SNP came ‘frustratingly close' to victory in Hamilton, says Swinney
The SNP came 'frustratingly close' to winning the Hamilton by-election, First Minister John Swinney has said.
Scottish Labour's Davy Russell won a surprise victory on Thursday, with the SNP coming second and Reform in third.
The by-election had been sparked by the death of Scottish Government minister and SNP MSP, Christina McKelvie, who had held the seat since 2011, with the party hoping to keep it in the fold.
Despite the First Minister's claim that the contest was a straight fight between the SNP and Nigel Farage's surging Reform UK, the Labour candidate won with 8,559 votes to the 7,957 of the SNP's Katy Loudon.
Speaking to the PA news agency in Glasgow, the First Minister said the party had made 'modest progress' since its collapse at last year's general election – when it dropped from 48 MPs to just nine – but had further to go.
'We had a very strong campaign in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse,' he said.
'We had hundreds of members of the party that came to make their contribution to the by-election campaign – we've got to build on that.
'We've got to learn the lessons of the by-election.
'We came very close, it was frustratingly close.'
Coming second in the vote, the First Minister said, is an 'indication that we are still able to perform strongly electorally'.
The First Minister added that his party lost the overlapping seat at Westminster – Hamilton and Clyde Valley – by 9,000 votes last year and by just 600 on Thursday.
'So, we are quite clearly in a position where we can achieve electoral success, but we have got to build on that and make sure we're stronger for 2026,' he said.
In the final weeks of the campaign, the First Minister predicted the contest would be between his party and Reform UK but, asked if such an assertion – which turned out to be wrong – cast doubt on the data used by the SNP, he appeared to suggest it was based on his own perception.
'I'm just making two points about the by-election, two observations,' he said.
'One was that Labour support was collapsing, and from last year to Thursday, Labour support collapsed by 20%, came down from 50% to 30%.
'And I observed, secondly, that Reform support was surging and it was, so my analysis of the by-election was absolutely correct.
'I simply said to people if you want to stop Reform, vote for the SNP.'
Despite the by-election loss, the party continues to lead in the polls ahead of next year, with Mr Swinney saying the Government must 'deliver on the priorities of the people of Scotland'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
My sympathies, Rachel Reeves. Cutting public spending isn't easy
This week's Spending Review will expose the obvious predicament of the Government: there is no money. While Labour will continue to blame the Conservatives, it is responsible for most of what has happened in the past year. Decisions it has made have exacerbated the problem. Right from the beginning of its administration, the Labour Government was strangely committed to increased public train drivers, less than eight weeks after the election, received a 'no strings attached' offer of 15 per cent over three years. Within 48 hours of the deal being broadcast to the world, Aslef announced a fresh campaign of strikes. In addition to the generosity shown to the train drivers, about 1.3 million NHS workers – including nurses and paramedics – and around 500,000 teachers got a pay rise of 5.5 per cent. Junior doctors, who had staged a series of strikes over pay since early 2023, struck a deal which showed an average 22.3 per cent pay rise over two years. You can argue that all this was necessary, but the announcement of these sweetheart deals, after only weeks in government, looked too much like a bargain that had been struck before the election itself. To pay for this largesse, the Labour Government proceeded to revert to a tax policy that many commentators have described as, frankly, Marxist. Marx divided society into three groups, namely landowners, capitalists and workers. The Labour Party pledged not to increase taxes on workers. It raised taxes on employers and farmers instead. It increased national insurance for employees on the former and inheritance taxes on the latter. It didn't realise that putting taxes on employers would harm workers. This point was made by none other than the Office for Budget Responsibility, which said that 65 per cent of the £25 billion raid on business would be paid by workers, in the form of higher prices for goods and lower wages. Removing the winter fuel payment from pensioners only made sense to Treasury officials. Yes, it saved approximately £10 billion. But for a Labour Government that vaunted its social-democratic 'values', the policy was a disaster. It went against the core message of the Labour Party – that it was 'caring' and benevolent, even when money was tight. This policy has been reversed. People think politicians embark on U-turns to regain support. This is naive. Politicians know that the damage has been done; the U-turn merely prevents further loss of support. There have been swerves, U-turns and missteps. The backlash from Labour MPs against any suggestion to reduce the welfare bill or reform the system suggests that Reeves will not be able to reduce public expenditure, as she would like. In addition, it is obvious that more money will have to be found for defence. There is an expectation, particularly after President Trump's equivocal statements about US support for Nato, that Labour will