East Ayrshire councillors reject ‘very British' daily flag raising
Conservative councillor Neill Watts had proposed flying the three flags every day at the London Road HQ in Kilmarnock, describing it as 'a very British way of expressing joy and pride' and 'a symbol of unity.'
His motion suggested that these flags be flown daily except when a different flag is more appropriate for special occasions.
However, the proposal was met with strong opposition, particularly from Labour group leader councillor Barry Douglas, who questioned both the practicality and its similarity to moves at Reform UK run councils in England.
READ MORE: Neil Oliver quietly dropped from Glasgow tour buses after years of backlash
He challenged the resource implications, asking whether flags would be installed at all council buildings, how much that would cost, and who would be tasked with raising and lowering the flags.
'There's a cost involved in all of that,' Douglas said. 'Raising and lowering flags takes staff. Are council officers to stop their duties to do this every day?'
He also took issue with Watts' description of the Conservatives as 'Scotland's strongest unionist party,' suggesting the recent general election results told a different story. 'Are we really talking about community cohesion,' he asked, 'or making a political point around the flag?'
Labour councillor Peter Mabon also opposed the move, stating that while flags were appropriate on special days, raising them daily would eat into officer time.
He said: 'We're talking about 200-plus hours every year in all weathers to raise and lower flags. Our officers have enough to do.'
Barry Douglas (Image: LDR) SNP council leader Douglas Reid also opposed the motion, expressing support for the current approach. 'We've got a policy that's lasted before my time as leader. Raising flags for special occasions, like Ukraine or Rainbow Flag (for Pride), makes it meaningful. Changing that sends the wrong message.'
Conservative councillor John McFadzean argued the proposal was modest in scale. 'For all the time it would take to hook on one flag and wind it up, there's not a huge implication. Civic pride helps lift morale.'
Douglas responded by drawing parallels with Reform UK-run councils in England, where flag-related motions have gained traction.
He acknowledged Watts' claim that he had been approached by Reform but had declined. 'Maybe he wants to tell the chamber something today. It is a big issue for Reform, but why is it such a big issue for him?'
Chief governance officer David Mitchell then intervened to clarify that there is no East Ayrshire Council flag. 'There has never been a council flag and we certainly don't have one at the moment.'
Watts denied any political motive, explaining his motion was based on personal observation.
'I would be more than happy just to have a flag – it doesn't matter whether it's the Saltire, it doesn't matter whether it's the flag of the United Kingdom,
'I just think that we should have at least a flag at this building as a mark of respect to our communities.'
He also reiterated his Conservative affiliation and rejected any association with Reform. 'I certainly am a Conservative and I am nowhere near Reform in that respect.'
In the end, councillors voted overwhelmingly to maintain the current flag policy, with 24 voting in favour of an amendment to retain existing arrangements and just four supporting the motion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
30 minutes ago
- Times
How Liz Kendall can stop this national sickness
The welfare trap has become so vast and bewildering — an incomprehensible maze of acronyms and despair — that it's easy to lose sight of those trapped inside it. Keir Starmer, like others before him, ended up losing his way in the institutional fog. The Treasury needed savings so welfare cuts were ordered to provide them. But no one seemed to ask the most basic question: what about the people? How would MPs explain the cuts to them, and others? And in what possible way would this be politically deliverable? Take Amy, a single mother in Keighley I met last year while filming a documentary. During childbirth, her pelvis fractured. Multiple surgeries have left her walking (with a stick) but in constant pain. Incapacity benefit lets her care for her eight-year-old son and provide something rare in her part of town: a stable home. Still only 30, Amy is bright and eager to train. She once wanted to be a barrister. But she has never worked and has no idea how to start, nor has anyone offered serious help. Starmer's welfare reform would cut payments significantly from next April: the promised 'employment support' looks paltry and unlikely to reach Amy. This is a Treasury raid, disguised as welfare reform. Official forecasts admit that the sickness benefit surge will continue apace: 3.3 million at the last count, 4.1 million within five years. So the obvious mission — reverse the rise — will not be