Which parties are leading hung councils after the local elections?
Now all 10 have confirmed their leadership and executive arrangements after holding annual meetings.
Here are the details of the political make-up of each authority and which parties will lead them.
– Devon County Council
Both the Lib Dems and Reform gained 18 seats at the election, ensuring the former become the biggest party with 27 councillors.
The Conservatives lost 32 seats and control of the council, with seven councillors remaining.
The Greens were the only other party to make gains as their seats increased from two to six.
Lib Dem Julian Brazil was elected leader unchallenged on Thursday.
A major challenge for the new leadership will be children's services, with the county's support rated inadequate by Ofsted for the second time in five years earlier this month.
(PA Graphics)
Commenting on the issue on Thursday, Mr Brazil said: 'No stone will be unturned or sinew unstrained in order to improve the service that we deliver to some of the most vulnerable children in our communities.'
At the same meeting, Reform councillor Michael Fife Cook complained that 'half the council is being ignored' after the Lib Dem cabinet was confirmed.
– Gloucestershire County Council
The Conservatives had led Gloucestershire County Council since 2001 but lost 20 seats at the election, reducing the Tory group to just six.
The Lib Dems gained 11 seats but fell one short of the 28 needed for a majority.
The party's group leader Lisa Spivey was elected council leader unchallenged on May 21, becoming the first woman to take on the role.
Her nomination was backed by the Greens, which secured the third highest number of seats at the election with nine – a gain of five.
Reform became the second largest group with 11 councillors while Labour's seats were reduced from five to one.
Speaking at the annual meeting, Ms Spivey said the electorate had delivered 'a clear call for something better – a loud and resounding vote for change'.
Addressing new Reform councillors, she acknowledged there would be sharp differences of opinion between the two groups, but added: 'I look forward to working with you to deliver for your communities.'
– Hertfordshire County Council
Hertfordshire County Council slipped into no overall control for the first time this century, with a collapse in support for the Conservatives indicative of the party's wider electoral woes.
Such was its dominance in this part of the South East, the Tories had been the only party to hold a majority in Hertfordshire since the council was established in 1974.
With 40 seats needed for a majority, the Lib Dems came closest with 31 due to a gain of eight.
(PA Graphics)
The Tories lost more than half of their 46 seats to end the night with 22 councillors, while Reform made the biggest gain by securing 14 seats.
Both Labour and the Greens ended up with five seats.
Lib Dem Steve Jarvis was elected leader on May 20, with no sign of a formal coalition agreement with other parties.
He said his first two priorities were to fix roads and host a summit on plans to improve support for those with special educational needs and disabilities.
– Leicestershire County Council
A surge in support for Reform in Leicestershire resulted in the party gaining 25 seats – just three short of an overall majority.
The Conservatives, who led the council as a majority since 2001, lost 27 seats.
This left the party as the second largest group with 15 councillors, followed by the Lib Dems with 11 (+2), Labour with two (-2), the Greens with one (+1) and independents with one (+1).
Former Conservative councillor Dan Harrison was elected leader on May 14, having defected to Reform in February.
The Conservatives had ruled out forming a coalition with Reform, preferring to provide a 'strong opposition', the BBC reported.
– Warwickshire County Council
Warwickshire County Council, which has alternated between a Conservative majority and no overall control since it was established in 1974, is now under the leadership of Reform.
However, despite securing 23 seats the party fell short of the 29 needed for a majority.
(PA Graphics)
The Lib Dems gained nine seats to take its total to 19, while the Conservative vote collapsed to deliver just nine councillors – a loss of 32.
The Greens won seven seats with a gain of four. Labour lost three to end with three.
Reform's Rob Howard was elected as leader of the county council on May 16 and his cabinet will be announced 'in the coming weeks', the council said.
Alternative leadership nominations were made for Liberal Democrat councillor Jerry Roodhouse and Green councillor Jonathan Chilvers.
Mr Howard won the support of 28 councillors, while Mr Roodhouse won 15 votes and Mr Chilvers 10, with one abstention.
Reform councillor Edward Harris was chosen as the new chairman of the authority and Conservative councillor Dale Keeling elected as vice-chairman.
– Worcestershire County Council
Reform were just two seats shy of securing the 29 needed for an overall majority after voters turned their backs on the Conservatives en masse, with the party losing 33 councillors – leaving them with 12.
The Tories had been in charge of the county since 2001.
Reform's Jo Monk was elected the new leader of the council unchallenged on Thursday.
The Greens benefited from a five-seat boost to become the third biggest group, ahead of the Lib Dems on six (+2) and Labour on two (-1).
