Findlay issues apology for Tory failures after Hamilton by-election vote blow
Russell Findlay has apologised directly to voters for Conservative failures in office after his party came a distant fourth in the Hamilton by-election.
The Scottish Tory leader refused to 'peddle the usual excuses' after the 'disappointing result' in the three-way marginal.
'I will be straight - this by-election delivered a harsh verdict on my party's previous period in government,' he said.
'Voters still feel badly let down by the previous UK Conservative government.'
The Conservatives came third in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse at the 2021 Holyrood election with a 17.5 per cent share of the vote.
But on Thursday it plunged to six per cent, just above the threshold needed to save its deposit.
At the same time, Reform went from a standing start to 26.1 per cent, coming just 869 votes behind the SNP and 1,471 behind Labour.
Tory insiders claimed some of their support backed Labour in a 'tactical Unionist vote' to help defeat the SNP.
But with polls showing up to a quarter of Tory voters at the general election now backing Reform, many local Tories undoubtedly backed Reform's Ross Lambie.
Writing in today's Mail, Mr Findlay said Tory candidate Richard Nelson was 'respected and hard-working' but many local people 'didn't feel we deserved their vote because over 14 years in power, we lost our way'.
The West Scotland MSP said: 'I want to say directly to everyone who feels that way that I am listening, I get it and I understand how you feel.
'My party let you down in government and we accept responsibility for our mistakes.'
On a more positive note, Mr Findlay said the by-election had also exposed how 'vulnerable and beatable' the SNP was under John Swinney.
'The era of damaging and divisive Nationalist rule can be brought to an end in 2026 and our party will play a pivotal part in doing so,' he promised.
'There are vast areas of Scotland where only we can beat the SNP.
'If we work hard, demonstrate to people that we've changed and show that we're ready to represent their interests, we can send John Swinney packing. What a prize that would be.'
Kemi Badenoch insisted the Conservatives were still the main opposition to Labour despite her party sinking to fourth place in Hamilton.
Reform also gained 677 seats in last month's English local elections as the Tories lost 674.
Keir Starmer has said he now regard Nigel Farage's party as his main rivals at Westminster, despite it having only five MPs, because of its strong position in the polls.
But Ms Badenoch dismissed Reform as a 'protest party' and called the claim that it was the real opposition 'nonsense'.
Describing Reform as 'another left-wing party', she said: 'What they're trying to do is talk this situation into existence. Labour is going to be facing the Conservative Party at the next election and we're going to get them out.'
Recent polls have put Reform well ahead of Labour on Westminster voting intention, with the Conservatives third and the Lib Dems close behind them.
However the next general election is still four years away and Reform has yet to prove its credentials in power since it won control of a dozen English councils in May.
The party has also been blighted by infighting, including the dramatic resignation of chair Zia Yusuf on Thursday after a public spat with Runcorn MP Sarah Pochin about burkas.
Polling guru Professor Sir John Curtice said support for the Tories had never 'fallen so heavily' in a Holyrood by-election.
He told the Telegraph: 'The Conservatives are at risk of recording their worst-ever performance in a Scottish Parliament election next year and could find themselves occupying a much diminished space in the Holyrood chamber as only the fourth-largest party.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
All change after Hamilton – but not perhaps in the way you expect
To elect is, literally, to choose. And people in this by-election have chosen, narrowly, to put their faith in Labour's Davy Russell, who fought a doorstep campaign, remote from media concerns. This was the change contest. Understandably pleased, the Prime Minister hailed a 'fantastic victory' for Labour – before adding that 'people in Scotland had once again voted for change.' Read more Brian Taylor I think that is true but I suspect it may not be quite the change advanced by Sir Keir Starmer. I understand his perspective. He is seeking to fit Hamilton into the wider Starmer narrative. You will recall that, at the July UK General Election, Sir Keir repeatedly offered 'change'. His aim was to gain from the discontent – no, the loathing – which had attached itself to the Conservatives. To posit Labour as the remedy, without being all that specific about details. So, with these comments on Hamilton, he is seeking to suggest that Davy Russell's victory is, in some way, continuity: an endorsement of the approach pursued by his government. To repeat, I understand his motivation in so doing. But I am certain that this is awry. You have only to listen to senior figures from Scottish Labour to grasp that Hamilton disquiet was aimed at incumbency. The SNP at Holyrood, yes. But also Labour at Westminster. Broadcasting to an astonished nation on the wireless, I was most struck by Labour MSP Paul Sweeney who disclosed candidly that he had experienced 'pretty grim conversations' with voters. Despite those doorstep difficulties, Labour contrived to oust the defending SNP. Incidentally, only the third time the incumbents have lost in the twelve Holyrood by-elections which have taken place since devolution. But Labour's Scottish leader, Anas Sarwar, knows this fell far short of an enthusiastic vote of confidence. He knows people want much more from Team Starmer. He knows they are upset over the economy and benefit curbs. Still, that Labour