accomplished. Labour rebels were right to reject this combination of penny-pinching, ineptitude and lack of ambition. People like Amy are the hardest cases: the longer you're on welfare, the harder it is to get off. So the first, easiest, most urgent task should be to reduce the rise in sickness benefit claimants. The old, shocking statistic was that 2,000 were being signed off every working day under the Tories. The figures were updated this week: under Labour it's now closer to 3,000 a day. Lives are being squandered on a scale that's hard to fathom and harder to forgive. Once on sickness benefits, claimants are unlikely to work again. This is especially tragic given how many under-35s are claiming: up 60 per cent in five years. It would be callous, if those in charge realised what was going on. Which, even now, they largely don't. Jeremy Hunt, a former chancellor, is a case in point. He recently claimed to be responsible for the sickness benefit surge because, as health secretary, he gave mental health the same status as physical health. But his mea culpa was wrong. A steady fall in sickness benefit claimants, which started under Blair, was suddenly and viciously reversed not following Hunt's 2014 Care Act but in 2019. Why? The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has gone into this in detail. The answer lies in bureaucratic mistakes that were never spotted and lie uncorrected even now. During lockdown, in-person interviews for sickness benefits were replaced with cheaper phone interviews. The new system had a big, unexpected side effect. Assessors told me the prospect of a sit-down interview deters those who are, actually, not too sick to work. Large numbers of them dropped their claims at the last minute. But a phone call? Far less daunting, especially if it's a scripted process that can be easily gamed — and whose questions (and accepted answers) are now all online. Something dull and technical — a reduction in the pre-interview dropout rate — is responsible for a half a million extra sickness benefit awards since 2019. But that figure accounts for only half of the overall surge of one million extra awards in that time. Another factor is the rise in approval rates, now at 80 per cent, double the 2010 level. Why so high? Assessors are incentivised to get through as many claims as they can, and are paid an £80 bonus for every one over a certain minimum. The only way of speeding up is to assess someone as too sick to work. Do so and you can 'curtail' — end the interview — and move on to the next claim. You can be hauled up for rejections (in case the claimant appeals) but approvals are almost never checked. One assessor, a former NHS nurse, told me how appalled he was that the interviews are not recorded. This, he said, leaves the system wide open to abuse. Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, could fix this now. Tell all applicants their interview will be in-person. Switch to a phone call last minute if needs be, but restore that deterrent effect. Record and spot-check all claims, not just rejected ones. Publish all sickness benefit data, daily. How many applied, and were approved? How many bonuses were paid? Such transparency could be transformative. A Covid-style live-data dashboard would focus minds more than any ministerial edict. Last autumn I met Gavin, a taxi driver on the south coast who told the DWP he did not need his sickness benefits any more. No, he was told: you must wait to be reassessed. Three years later, he was still waiting. What he didn't know was that reassessments were stopped in lockdown — and were never properly restarted. Once, 350 a day were moved back into work this way. Now, it's just 50 a day. Reassessments would not threaten people such as Amy, whose case is all too verifiable. No vote is needed in parliament. Kendall has been increasing them, but by nowhere like enough. She does not need new laws, just grip. And to rediscover a sense of urgency, a willingness to take on activists. This is about duty both to the taxpayer and to those stuck in the system. Not long ago, Britain led the world on welfare reform and it was Labour that started the process. The problem isn't a workshy population but a broken system, one that forgets its purpose, loses sight of the individual and now traps more than it helps. The real sickness is political: a kind of fatalism that says welfare is too big to fix, that no one can grip it and that any remedy must wait for some distant white paper. Reassessments, deterrents, scrutiny, transparency — none of these are radical ideas. They worked before and can be made to work again. This isn't about whether Starmer can pass legislation but whether he can govern. Whether he sees the likes of Amy not as costs to be reduced but as citizens to be helped. This was, once, the founding purpose of his party. If a prime minister forgets that purpose, then no majority, however large, will save him when the reckoning comes.