– Buckinghamshire Council
The Conservatives fell one seat short of retaining overall control of Buckinghamshire council, a unitary authority performing both county and district-level functions created in 2020.
The Tories lost 29 seats to leave them with 48 after boundary changes, while the Lib Dems gained 19 to secure 27 and second place.
(PA Graphics)
Conservative Steven Broadbent was elected council leader on Thursday after former Tory leader Martin Tett stepped down.
Independents are the third largest group with 13 councillors, an increase of six, followed by Labour on four.
Reform failed to make the inroads it achieved elsewhere, with the party winning three seats.
– Cornwall Council
Reform emerged from the election as the biggest party but fell well short of the 44 seats needed to gain overall control.
Reform's 28 new councillors put the party ahead of the Lib Dems in second on 26, after a gain of 13.
However, the support of independents proved pivotal in the vote for council leader on May 20 as Lib Dem councillor Leigh Frost was elected with 53 votes. There were 25 abstentions.
Reform UK had withdrawn from the race after other parties said they would not support them, the BBC reported.
Independents maintained their 16 seats and became the third biggest block, while the Conservatives suffered a huge loss of 40 seats, reducing their representation to seven councillors.
Labour now have four seats on the council – a reduction of one.
– Northumberland County Council
The Conservatives narrowly retained its status as the largest group on Northumberland County Council, finishing three seats ahead of Reform, which gained its first 23 councillors.
But the Tories failed to win the 36 seats needed for overall control and faced a challenge from Reform for the leadership of the unitary authority.
Support from independents, Greens and Liberal Democrats led to Tory leader Glen Sanderson being re-elected as leader ahead of Reform nominee Mark Peart. Labour councillors abstained.
The election saw Labour slip from 21 seats to eight while independents, the Lib Dems and the Greens maintained low levels of representation.
Speaking at the annual meeting on May 21, Mr Sanderson is reported as saying: 'We will build together to make this continue to be successful. We all share one thing in common, which is to have our residents put a cross in our box to say we put our trust in you to represent us.'
– Wiltshire Council
During a dramatic annual meeting on May 20, the Liberal Democrats took control of Wiltshire Council – a Conservative stronghold since it became a unitary council in 2009.
The Lib Dems gained 16 seats in the election but fell seven short of an overall majority, while the Tories lost 24 to come in second on 37.
This set up a head-to-head between Lib Dem Ian Thorn and former council leader Richard Clewer for the leadership.
Boosted by support from independents, it was Mr Thorn who prevailed by a margin of five votes.
Mr Thorn said there is now an opportunity to encourage parties to work together more, while Mr Clewer said he was 'frustrated' and 'sad' not to continue in the role.
Reform is now the third biggest party on the unitary council after winning 10 seats, followed by independents on seven and Labour on one (-2).
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Rachel Reeves' economic credibility is on the line
Photo byIt's Spending Review day, when Rachel Reeves gets to set departmental budgets for much of the rest of the parliament. The Chancellor's balancing act – ensuring public services have the day-to-day funds they need and are able to fulfil Labour's missions, without breaking her tax pledges or her 'ironclad' fiscal rules – is an unenviable one. George Eaton has already written this week on how Reeves intends to rebut the twin accusations that the government is embarking upon austerity 2.0 and that Labour is losing its grip on the purse strings. Today, Reeves will try to frame her stance – maintaining her fiscal rules while boosting overall spending by £300bn – around a pledge to 'invest in Britain's renewal'. 'In place of chaos, I choose stability. In place of decline, I choose investment,' she will say (with an accompanying promise of £39bn for a new Affordable Homes Programme over the next decade). It's a dangerous moment for Reeves: while the chatter about the precarity of her position at the start of the year has simmered down, there is real dismay within Labour at some of the Chancellor's choices, and her name is one of those most cited as patience begins to wear thin. We'll find out later this afternoon if Reeves can pull it off, but rather than speculating on what we might hear in a few hours' time, let's zoom out and examine the wider context. While Spending Reviews are always important, this one comes at a particularly critical time. Less than a year since winning a landslide victory, Labour's popularity has plummeted. Though the Conservatives remain in disarray, Reform has leapfrogged both mainstream parties to top the polls, with Nigel Farage presenting himself a realistic alternative prime minister. One of the key attack lines against Reform used by both Labour and the Tories has concerned economic credibility. Last month, Farage announced the outlines of Reform's economic programme, which consisted of lots of popular but expensive policies (slashing taxes while restoring the winter fuel allowance and scrapping the two-child benefit cap) with little word on how to pay for them. According to the IFS there is an estimated £80bn black hole in the plans. Cue accusations of 'fantasy economics' – or, as the Liberal Democrats pithily put it, 'Trussonomics on steroids'. The Farage-as-Truss comparison is one Keir Starmer has been hammering at PMQs. Unfortunately, the public do not seem to be buying it. New polling from More In Common ahead of the Spending Review contains much to terrify Downing Street, but most disturbing is surely the revelation that Reform and Labour are neck-and-neck on who the public trust most on the economy (on 22 per cent each) – with Starmer and Farage virtually tied in a head-to-head (51 per cent to 49 per cent, in Starmer's favour). Why isn't the Truss attack, which proved so effective at skewering the Tories (resentment over the mini-Budget still comes up on the doorstep), not working against Reform? One reason may be down to what people actually think happened back in October 2022. While there is widespread belief that 'Liz Truss crashed the economy', drill down in focus groups and you'll find people are far hazier on how exactly she managed to do so. 