The invisible man: Who is Labour's new MSP Davy Russell?
Davy Russell's by-election win for Labour is a victory for a candidate dismissed as "the invisible man" by opponents.The 63-year-old becomes MSP for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse in his first time standing in an election.One of the features of the campaign was Russell's reluctance to do live broadcast interviews. He didn't take up the opportunity to appear on BBC Radio Scotland, when other candidates did. And when he declined to appear in a TV debate, opponents and political commentators questioned whether he was hiding.But Labour seemed to be taking the words of Abraham Lincoln to heart. "Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
In modern times, when gaffes can go viral on social media and reach a much wider audience than the original interview, the party decided to be cautious. Labour fielded their man as a local candidate, through and through.Russell still lives his constituency in Quarter, South Lanarkshire - the small former mining village where he was born and raised. "I've lived here my whole life. I'm a dad and a granddad," he said in his election pitch."And like many of you, I care deeply about the future of our community."Russell went to school in Hamilton and earned a civil engineering certificate from Motherwell Technical College.After a career as an apprentice, fixing roads, he advanced to become a senior manager at Glasgow City Council - looking after roads, transport and waste services.He is also a charity trustee, raises money for a hospice and has served as deputy lord lieutenant, representing the King at local events.
While his opponents branded him as "invisible" in the media, Labour was focused on more traditional campaign methods.The party was knocking on doors and talking directly to voters about how Russell was a local man, who would be a community champion. His campaign priority was fixing the NHS and bringing down waiting lists.He spoke out against the Scottish government's plans to downgrade the neonatal unit at University Hospital Wishaw.He also said he would work hard to revitalise local towns and villages, with investments in high streets, roads and community leisure facilities.Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar denied that Russell disliked the media, he was clear on what mattered."In Davy Russell we had a candidate and now an MSP who cares about his community and understands his community and is a champion for his community," he told the BBC."That is ultimately what people have voted for."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The closing of a local hair salon tells you why Britain is going bust
On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will stand up in the House and announce her latest plans for saving the country from bankruptcy. Somehow, she will have to produce plausible remedies for a crisis that seems insoluble: how to deal with catastrophic levels of government debt when there are endless demands for more public spending including a brand new commitment to provide more funding for defence. Having ruled out tax rises that clearly impinge directly on what they call 'working people' – income tax, VAT and employee National Insurance contributions – Labour has made this situation more complicated. But, perversely, they have chosen to make it even worse by pushing many of the most productive contributors to the economy out of business. The Labour Government, by putting supposed ideological solidarity over economic reality, has created the perfect formula for the failure of precisely the business sector which contributes most to national vitality and growth. Let me offer an illustration in the hope that it might prove instructive to the present and any future Chancellor. A hairdressing salon that I know in a prosperous North London neighbourhood closed for good several weeks ago. It had been at its current location for over thirty years and was so popular that it often took days to get an appointment. After lockdown it recovered well with its loyal customers delighted to return. The emergence of the four day working week meant that Fridays became as busy as Saturdays and the salon was humming. So what went wrong? The owner was hit simultaneously by the increases in the minimum wage and employer NICS. Added to ever-increasing energy costs (exacerbated by green levies), this burden finally broke them. Even though they were a well-run thriving business, they could not survive. Sadly all of the junior staff and trainees were laid off. Given the economic climate now, they will struggle to find similar jobs anywhere else so they will not be paying any tax for the indefinite future and will almost certainly have to claim unemployment benefit: a double loss for the Treasury. The salon as a company has gone so it will no longer be paying corporation tax. The senior stylists who have carried on working privately are now self-employed which means they can, perfectly legitimately, claim all their work expenses against tax – so they will pay less income tax than they did under PAYE when they were employees. You get the picture. The net effect of the Government's measures has been to reduce the tax take for their own coffers and increase unemployment among people starting out in their working lives whose chances are further damaged by the ridiculous stipulation that they must have full rights to secure employment from the day they are hired. What happened to one hair salon might not seem all that significant to the nation's future. But this pattern is being repeated in small businesses – particularly the ones that provide employment to young people starting out in working life – in countless numbers. Retail shops, building services and hospitality outlets are cutting staff and failing to hire new recruits because the cost of employing them is back breaking. As a result, they are not expanding and developing their businesses as they might have – and so not contributing to the growth of the economy in the significant way that small businesses, with their inherent dynamism and industriousness, once did. Labour, in its supposed determination to support 'working people' has created a doom loop in which fewer people will be joining the workforce and the consequent reduction in tax revenue will make the government even less able to meet the limitless demands of the