have to increase defence spending. The Prime Minister himself has said that he would commit his Government to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP by April 2027. Where will this money come from, if no attempt can be made to constrain welfare spending? Higher taxes, of course. Yet the problem here is that tax levels are already very high. VAT is at 20 per cent; the top rate of tax is at 45 per cent and kicks in at £125,000. Changes to the non-dom regime have resulted in wealthy people leaving the country, and the so-called 'Energy Profits Levy' is now proving to be a major disincentive to invest in the North Sea. A lot of this foolishness can of course be attributed to the last government, of which I was a senior member. The Conservatives, remarkably, introduced the Energy Profits Levy. We changed the non-dom regime – influenced by the Civil Service, I were always told that we had to spend more money. Of course, to our social-democratic establishment, spending more money meant more tax revenues, not by growing the economy and increasing wealth, but by imposing ever higher tax rates. The logic of this cycle will result in new taxes, as there is only so much 'ketchup' you can squeeze out of the existing 'bottles', so to speak. Capital taxes, a mansion tax and increases in capital gains tax will surely be on the menu presented to the Chancellor if, as is likely, growth rates are revised downwards in the autumn. The fiscal situation cannot be understood simply as a result of the past few years. All governments in the Western world have faced increased public expenditure without a commensurate increase in growth rates or national wealth. All Western governments are saddled with welfare payments, exacerbated by high levels of immigration. All except the United States have experienced anaemic growth rates since the financial crisis of 2008. Yet, in the UK, it has been Labour that has been buffeted around more than most other governments, by giving in to spending demands. Much like an overweight man trying – and then promptly giving up – his umpteenth diet, the Government seems to have simply stopped bothering to reduce public expenditure. In this way, the tail of welfare spending starts to wag the dog. The productive economy – indeed all the nation's economic activity – begins to be seen as merely an appendage of the welfare state. It is as though the only justification of economic activity and wealth creation is to pay for ever-increasing welfare spending. This cannot be the right way to run an economy. In fact, for most of British history, entrepreneurialism and innovation have been driven by the private sector. That is what made the UK prosperous. Today, under this Labour Government, public spending will crowd out the private sector. Higher taxes are already stifling productive enterprise. Wealthy people are leaving the country, while our borders seem out of control. The sadness is that this Government has reached this position after less than a year. Who can tell what another four years of the same policies will bring? Higher taxes, higher immigration and flatlining growth seem the most likely outcome. If this happens, the Government will simply be turfed out, like the last government, much to everybody's relief. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Labour MPs in call for benefits U-turn after change to winter fuel payment cut
Labour backbenchers have called for a Government U-turn on planned disability benefit cuts, after Chancellor Rachel Reeves restored winter fuel payments to a majority of pensioners. Ms Reeves' £1.25 billion plan unveiled on Monday will see automatic payments worth up to £300 given to pensioners with an income less than £35,000 a year. It followed last year's decision to strip pensioners of the previously universal scheme, unless they claimed certain benefits, such as pension credit. Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, warned ministers they risked making a 'similar mistake' if they tighten the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments, known as Pip. Leeds East MP Richard Burgon called on pensions minister Torsten Bell to 'listen now' so that backbenchers can help the Government 'get it right'. In her warning, Ms Whittome said she was not asking Mr Bell 'to keep the status quo or not to support people into work' and added: 'I'm simply asking him not to cut disabled people's benefits.' The pensions minister, who works in both the Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions, replied that the numbers of people receiving Pip is set to 'continue to grow every single year in the years ahead, after the changes set out by this Government'. In its Pathways to Work green paper, the Government proposed a new eligibility requirement, so Pip claimants must score a minimum of four points on one daily living activity, such as preparing food, washing and bathing, using the toilet or reading, to receive the daily living element of the benefit. 'This means that people who only score the lowest points on each of the Pip daily living activities will lose their entitlement in future,' the document noted. Mr Burgon told the Commons: 'As a Labour MP who voted against the winter fuel payment cuts, I very much welcome this change in position, but can I urge the minister and the Government to learn the lessons of this and one of the lessons is, listen to backbenchers? 