'They associate her with being shit but they don't know why,' as one pollster put it. And her failure is very much associated with the Tories. Farage could promise to do exactly what Truss did (his unfunded tax cuts are definitely comparable) and still skirt the toxicity associated with her. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe There are other worrying insights in the More In Common polling – for Labour, the Tories, and anyone else who values a stable a economy. While 46 per cent of people believe Reform would indeed be a risk to the economy (compared to 29 per cent who don't), almost as many (40 per cent) believe the risk is worth it as 'Reform can't be any worse than other parties when it comes to managing the economy'. This is Farage's argument any time he's called out on his party's dodgy figures (such as in Wales on Monday), pointing to the Conservatives' economic record and Labour's current struggles, with the implicit message 'how much worse could Reform be?' There is an answer to that, and it's one that gives economists nightmares. But both Labour and the Tories need to find a way to tell it compellingly if they are to win on this key battleground. Two other nuggets stand out. First, on economic credibility, the Tories are actually going backwards, with a decline in how much people trust them on a range of economic metrics since March. (Reform has increased trust on all metrics, while Labour is a mixed bag.) Most of the polling will have taken place before Mel Stride made his speech disavowing the Truss era. It's an apology which many Tories believe should have come much sooner. Second, while people want an improvement in public services, there is little appetite for tax rises. The public seem to believe the progress they want can all be funded by that elusive ambition of cutting 'waste' – almost half of Brits (44 per cent) think the government could cut one fifth of government spending without damaging the economy or reducing the quality of public services. This is essentially Reform's argument, with its Musk-inspired DOGE initiative. If it were that easy, previous governments might have tried it. All of which paints Reeves into a corner, at a time when the government's economic credibility – and its wider political reputation – is at stake. The Chancellor needs to make the case for her fiscal rules to an audience that doesn't really understand why they're necessary. That's what her lines about 'stability' over 'chaos' are all about. And she must find a way to present her prioritisation of capital spending over day-to-day budgets not as austerity, but as investing in the future. It's the kind of challenge that requires not just a rock-solid grasp of the figures but a laser-like comms operation. Good luck, Rachel Reeves. [See more: Labour is losing Wales] Related
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Anas Sarwar's joy quickly sours as reality of UK Labour's record bites
Claiming as Anas Sarwar tried in the immediate aftermath that the result was 'the first stone on the path to a Labour government next year' is less of a stretch and more heroic projection. But given what the story would have been if his party had failed, after a torrid few months you can hardly blame him for trying to put as much hot air in his balloon as he could manage. By Sunday, though, Sarwar's mood had clearly soured. His outing on The Sunday Show was little more than an angry rant, spending much of his airtime not so much failing to answer questions as failing to even allow them to be asked, talking over the presenter with a stream of vitriol about everyone from the SNP in general and John Swinney in particular, to the media itself. READ MORE: Controversial Loch Lomond Flamingo Land plans recalled by Scottish ministers Ironically, he seemed to have far more to say about the SNP warning about the dangers of Reform than he did about the dangers of the Reform party itself. For someone who wants and indeed needs the country to believe that he might still be in with a shout of being our next first minister, let's just say it wasn't very, well, first ministerial. The cause of all this anger? It was hard to tell. But you'd have to say Sarwar really doesn't like being asked to defend his party's dismal record in the UK Government. And he really, really didn't like having it pointed out to him that despite narrowly emerging with the most votes last Thursday, his party has seen a dramatic drop-off in support since last year's Westminster election. Now the smoke has cleared, the reality is this – as disappointing as it was from an SNP perspective not to win, the result was, give or take, in line with national Scotland-wide polling. (Image: Andrew Milligan/ PA Wire) While the SNP were well down on a high point of Holyrood 2021, Labour were also down on what was their 2021 low point. And when compared with the Westminster