victory does represent change. The ousting of the SNP. Which itself demands a further change. John Swinney acknowledged as much at his news conference. His party, he said, had made some progress – but not enough. The aim now must be to address the priorities of the people, specifically the cost of living and NHS waiting times. He was accused by Labour's Anas Sarwar of seeking to drive voters towards Reform UK. Again an understandable point, but not entirely valid. Certainly, Mr Swinney suggested that the by-election was a two-horse race between the SNP and Nigel Farage's party. In so doing, he was seeking to polarise the contest, to pitch his party as the ones to stop the seemingly resurgent Reform, aware that Labour had comfortably outpolled the SNP at the UK election last year. Sir Keir Starmer is keen to tie the by-election into a wider story about Labour (Image: free) It was, in short, a strategy rather than a forecast. Nevertheless, the SNP came up short – and a degree of humility can now be expected from the First Minister. So he too must change the SNP formula. To a substantial degree, he already has, concentrating upon popular priorities such as the NHS, while sidelining issues such as gender. Some within the SNP may question Mr Swinney's own judgement. I suspect, however, that the majority will back his determination to focus firmly upon the economy and public service delivery. If there was even a fragment of complacency in the SNP leadership, it has been utterly expunged by Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. Might this result also sideline the issue of independence, as the campaign group Scotland in Union suggest? Not in those terms. John Swinney will continue to pitch independence as a solution to persistent problems. But I expect he will primarily concentrate upon the problems themselves. Listening, in short, to voters. That emphasis may further disadvantage the Tories who tend to do well at Holyrood when they can depict themselves as the stalwart defenders of a threatened union. However, there are other changes to consider. Labour's vote is well down on the UK General Election in this area and on their by-election showing in Rutherglen and Hamilton West. Folk are scunnered with the SNP. But they are also unhappy with the PM and the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves. If she doubts that, perhaps she could have a word with her Commons aide, Imogen Walker. The MP for Hamilton and Clyde Valley. So Anas Sarwar will pursue a twin strategy. Gently, diplomatically urging his Westminster colleagues to pursue policies which palpably help voters. While at the same time offering to change the government at Holyrood. Pitching himself as the sole contender to oust Mr Swinney. Seeking to marginalise rivals. Another change is the emergence of Reform. They came a creditable third, consigning the Tories to a whimpering fourth. Indeed, they got a higher percentage in this area than the Tories have historically managed. A sign perhaps that Reform can appeal to a wider range of voters, also eating into Labour and SNP support. Read more But will that endure? Or will Reform fall back again, perhaps beset by the internal divisions which emerged sharply on polling day itself when their chairman, Scots-born Zia Yousuf, resigned? On quitting, he said that he no longer wished to devote his time to installing Nigel Farage in Downing Street. He was also less than delighted with the new Reform MP Sarah Pochin who said in the Commons that the burka should be banned. However, the Tories are not exactly exempt from internal division, at Westminster and Holyrood. They must simply strive to recover from this by-election nadir – and hope that Reform will subside. Does this by-election change expectations of the Holyrood outcome next year? In itself, no. It tells us that voters are scunnered. But then you already knew that. It tells us that folk want and expect change. They want an easing of this age of anxiety. But then you knew that too. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
We shall not remain a free country if we continue to submit to radical Islamists
It shows in what strange times we live that it is the chairman of Reform, of all parties, who resigns over the question of banning the burka. Surely his party is the likeliest to favour a ban or – at least – to be able to contain internal disagreements on the subject. Probably Reform's chairman, Zia Yusuf, had other reasons to go. He is not the first person to find it challenging to work closely with Nigel Farage. In a spooky way, Reform tends to act as a mini-Maga, mirroring Trumpery in its highs and lows. Over there, Donald Trump and Elon Musk explode with a cosmic bang; over here, Farage and Yusuf then go off with a smaller pop. For this reason, I suspect that when Maga falters, as it eventually will, so will Reform. Nevertheless, Mr Yusuf is a Muslim. Partly for that reason, he was a recruitment coup for the supposedly 'Islamophobic' Reform. On Thursday, he said his party's newest MP, Sarah Pochin, had been 'dumb', at Prime Minister's Questions, to call for a burka ban; then he resigned. Let me take two other recent examples of where attitudes to Islam raise knotty problems. On Monday, Hamit Coskun, an atheist Turk, was found guilty of a 'religiously aggravated public order offence' and fined. He had burnt a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London. In an article in this week's Spectator, Mr Coskun says he was protesting about President Erdogan of Turkey changing his country from a firmly secular state to 'a base for radical Islamists while trying to create a sharia regime'. The magistrate, however, decided otherwise. Mr Coskun had been 'motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the [Muslim] religion', he said, and so he was a criminal. My other example comes from events outside Parliament on Wednesday. A noisy mob of anti-Israel demonstrators blocked, insulted and intimidated MPs and peers trying to enter. The protesters proudly announced that they were drawing a red line round the premises, as if they had that right. A disabled peer I know who travels by wheelchair, found it frightening to get through the crowd, though he determinedly persisted. He complained to a police officer, and got the airy reply, 'It's free speech, isn't it?' It indicates the sense of vulnerability such situations arouse that the peer asks me not to print his name. Another peer, Lord Moynihan, was surrounded near the Tube station entrance by black-clad youths who subjected him to an involuntary interview, which they filmed, including the question: 'Do you condemn the massacres of Gazans?' 