive. 'Some larger families may well need bigger vehicles with more passenger seats, whereas a driver conducting most trips alone may well choose a city car. 'London's streets were developed around the horse and cart, so of course our infrastructure needs modernising to keep up with change.' A recent study found that pedestrians and cyclists are 44pc more likely to die if they are hit by an SUV or similar-sized vehicle rather than a traditional car. The analysis produced by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Imperial College London stated that the figure rises to 82pc for children. Meanwhile, research by the campaign group Transport & Environment has previously found the average width of cars in the UK was growing by about half a centimetre per year. A typical car was 180.3cm wide in 2023, up from 177.8cm just five years earlier.
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour is still spending £2.2bn a year of foreign aid on UK hotels for asylum seekers - despite vowing to end the practice
The government is spending around £2.2billion a year of foreign aid on housing asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Figures released by the Home Office show Labour only managed to reduce its spending on official development assistance between 2024/25 by around £1million, the BBC reports. That is despite the party's election manifesto pledge to 'end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. Official development assistance (ODA) is known at the UK's overseas aid budget and is used to promote the economic development and welfare in developing countries around the world. The Home Office is allocated a portion of this money to support refugees and asylum seekers shortly after their arrival into Britain, of which a large amount is spent on their accommodation. At the end of December 42,000 asylum seekers were in Home Office 'contingency accommodation', including 38,000 in hotels, a report National Audit Office (NAO) showed last month. This includes 735 people being housed in large accommodation sites built by the previous Conservative government, including former RAF base Wethersfield, in Essex, and Napier former barracks in Kent. Previous figures show the government spent around £2.3billion of Home Office ODA on asylum accommodation in 2024/25 while around £2.5billion was spent in 2023/24, when the Conservatives were in power. Last month, it was revealed that asylum accommodation - including hotels - will cost the taxpayer £15billion over 10 years. Data from the National Audit Office (NAO) showed that contracts originally forecast to cost £4.5billion over a decade from 2019 are now expected to run to £15.3billion over same period. It means that on average the taxpayer will spend £4,191,780 a day on housing asylum seekers over the life of the contracts. A separate breakdown from the NAO showed overall costs in 2024-25 were £1.67billion. That amounted to £4,567,123 a day on average, or £3,172 a minute. The report also found that asylum hotels 'may be more profitable' for companies holding the contracts than other types of housing. The Home Office awarded the contracts to three suppliers – Clearsprings Ready Homes, Mears Group and Serco – which operate two or three UK regions each. They are responsible for finding a range of self-catering accommodation for asylum seekers who are dispersed across the country, and for sub-contracting hotels for tens of thousands of migrants coming across the Channel by small boat. The report found Clearsprings is now set to be paid £7.3billion over the 10 years from 2019 to 2029, the NAO said, while Serco is expected to get £5.5billion and Mears will receive £2.5billion. Earlier this year it was reported that Deputy pm Angela Rayner wants the Government to terminate contracts they have made with private companies to house migrants. In its election manifesto, Labour vowed to 'hire additional caseworkers to clear the Conservatives' backlog and end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. But, despite the pledge, the Home Office is yet to set a definite end date on migrant hotels as it does not want to commit to 'arbitrary targets'. The only vague timeframe given by the department was by Matthew Rycroft, the department's top civil servant, in February. He told MP's that the aim is to get to 'zero by the end of the parliament', leaving open the possibility migrant hotels could stay until August 2029. A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. 'This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. 'We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026.'
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
'For urgent change that's needed, Green voices must be heard'
There are also home truths for the SNP who put a lot into this seat. They tried to be the anti-Reform vote but that didn't work. The immediate reaction of some in the party that they instead need to "hit the independence button" hits home just how little they have to fall back on from their record in government. Greens led a solid grassroots campaign which helped to build profile and support ahead of the Holyrood elections next year, where the proportional voting system means Green votes count more. There are some clear lessons emerging for how Greens need to approach that election. The SNP can't succeed as the anti-Reform vote because they are the political establishment in Scotland that those turning to Reform are hacked off with. It's their cuts to council budgets and their failure to replace the unfair council tax that is responsible for the decline people see in their neighbourhoods. It's their failure to build enough homes or to bring down outrageous rents that are driving the housing crisis. It's their U-turn on climate targets and lack of a proper green industrial strategy that is putting jobs and communities at risk. Greens can put forward a bold manifesto that responds to these things and more. That speaks to real issues facing people, not the bogeymen put forward by Reform. Urgency is vital. Where the SNP is cautious in the extreme, Greens must present a plan to deliver tangible change, quickly. Parties are often pressed on having a costed manifesto. That's important, but I think it's equally so to have a timed plan, not with vague and distant targets, but for real improvement, now. Greens have policies that resonate and are needed, but the biggest barrier we still face is being heard. The BBC Scotland Debate Night programme this week is a clear example of that. The show was a 'Glasgow Special' but it didn't include the Greens, despite being clearly the third political force in the city. Instead, alongside the SNP council leader Susan Aitken, viewers heard from the Tories, who have just one councillor left and are facing being wiped out in Holyrood next year, and shockingly from not one but two Labour representatives (though the show's producers neglected to make the political affiliation of the unelected Baron Haughey of Hutchesontown clear). It's perhaps not a surprise that the BBC won't platform Green voices which challenge the status quo, but it is a real shame. Green representatives are shaping the future of Glasgow, whether that's by working to end rip-off rents, by making our streets and public spaces safer, or by delivering new powers, like the Visitor Levy, which will raise tens of millions more for local services. Greens can deliver the radical and urgent change people want, but to do that Green voices must be heard.