results last year, it's clear Labour support is down massively while the SNP are posting a modest revival. So, while Labour are not out of it yet, they are still well off the pace. For the SNP, it's a reminder if any were needed that while it was necessary for the party to 'steady the ship', this is insufficient in and of itself to bring the electoral success necessary to advance independence politically. For the Greens, it shows that even though they have no chance of winning first-past-the-post seats, if enough independence supporters favour them in an electoral contest they can take enough support to let a Unionist party slip through to victory. And as for the LibDems, it's clear that vast areas of Scotland are still complete no-go areas for them. In all the noise about Reform, however, one story seems to be being largely missed and that is how they are eating the Scottish Tories alive, to the point where if it continues, the Tories could end up duking it out for fourth, fifth or even sixth place in Holyrood next year between the Greens and the LibDems. It would be quite the fall from grace for the party that managed to take official opposition status at Holyrood under Ruth Davidson's brand. But as the brand tarnished in the slipstream of Boris Johnson, the aftermath of Brexit and the general vacuity of her eponymous project, so the politics and the rhetoric became ever more extreme. There's a distinction to be drawn between Reform the party and people voting Reform. The party seems to be attracting a motley mix of cranks, obsessives and opportunists as candidates, all of whom just about manage to agree with each other on who and what they dislike, and that, for now at least, 'in Nigel we trust'. But no matter what you can say about their public representatives and the hash they are making of the responsibilities they have been given, it's worth reflecting that not all of those who chose to favour them with their votes right now are necessarily signed up to the full-fat Reform agenda, scant on detail as that is. It's quite obvious large numbers of voters are scunnered right now. The cost of living crisis might be spoken of less but is no less present. If you have a frustration about the political system and the outcomes it has delivered; are disinclined to vote for independence as a route to something better; if you see a party which seems to be annoying all the right people as you see it; and if you feel the stakes are low enough, then 'why not?', you might feel. But back to the SNP. It should be clear by now there is no shortcut back to previous levels of popularity, and even if there is an 'independence button' out there to be pushed, it will only be to provide a temporary dopamine hit for the already convinced. If the SNP want to win back independence supporters – and crucially, those who are not yet independence supporters but who could be persuaded – the only route to that is through good government in the present; a clear vision for the future; and putting front and centre our arguments about why those who live in Scotland should be deciding what happens in Scotland.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
What if we are wrong about reasons for rise in far-right support?
A year into government, it faces criticism for its economic decisions. The promise of change has quickly curdled into disappointment. And yet Labour won – beating both the SNP and Reform UK, which came in third with more than a quarter of the vote. It was a bruising night for the SNP. On Sunday, First Minister John Swinney appeared on television to defend his campaign strategy. He had framed the by-election as a two-horse race between the SNP and Reform – the implication being that a vote for anyone else was a wasted vote that might let the far right in. READ MORE: Controversial Loch Lomond Flamingo Land plans recalled by Scottish ministers That message didn't land. Swinney fell back on a now-familiar script: Reform voters are angry. They're frustrated. They feel ignored. But what if that's the wrong diagnosis? What if the real problem is not anger, but resentment – a quieter, more insidious emotion? And what if the people voting for the far right know exactly what they're doing? What if they are not reacting blindly but actively choosing a vision of society that speaks to them more clearly than anything being offered by the political mainstream? This uncomfortable argument is at the core of Michel Feher's work. In his book Producteurs et Parasites (Producers and Parasites), he explores why far-right movements are gaining traction and why their vision is compelling to voters. His central thesis is simple, yet difficult to swallow – the far-right vote isn't just about anger, it's about moral vision. Voters aren't simply rebelling against the status quo; they are choosing a worldview that resonates with their sense of who belongs and who deserves to be part of society. Far from portraying far-right voters as dupes or nihilists, Feher asks us to take their world-view seriously. He suggests that parties like France's Rassemblement National and, by extension, Reform UK, are not winning votes in spite of their ideology, but because of it. What they offer is not anger, but moral reassurance. Not a protest vote, but a deeply satisfying imaginary in which voters see themselves as the true contributors, the real backbone of the nation. Feher's concept for understanding this logic is 'producerism'. It divides society into two archetypes – producers and parasites. But unlike Marxist class analysis, this is not an economic structure of labour versus capital. It's a moral division. The producer is imagined as someone who works hard, plays by the rules, doesn't ask for much, and just wants to enjoy the legitimate fruits of their labour. The parasite is the person who benefits without contributing – the scrounger, the speculator, the bureaucrat, the outsider. This is not a vision of oppression – it's a vision of theft. And the emotional tone is not indignation at injustice, but resentment; not 'how can we fix this?', but 'why do they get more than they deserve?'