Western Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Warnings of tax rises after Downing Street welfare U-turn
The Prime Minister said that the concessions strike 'the right balance', but think tanks have warned that the changes announced in the early hours of Friday morning have made Rachel Reeves's 'already difficult Budget balancing act that much harder'. Rachel Reeves's Budget is set to be much harder to balance following the U-turn (Owen Humphreys/PA) Downing Street declined to rule out the possibility of increases in the autumn, telling reporters on Friday that 'tax decisions are set out at fiscal events'.The concessions on offer include protecting personal independence payments (Pip) for all existing claimants, while all existing recipients of the health element of Universal Credit will have their incomes protected in real terms. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said on Friday that the changes make tax rises in the budget expected in the autumn more likely. Associate director Tom Waters said: 'These changes more than halve the saving of the package of reforms as a whole, making the Chancellor's already difficult Budget balancing act that much harder.' Ruth Curtice, chief executive at the Resolution Foundation, said that 'the concessions aren't cheap, costing as much as £3 billion and more than halving the medium-term savings from the overall set of reforms announced just three months ago'. She added: 'This adds to the already mounting pressure to deliver fresh consolidation in the Budget this Autumn.' 126 The number of Labour backbenchers that signed an amendment that would have halted the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in its tracks when it faces its first Commons hurdle on July 1 Asked about how the climbdown would be funded, Downing Street said on Friday that 'There'll be no permanent increase in borrowing, as is standard. 'We'll set out how this will be funded at the budget, alongside a full economic and fiscal forecast in the autumn, in the usual way.' Asked whether they could say there would be no tax rises, a Number 10 spokesman said: 'As ever, as is a long-standing principle, tax decisions are set out at fiscal events.' Some 126 Labour backbenchers had signed an amendment that would have halted the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in its tracks when it faces its first Commons hurdle on July 1. The list of Labour MPs putting their name to the amendment had been growing throughout the week, as Downing Street said that they would be pressing on with next week's vote. After the late-night U-turn, Sir Keir said that 'the most important thing is that we can make the reform we need'. 'We talked to colleagues, who've made powerful representations, as a result of which we've got a package which I think will work, we can get it right,' he added. 'For me, getting that package adjusted in that way is the right thing to do, it means it's the right balance, it's common sense that we can now get on with it.' The Bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process Dr Simon Opher, who represents Stroud While leading rebels believe the concessions are likely to be enough to win over a majority, some remain opposed to the plans in their current form. Dr Simon Opher, who represents Stroud, said in a statement that he is glad the Government 'are listening', but that the changes 'do not tackle the eligibility issues that are at the heart of many of the problems with Pip'. 'The Bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process,' he said. It is also understood that talks are underway over rebel attempts to lay another amendment to seek to delay the plans, as reported by The Guardian. The fallout also threatens to cause lasting damage, with some backbenchers having called for a reset of relations between Number 10 and the parliamentary party. Speaking to the PA news agency, a number of Labour backbenchers expressed deeper frustration with how Downing Street has handled its backbenchers since last year's election. The Government's original package had restricted eligibility for Pip, the main disability payment in England, as well as cutting the health-related element of universal credit. Existing recipients were to be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support in an earlier move that was seen as a bid to head off opposition. Now, the changes to Pip will be implemented in November 2026 and apply to new claimants only, while all existing recipients of the health element of universal credit will have their incomes protected in real terms. The concessions on Pip alone protect some 370,000 people currently receiving the allowance who were set to lose out following reassessment.