'If the minister and the Government listen to backbenchers, that can help the Government get it right, help the Government avoid getting it wrong, and so what we don't want is to be here in a year or two's time with a minister sent to the despatch box after not listening to backbenchers on disability benefit cuts, making another U-turn again.' Mr Bell replied that it was 'important to listen to backbenchers, to frontbenchers'. Opposition MPs cheered when the minister added: 'It's even important to listen to members opposite on occasion.' Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin warned that 'judging by the questions from his own backbenchers, it seems that we're going to have further U-turns on Pip and on the two-child benefit cap'. The Tunbridge Wells MP asked Mr Bell: 'To save his colleagues anguish, will he let us know now when those U-turns are coming?' The minister replied: 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Labour Government bringing down child poverty, and that's what we're going to do 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Government that can take the responsible decisions, including difficult ones on tax and on means testing the winter fuel payment so that we can invest in public services and turn around the disgrace that has become Britain's public realm for far too long.' Conservative former work and pensions secretary Esther McVey had earlier asked whether the Chancellor, 'now that she and the Government have got a taste for climbdowns', would 'reverse the equally ridiculous national insurance contribution (Nic) rises, which is destroying jobs, and the inheritance tax changes, which is destroying farms and family businesses'. Mr Bell said: 'This is a party opposite that has learned no lessons whatsoever, that thinks it can come to this chamber, call for more spending, oppose every tax rise and expect to ever be taken seriously again – they will not.' Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey pressed the Government to make changes to the two-child benefit cap, which means most parents cannot claim for more than two children. 'It's the right thing to do to lift pensioners out of poverty, and I'm sure that both he and the Chancellor also agree that it's right to lift children out of poverty,' the Salford MP told the Commons. 'So can he reassure this House that he and the Chancellor are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible?' Mr Bell replied: 'All levers to reduce child poverty are on the table. 'The child poverty strategy will be published in the autumn.' He added: 'If we look at who is struggling most, having to turn off their heating, it is actually younger families with children that are struggling with that. 'So she's absolutely right to raise this issue, it is one of the core purposes of this Government, we cannot carry on with a situation where large families, huge percentages of them, are in poverty.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Nursery parents win closure review but concerns remain
Aberdeenshire Council has agreed to pause the mothballing of four rural nurseries. Parents were told in April that Ballogie, Crossroads, Glass and Sandhaven nurseries would close at the end of term. Councillors have now agreed to put those decisions on hold while it reviews its guidance around how it consults with families. Campaigners have welcomed the move, but said they had lost confidence in the local authority. At a special meeting of the full council, councillors agreed to pause all future mothballing - which means closing premises but keeping them in a condition ready for future use - while a review of guidance was carried out. During the meeting, councillors on the local authority's ruling administration decided not to allow members of the public to give their views. Campaigner and parent Lindsay Love told BBC Scotland News: ''We all came hoping to speak on behalf of our communities and we were silenced.''' She said she had mixed emotions about the decision to pause mothballing. Ms Love said: ''I'm nervous that they are actually going to move forward with integrity. I feel like they're trying to control the narrative now. "We just need to make sure that we're protecting our nurseries and our rural communities as best as we can." She added: "Whilst is it a good thing that they've decided to pause the mothballing, I don't have a huge amount of confidence in them as an institution to do the right thing.'' More stories from North East Scotland, Orkney and Shetland Listen to news from North East Scotland on BBC Sounds Council leader Gillian Owen said the council had carefully reflected on what parents had been calling for. No timescale was given for the review. Ms Owen said: ''I think we're looking at doing a review quite swiftly but we've got to wait for the Scottish government guidelines.'' She denied families had been "silenced" by not being allowed to speak at the meeting. The councillor added: "We've actually made the changes that they want. ''They must look at that as an actual celebration, not as a slight.'' When the move to mothball the nurseries was announced at the start of the Easter school holidays, it sparked a backlash from local communities. Since then, families have been campaigning to keep them open, arguing the decision was made without proper consultation. The Scottish government also wrote to Aberdeenshire Council to highlight the need to consult parents in such cases. Last week, the local authority's ruling administration said it wanted to pause the controversial plans. Aberdeenshire Council Tory leader stands down Nursery mothballing move taking 'extreme toll' Officials mothballing school branded undemocratic Aberdeenshire Council