. Feher highlights a second layer. Producerist imaginaries don't see a single enemy but two. Parasites come in two flavours: those from above – speculators, financiers, 'globalists,' intellectual elites; those who profit from circulation rather than production. And the parasites from below – the 'welfare class,' immigrants, bureaucrats; those who live off redistribution, taking more than they give. This brings Feher to a striking distinction – producerism is not quite populism. Populism traditionally casts the 'people' at the bottom of a pyramid, rising up against a corrupt elite. Producerism instead imagines society as a bell curve: a decent, hard-working middle ground, flanked by parasitic extremes. In this worldview, the political mission is not to empower the bottom, but to purify the middle, to restore a world in which only those who contribute are allowed to remain. That's why it sounds so moderate to those who believe in it. It's not radical or extremist in tone, it's moral, tidy, 'common sense.' And this is what makes it so dangerous. Once structural injustice is replaced by moral blame, the solution is no longer reform — it's expulsion. Feher is writing about the Rassemblement National in France, but his framework travels well. In Britain, Reform UK has little of the traditional anti-financial elite tone that Marine Le Pen's party has adopted in the past decade. (Image: Stephanie Lecocq, REUTERS) Reform's leadership – Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, Zia Yusuf – are millionaires. The party doesn't rail against financiers or landlords. Quite the opposite: it champions them. But that doesn't mean it's not producerist. It simply defines 'producers' differently. In this imaginary, the ideal citizen is not necessarily working class, they are self-reliant. A homeowner, a small investor, a taxpayer. Someone who doesn't take handouts. Someone who resents the idea their contributions are being diverted to the undeserving. In that world, a millionaire investor doesn't contradict the narrative. He embodies it. One of Feher's most sobering insights is historical. Producerism was not always a right-wing idea. It was born in the revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries – in the cry of the French Third Estate against a parasitic nobility living off land and bloodlines. In its early form, producerism was a left-wing demand for justice. Those who worked deserved dignity; those who inherited wealth deserved scrutiny. But over the 19th century, especially as Marxist class analysis took hold on the left, producerism drifted rightward. Thinkers like Proudhon began to attack not just rentiers and tax collectors, but Jews and foreigners — the scapegoats of modern nationalism. The figure of the 'good producer' became nationalised and moralised. What had begun as a critique of structural privilege became a fantasy of national purification, a return to a society made up only of hard-working, self-sufficient 'real' people. That legacy still shapes the far right today. When Le Pen talks about giving money 'back to the French,' or when Reform UK say they want to 'take back control' and reward British workers, they are drawing on this same moral economy. The appeal of producerism is not just that it names a culprit, it reassures the voter that they are on the right side of the ledger. That they give more than they take. That they are good. But, as Feher warns, that clarity comes at a cost. It replaces the politics of solidarity with the politics of resentment. It prepares the ground for policies that punish the weak, not the powerful. To confront this, the left needs more than economic fixes or anti-fascist slogans. It needs a competing moral vision – one that celebrates interdependence, that revalues care, that speaks to people's desire for dignity without turning it into a demand for exclusion. In the final pages of Producteurs et Parasites, Feher argues that the 2024 French legislative elections – triggered by Emmanuel Macron in a gamble to stop the far right – shattered a comforting illusion, the idea that Rassemblement National voters were merely 'angry,' not truly adherent. What the results revealed, Feher writes, is that this was no protest vote, it was one of conviction. Jordan Bardella, RN's rising leader, had bent over backwards to reassure the markets before the second round. He pledged not to repeal the pension reform, not to cut VAT on basic goods and to postpone a new wealth tax. None of this cost him votes. On the contrary, Feher notes, commentators across the spectrum were forced to admit the obvious: this was a vote of adhesion – proud, informed, desired. Faced with this reality, Feher argues, the only response is a counter-force of equal moral intensity. And here, surprisingly, the left responded, not because of polls or media tactics but because it remembered antifascism is its foundation. Facing an existential threat, the left united around core values, a shared way of life, and an unwavering commitment to its principles. Its campaign, built on a clear platform of rebuilding public services, strengthening common security, championing rights, and rejecting discrimination, surpassed all expectations. Their success wasn't about tactics; it was about remembering their fundamental purpose. Maybe there's a valuable lesson to learn there.