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Defeated team Starmer's fury at rebel 'pr**ks': PM benefits surrender triggers civil war that insiders claim could be the 'death knell of the party'
Keir Starmer is wrestling to restore his grip on Labour today as loyalists vent fury at rebel 'pr**ks' who forced his latest U-turn. Tensions are running high after a massive revolt saw the PM offer major concessions to salvage flagship legislation on health and disability benefits. Sir Keir was left personally begging MPs to back the government after more than 120 MPs vowed to kill the plans in a crunch vote on Tuesday. A deal announced after midnight includes guarantees that existing claimants will not lose money. It is expected to wipe out around £3billion of the £5billion savings the Treasury had hoped to get from the reforms - hardening fears that Rachel Reeves will have to hike taxes again in the Autumn. There have been claims of shouting matches between whips and rebels, with much fury targeted at Sir Keir's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and 'over-excitable boys' running No10. Some critics have even demanded 'regime change', eliciting an humiliating public denial from the PM that he might have to quit after failing to 'read the room'. A Cabinet source told MailOnline that No10 had been wrong to sell the plans initially as a package of cuts, even though polls showed that was popular with the public. 'They should have stressed to MPs it was the only way ensure the welfare state still exists in a few years,' the source added. Rachel Reeves was already struggling to balance the books with the economy stalling and the previous U-turn on winter fuel allowance There have been claims of shouting matched between whips and rebels, with much fury targeted at Sir Keir's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and 'over-excitable boys' running No10 One Labour veteran told MailOnline that new MPs had proved harder to talk around. 'There are some who think this is going to be their only term in government now, so why give up on principles,' they said. Government insiders were taken aback by the intensity of the revolt, but voiced optimism that the situation was now back under control. Acknowledging tempers had frayed, they suggested both sides had been engaging constructively by last night. 'It's the Parliamentary Labour,' one added. 'It has cleared the air.' Underlining the animosity that had erupted in recent days, a Cabinet source told the Times: 'I cannot express the disdain I have for these stupid pr**ks who knocked a few doors and think they're JFK because Keir ran the best election campaign in 30 years.' Another Downing Street insider reportedly said: 'It's deeply unserious stuff from deeply unserious people. They are sounding the death knell of the Labour Party and they don't even realise it.' Despite the sound and fury in Labour ranks, the concessions look like being enough to prevent a disastrous defeat for the government at second reading. However, the changes are estimated to wipe more than £3billion off the £5billion savings by the end of the Parliament. That would be made up of £2billion for Personal Independence Payment (Pip) and another £1billion for the Universal Credit tweaks. Ms Reeves was already struggling to balance the books with the economy stalling and the previous U-turn on winter fuel allowance. Ruth Curtice of the Resolution Foundation think-tank suggested Ms Reeves will not be able to find the money in existing budgets. 'That leaves only extra borrowing - which the Chancellor doesn't have much space for unless she were to change her own fiscal rules - or tax rises,' she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Asked if that effectively meant there would be tax rises, Ms Curtice said: 'Yeah. Unless the government were to get better news on the economy the next time the OBR does a forecast... but when we look at everything that's happened in the world since they last did that in March our estimate is that they will actually get bad news from the OBR as well.' Challenged how the costs would be covered, health minister Stephen Kinnock told Times Radio: 'The full details around what we are laying out, what I've summarised really today, is going to be laid out in Parliament, and then the Chancellor will set out the budget in the autumn the whole of the fiscal position and this will be an important part of that. 'But forgive me, I'm not in a position to set those figures out now. 'I think that is very much the Chancellor's job as we move into the budget in the autumn.' Unveiling the concessions overnight, a spokesperson for Number 10 said: 'We have listened to MPs who support the principle of reform but are worried about the pace of change for those already supported by the system. 'This package will preserve the social security system for those who need it by putting it on a sustainable footing, provide dignity for those unable to work, supports those who can and reduce anxiety for those currently in the system. 'Our reforms are underpinned by Labour values and our determination to deliver the change the country voted for last year.' The Government's original package restricted eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability payment in England, and limited the sickness-related element of universal credit. Existing claimants were to be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support in an earlier move that was seen as a bid to head off opposition by aiming to soften the impact of the changes. In her letter, the Work and Pensions Secretary said: 'We recognise the proposed changes have been a source of uncertainty and anxiety. 'We will ensure that all of those currently receiving PIP will stay within the current system. The new eligibility requirements will be implemented from November 2026 for new claims only. 'Secondly, we will adjust the pathway of Universal Credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element – and any new claimant meeting the severe conditions criteria – have their incomes fully protected in real terms.' She said a ministerial review would ensure the benefit is 'fair and fit for the future' and will be a 'coproduction' with disabled people, organisations which represent them and MPs. 'These important reforms are rooted in Labour values, and we want to get them right,' she said. The change in Pip payments would protect some 370,000 existing claimants who were expected to lose out following reassessment. If the legislation clears its first hurdle on Tuesday, it will then face a few hours' examination by all MPs the following week – rather than days or weeks in front of a committee tasked with looking at the Bill. The so-called 'reasoned amendment' tabled by Treasury select committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier had argued that disabled people have not been properly consulted and further scrutiny of the changes is needed. She said: 'This is a good deal. It is massive changes to ensure the most vulnerable people are protected… and, crucially, involving disabled people themselves in the design of future benefit changes.' While the concessions look set to reassure some of those who had been leading the rebellion, other MPs remained opposed before the announcement.