welfare system as well as pay off its debts. Needless to say, there have been some obvious winners in the Labour dynamic: public sector employees have had their mouths stuffed with gold not only because Labour is historically inclined to favour the unions which represent them but because they can threaten disruption on a scale that reduces any complaining chorus from the small business sector to an inconsequential squeak. But there is more to it than that, in ideological terms: business generally, and small business in particular, are seen as inherently self-interested enterprises. Because they have been created, developed and run by private individuals in the hope of making a profit, they must be morally suspect and less worthy of support than the services that the state funds and operates for the general good of society. Carry this to its logical conclusion and it becomes admirable to penalise people who want to profit from other people's need for their services in order to pay for the provision of services dispensed 'fairly' (and without profit) by the government. You know where this ends, don't you? The most innovative, resourceful, determined individuals who might have developed new ways of creating real wealth and employing more people in experimental ways have impossible demands put on them which threaten their survival or, at the very least, make their continued existence as difficult as possible. They are encumbered with inflexible employment conditions which might possibly be appropriate for huge public sector organisations but are death to experimental emerging enterprises. Their tax arrangements are made so horrendously complicated and difficult to master that expensive accountancy advice becomes essential. I know self-employed sole traders in the creative industries who would like to enlarge their practice but are terrified of crossing the income threshold that would require VAT registration which now involves coping with Making Tax Digital – a peculiarly sadistic form of monitoring which, as HMRC has just discovered in its attempt to introduce it in self-employed income tax, can be susceptible to cyber hacking. Yes indeed, create a business on your own and try to make it a success – just try. The Government, and its agents in HMRC who can't even be bothered to answer the phone, will make your life as difficult as possible. And the more obstacles they put in the way to prevent you from flourishing and expanding, the more virtuous they will feel even though you and the real wealth that you create are the only things that might have saved them.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Government struggles to slash foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the billions of pounds of foreign aid partly used to house asylum seekers in hotels, according to new figures. The £2.2bn Home Office estimate to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) in this financial year is only slightly less than the £2.3bn spent in 2024/25. The vast majority is used for the accommodation for asylum seekers who have arrived in the UK, with recent figures showing more than 32,000 were being housed in hotels at the end of March. Labour has pledged "to end the use of asylum hotels" and the government says it has reduced the overall asylum support costs by half a billion pounds, including £200m in ODA savings, which had been passed back to the Treasury. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said he will cut the overall ODA from its current level of 0.5% of gross national income (GNI) to 0.3% in 2027. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent on providing humanitarian and development assistance in other countries, but the UK is allowed to count refugee-hosting costs as ODA under internationally agreed rules. Labour MP Sarah Champion previously said a "scandalously large amount" of ODA has been diverted to the Home Office and has called for a cap on how much can be spent supporting asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. They are housed in hotels if there is not enough space in accommodation provided by local authorities or other organisations. A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and are urgently taking action to restore 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."
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Spending Review: Massive cheques from chancellor for some - but what do totals hide?
The next few days are vital – "one of the last moments to weave it all together – to look politically credible to the people Labour has lost", one senior figure have been huge fights inside government about the looming Spending I write, the home secretary and deputy prime minister are both still in dispute with the mighty Treasury over the amount of cash they'll have to the Treasury's already trying to convince the public the review is about significant Wednesday Rachel Reeves boasted of funnelling billions more taxpayers' cash to big transport projects outside the wealthier south east of England, having tweaked the Treasury rules to do with five days still to go, I've been passed some of the information that'll be in the pages of Wednesday's one crucial chart that will be in the huge bundle of documents heading to the printing presses on Tuesday night that shows what's called TDEL – the Total Departmental Expenditure other words, the total that government spends, including the day-to-day costs of running public services and long-term spending on big projects. The chart spans 2010 to 2030, so takes in the coalition years, where you can see the total sliding down, then the Conservative years when spending starts rising after the Brexit referendum, then leaps up during then, when Labour took charge, the red line going up steeply at first, then more slowly towards the end of this parliamentary total real terms spending by 2029-30? More than £650bn – roughly £100bn more than when Labour took pale blue line is what would have happened to spending if the Conservatives had managed to hang on to power last government now is allergic to accusations that any cuts they make will be a return to austerity. And this chart shows that overall spending is going up considerably, compared to those lean political argument around spending will rage but the chancellor did - to use the ghastly technical term – set out the "spending envelope" in her autumn