'I do indeed condemn the terrible shootings by Hamas of their own people,' he bravely answered. It was noticeable – and has happened before – that when there are Gaza marches the police and the parliamentary authorities are lax about ensuring legislators can enter freely and protesters are kept at a distance. They seem not to acknowledge the vital difference between free speech and threatening behaviour. Obviously, the greatest passion behind the Gaza marches comes from Muslims (though the secular hard-Left is also involved). Have the police made a covert bargain with the march organisers? The fear of being called 'Islamophobic ' seems to disable the police's judgment. They do not properly enforce public order or protect the right of MPs, peers or staff, to reach their place of work unimpeded. Nor do they protect the right of ordinary citizens to enter Parliament without fear. They act as if the 'right to protest' allows parliamentary democracy to be made subject to a picket line. Yesterday, with many other peers, I signed a letter to the Lord Speaker, organised by Lord Walney. One of our points was that, on top of normal public-order legislation, there are at least four other laws which specifically protect Parliament from such attacks. Why are these not enforced, we asked, and why do the parliamentary authorities not take a stronger line to insist that they should be? One of the attractions of Britain to immigrants is that we are a free country, treasuring free speech. In many cases, immigrants enhance our freedom. Now that immigration is on such a vast scale, however, we suffer because many immigrants do not come from freedom-loving cultures. To the extent that immigrants can be grouped by religion, the largest single group are Muslims. For complex political, economic and cultural reasons, Islam is in global ferment. In that ferment, freedom is often scorned, except the freedom to advance interpretations of Islam, often the most extreme ones. Such Islamists have punitive, sometimes violent attitudes to promoting their version of their faith. At worst, this takes the form of terrorism. The words 'Allahu Akbar!' ('God is great!') have become the war-cry of an imminent explosion or attack. Even without actual violence, Islamism often involves naked anti-Semitism and unreasoning hatred of Israel. Militant Islam also tries to assert its power against the sort of freedoms which the rest of us (including, do not forget, many Muslims) cherish. Examples include forcing women and girls to cover their heads and even their faces, prohibitions on school swimming or singing, protests against being served by women in the public services and the banning of certain books and films. A leading Islamist demand is for a blasphemy law, although its supporters use other words to describe it. Most Muslims are highly sensitive to any perceived insult to their prophet, Mohammed, or to the Koran. Because they regard the Koran as 'the unmediated word of God', some take the view that disrespect to the physical object, the book of his word, is a direct attack on him, and therefore must be avenged. Belief in the sacredness of religious scriptures should be respected by non-believers, but it must not be defended by law, no matter how much transgressions may offend Muslims. It is unpleasant and foolish to burn the Koran in public, just as it was – which often happened in Britain until quite recently – to burn effigies of the Pope. But the only conceivable justification for banning would be in special incidents – burning a Koran in front of worshippers entering a mosque, for example – which would amount to an incitement to violence. The offence here should not be because the act was 'religiously aggravated'. A modern country should not adjudicate between the sincerity, truth or competing ardour of different religious claims. All it can judge is that some things in some places breach civil peace. In all the cases cited above, you can see politicians and public authorities tiptoeing round the subject. Surefootedness is certainly better than clodhopping where religion is concerned. But there is a growing, justified fear that we shall not continue as a free country if we defer to the angriest Muslim voices. Two concepts need to be faced down. The first is the idea of 'Islamophobia', to which this Government wants to give legal shape. The word 'phobia' suggests psychological abnormality, yet surely people are entitled to be frightened of any religion, especially of Christianity and Islam, which aims for conversion and claims universal truth. Such fears may be misplaced, but they are not criminal. The other concept embedded in public policy, thanks to the Equality Act, is that of 'protected characteristics' – one's religion, sex, sexuality, age, disability, race etc. These are intended to defend people against persecution, but in practice they drive us into warring categories. The only protected characteristic anyone should need is to be a British citizen. That unites. Everything else divides.