Budget, indicating rises were can bet they'll want to use every chance they have to say they are spending significantly more than the Tories planned to under Rishi government's political opponents on the other hand, may look at that red line as it climbs steeply upwards and say: "See, public spending is ballooning out of control".This chart does illustrate very significant rises in public spending. But be careful. What this chart doesn't give us is any idea of how those massive totals break down. Massive chunks will go to favoured departments, suggestions of an extra £30bn for the NHS a very significant part of that steep rise will be allocated to long-term projects, not running public services, some of which are overall total may be enormous, but a couple of parts of government greedily suck in billions - others will still feel the pain. A case in point – as I write on Saturday morning, the Home Office is still arguing over its settlement, believing there isn't enough cash to provide the number of police the government has promised, while the front pages are full of stories about the NHS receiving another bumper observe this big health warning. The chart gives us a sense of the political argument the chancellor will it doesn't tell the full story or give the crucial totals, department by department, decision by worth saying it's incredibly unusual to see any of this before the day itself, hinting perhaps at jitters in No 11 about how the review will be we hear the chancellor's speech, and then see all of the documents in full on Wednesday, the story of the Spending Review won't be will be reams of statistics, produced by government, and the official number crunchers, the OBR, and then days of analysis by think tanks and experts in the bear in mind these three core facts. Rachel Reeves will put a huge amount of cash, tens and tens of billions, towards long term projects. Short-term spending money will be tight, with no spare cash for sweeteners. And the government is not popular, so there's huge pressure to tell a convincing story to try to change that, not least because of what went wrong the last time. "We can't ever do it like this again." After Labour's first Budget, government insiders concluded next time, it had to be different.A source recalls: "It was a very brutal exercise - it was literally just making the sums add up, there was no collective approach to what the priorities were."Alongside a lot of extra cash for the NHS, there was a big tax rise for business that came out of the blue. No one wants a repeat of that "next time" is now – and a Labour source warns the review might be as "painful as hell" .So the task for a government struggling in the polls is to make this moment more than just a gruesome arithmetic problem, instead, to use the power of the state's cheque book to make, and go on to win an a fiver on Rachel Reeves referring back to that first Budget as "fixing the foundations" of the economy and public services, this week then being the moment to start, "rebuilding Britain".Sources suggest she has three aspects in mind: security for the country (which will explain all those billions for defence), the health of the nation - that does what it says on the tin, and "investing", all that cash for long-term week's decisions will be followed soon after by the government's industrial strategy which will promise support for business, possibly including cash to help with sky-high energy it comes after several big staging posts – the immigration white paper, trade deals, the defence government circles there's hope of denting some of the criticisms that they have been slow to get moving in office, that, frankly, Sir Keir Starmer arrived in government without having worked out what he really wanted to Whitehall insider tells me, "Now the buses are all arriving at once – maybe the idea of this lacklustre government that didn't have a plan will be blown away by July?" Another Labour source suggests the threat from Nigel Farage has actually forced the government to get moving, visibly, and decisively: "Reform gives us the impetus to actually shake this stuff down."That's the rosy view of how the chancellor might be able to play a difficult hand. It might not be reality. It is profoundly uncomfortable for a Labour government to make is already a whiff of rebellion in the air over ministers' welfare plans. Expanding free school meals for kids in England seems designed to placate some of those critics in advance, but there could be more to make them forget Reeves has several different audiences – not just the public and her party, but the financial bigwigs time last year all Labour's schmoozing was paying off, and she enjoyed good reviews in the year on, that mood has shifted, in part because of the autumn to one city source, it "damaged her. People saw it as an about turn on her promises. Raising National Insurance, however they want to present it, went against the spirit of the manifesto… confidence in her in the City is diminished and diminishing", not least because there is chatter about more tax hikes in the autumn budget. Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you. You probably don't need me to remind you that the level of taxes collected by government are historically sky too, at the other end, is the amount of government debt. A former Treasury minister told me this morning, "debt is the central issue of our time, nationally and globally"."There is a real risk our debt becomes unsustainable this Parliament, unless we make tough choices about what the state does. We can't keep on muddling through."Add in the twists, tariffs and tantrums of the man in the White House, that make the global economic situation uncertain and the picture's not politics hinges on finding advantage in adversity. Polling suggests much of the country reckons Labour inherited a bad hand and has played it week, the chancellor has a chance to change the game. No 11 is determined to prove that she has made decisions only a Labour chancellor would Reeves is gambling that her decisions to shovel massive amounts of money into long term spending helps the economy turn, and translates into political support well before the next general election.A senior Labour source said, Wednesday will be "the moment, this government clicks into gear, or it won't". There's no guarantee. BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