The Independent
5 hours ago
- The Independent
What can Reform do to shift the idea it is the ‘Nigel Party'?
Labour breathed a huge sigh of relief after a surprise victory in the Scottish parliament by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. Senior Scottish Labour figures had feared coming second or even third behind Reform UK; for once, it wasn't expectation management. Labour insiders admit privately the tight three-horse race confirms that Reform UK is on the map in Scotland, previously hostile territory for Nigel Farage. 'Something is up when you knock on doors in Scotland and get Reform talking points thrown at you,' one minister told me. Reform's advance will make Labour's task of ousting the SNP in next May's Scottish parliament elections much harder. After Keir Starmer's landslide last year, when Labour won 37 of Scotland's 57 seats, the party had high hopes of ending SNP rule north of the border after 19 years. But an unpopular government at Westminster has dragged Labour down; it has lost one in six of its 2024 Scottish voters to Farage's party. Reform is also on course to do well in next May's elections to the Welsh parliament, where Labour has called the shots since devolution in 1998. Although Reform had hoped to come at least second in Hamilton, it can still claim momentum in Scotland. A much bigger setback for Farage than its third place was the resignation of Zia Yusuf as party chair. After Reform's sweeping gains in last month's local elections in England and the Runcorn parliamentary by-election, Farage said: 'We would not have done […] what we did without him.' Now, Farage is dismissing Yusuf's claim to be responsible for Reform's meteoric rise. Tough game, politics. The energetic, telegenic Yusuf had made a good start in professionalising Reform – something Farage spectacularly failed to do as leader of Ukip and the Brexit Party. As a Muslim, Yusuf gave Reform cover against allegations of racism, but received nasty abuse on social media from some Reform supporters. Yusuf had plans to attract Muslim voters and that is why he was angered by Reform MP Sarah Pochin's call for a ban on the burqa. However, there were wider reasons for his departure. He felt sidelined after being put in charge of the Elon Musk-style Doge unit in councils run by Reform. The 38-year-old multi-millionaire entrepreneur didn't suffer fools gladly, and his abrasive style upset some at Reform's Millbank Tower headquarters (Labour's base when it won its 1997 landslide). He was blamed by critics for escalating the feud with former Reform MP Rupert Lowe. They complained that Yusuf was not a team player – a bit rich when that label applies to Farage in spades. The departure is a reminder of Farage's achilles heel: he falls out with senior figures in every party or campaign he is involved in. The loss of Yusuf will make it harder to make the Doge exercise work. This matters because the party needs to make its claim credible that vast savings can be made from cutting waste to be a contender for power. Crucially, Farage cannot be a one-man band – the 'Nigel Party', as it's dubbed at Westminster. He gives the impression of wanting to be the only tall poppy, but will need a cabinet-in-waiting to convince voters his party could run the country. However, other parties should not get carried away with Farage's woes. Voters are less bothered about Reform infighting than the Westminster village. Conservative claims that Reform is imploding are wishful thinking, and their humiliating fourth place in Hamilton illustrates their dire position. Reform remains a real threat to Keir Starmer's hopes of a second term. Labour is banking on turning the next election into a presidential contest between Starmer and Farage. Labour insiders call it a 'nosepeg' strategy: they hope left-of-centre voters who have given up on Labour after its poor first year will hold their nose and back Starmer to keep Farage out rather than defect to the Liberal Democrats, Greens or independents. Labour plans a parallel move in Scotland: 'Vote Farage, get SNP.' As my colleague John Rentoul noted, Labour should attack Farage for his 'fantasy economics' rather than being a 'privately-educated stockbroker'. Polling by More in Common shows that voters believe Starmer had a more privileged upbringing than Farage, and believe the Reform leader speaks more for the working class than the prime minister. Starmer allies insist the lesson has been learnt. Starmer's welcome moves to tackle child poverty and his U-turn on the winter fuel allowance suggest he realises he must also make a positive appeal to left-of-centre voters and not merely ape Reform with tough language on immigration, which such voters don't like. But he will need to go further, with an economic reset including tax rises, to pay for his new social justice commitments and avoid the impression that Wednesday's spending review will mean 'austerity 2.0'. Labour's approach has dangers: in attacking Farage head-on, some Labour MPs worry, the party risks amplifying his message and building him up further. There are no easy roads to a second Labour term.
