Three Plymouth city councillors quit Labour
Three councillors on Plymouth City Council have left the Labour Party, citing concerns over immigration policies, trans issues and cuts to the winter fuel allowance.Dylan Tippetts, the city's first openly trans councillor, was elected as Labour councillor for Compton in 2022 but has now become Plymouth City Council's only Liberal Democrat member.Zoe Reilly, who represents Honicknowle, quit Labour to become an independent while Carol Ney, the member for Southway, left Labour to join the Independent group.The Labour Party in Plymouth has been approached for comment.
Tippetts said Labour had "thrown transgender people under the bus and has taken us back decades".Following a Supreme Court ruling that a woman was defined by biological sex under equalities law, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said he did not believe transgender women were women.Announcing the political move, Tippetts said: "I will always make sure trans voices are listened to and valued in this period of turbulence and division our country faces."Welcoming Tippetts to the Lib Dems, city party chairman Stuart Bonar said: "With the government scrapping winter fuel payments to over 10 million pensioners, as well as cutting benefits to disabled people, it is no surprise that more and more people are turning to the Liberal Democrats."
Carol Ney said she left the Labour Party because of her concerns over the government's cuts to the winter fuel allowance and plans to change personal independence payments.She said: "These changes are affecting the poorest members of society and I've heard first-hand from residents who are struggling to make ends meet."Ney said she had hoped to see a change of direction from Labour following the local elections in May. There were no elections in Plymouth but Labour were wiped out on Devon County Council.She said: "I was hoping after the recent election results Labour would have changed policies as they can see the electorate are becoming disillusioned with the party. Alas they have not listened to the general public."Zoe Reilly left the Labour Party the day after the prime minister made a speech about bringing down net migration.She reportedly referred to Starmer's speech and said remaining in Labour "would be a disservice to myself and to the diverse communities I continue to work with". Reilly has not responded to a request for comment from the BBC.The defections mean Labour has 39 councillors on Plymouth City Council, the Conservatives and the Independent group both have seven councillors, the Green Party has two members, while the Liberal Democrats have one and one councillor is independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The public sector malaise means Reeves's plans are not credible
Rachel Reeves took to the airwaves on Sunday to sell her spending review to a sceptical public facing tax rises to pay for her latest splurge. The Chancellor remains oblivious to the central flaw in her plans, which is the failure of public sector productivity to improve even while more money is being poured into services. Getting less for more is the precise opposite of what had been promised by Labour. An analysis by the Centre for Policy Studies shows the scale of this crisis. Public spending by 2028 will be nearly 25 per cent higher than before the pandemic. It will be the equivalent of £24,190 per adult in today's money, almost £3,000 more than in 2020. The extra cash and staff provided to deal with Covid are now baked in. The NHS is getting yet more money even though productivity is 20 per cent below pre-pandemic levels with little sign of improvement. The CPS observed that 'the state is becoming a combination of health service, benefit office and debt collection agency – with all other functions squeezed to compensate'. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which measures the Treasury's claims against economic reality, has begun a review of productivity amid concerns that all GDP predictions will need to be recalibrated. Ms Reeves may be forced to knock at least £20bn off her forecasts to fall into line with independent productivity assessments. The OBR's conclusions will shape the Chancellor's budget in the autumn and will require her to raise taxes or cut spending to stay within her own rules. Unless the Government urgently finds a way to shake the public sector out of its torpor, the entire economy will suffer.
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘No doubt' Trump will back nuclear submarine deal, says Starmer
There is 'no doubt' that Donald Trump will end up backing the Aukus nuclear submarine deal, Sir Keir Starmer has said during his trip to Canada ahead of the G7 summit. The pact between Australia, the UK and the US, known by its acronym, was thrown into doubt last week when the Pentagon announced a review into it. The agreement was signed in 2021 and is worth £176 billion, giving Australia nuclear-powered submarines for the first time. It is designed to counter the influence of China in the Indo-Pacific. The US president has appointed Elbridge Colby to head up the review. The former US deputy assistant secretary of defence questioned the deal in a speech last year, asking why the US was giving away 'this crown jewel asset when we most need it'. Both the US and the UK are under pressure to boost defence spending from Mr Trump, who has demanded Western allies do more to protect their own security. Sir Keir is expected to hold talks with Mr Trump during the G7 summit in Canada, giving him the opportunity to sway his counterpart to remain committed to the Aukus pact. Travelling with reporters on a plane to Canada, Sir Keir was asked what his message would be to Mr Trump about the importance of the alliance. Sir Keir said: 'Aukus is really important. We're fully committed to it. 'It's not unusual for an incoming government to do a review of a project like that. We, of course, looked into the issue when we came into government... and they're doing their own review. 'But I'm 100 per cent committed to it. I'm really clear about that.' Asked if he was confident Mr Trump would end up backing Aukus, Sir Keir said: 'Yeah, I think so. It's a really important project. So I don't have any doubt that this will progress.' The public optimism has been echoed in Australia, where Richard Marles, the defence minister, recently said of the review: 'I'm very confident this is going to happen.' Concerns about whether Mr Trump would remain fully behind Aukus were flagged early internally by Downing Street when he won the US presidential election last November. The agreement was signed by Joe Biden, the Democrat who defeated Mr Trump in the 2020 presidential election and has often been a focus of his criticism. Indeed, the other two leaders who signed the pact have also changed, with Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison long gone as the leaders of the UK and Australia respectively. Mr Trump appeared not to know what the acronym Aukus meant when it was mentioned in the Oval Office during Sir Keir's first visit to the new US president in February. But the Prime Minister seems hopeful that, like the deal to hand sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius that was waved through by Mr Biden, Mr Trump will eventually give it his backing. A Pentagon official told the BBC last week when the review was announced that the process was to ensure Aukus meets 'common sense, America First criteria'. Australia is buying up to five nuclear-powered submarines at a huge expense from the US, potentially making it easy to frame the deal as a boost for the American economy. Meanwhile, the date for implementation of the UK-US free trade deal, signed off by Sir Keir and Mr Trump in May, appears to be days away. It is possible Sir Keir will announce that the agreement is finally kicking in during the G7 summit, should he hold a formal bilateral meeting with the US president.
Daily Mail
38 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
STEPHEN DAISLEY: Swinney has no spark, no vision and no clue. If he were to quit now he'd leave no legacy ... just consequences
Reports of a plot to replace John Swinney as SNP leader prompt an obvious question: with whom? The First Minister's pitch when he took over the leadership was that he would be Mr Stability, a safe pair of hands who could move the party on from the Humza Yousaf disaster, factional disagreements over gender and independence strategy, and the never-ending police investigation. Now, there's a lot to be said for stability. After all, 'May you live in interesting times' is intended as a curse, not a blessing. But whose interests are served by Swinneyean 'stability'? Certainly not taxpayers who want to see their money spent wisely on the improvement of public services. Swinney, like his recent predecessors, is adept at raking money in and pouring it back out but the record on outcomes leaves a lot to be desired. The finance secretary who gutted funding for local government. The education secretary who tried to fix an exams disaster by downgrading the results of working-class children. The Covid recovery secretary who produced no recovery in hospitals or on high streets. The first minister who, over a long and undistinguished ministerial career, has had a hand in every calamity to issue from St Andrew's House, from the educational attainment gap to the unlawful named persons scheme, the Ferguson Marine ferries to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, the secrecy that bedevilled the Alex Salmond inquiry to the brazen deletion of ministerial messages from the Covid pandemic. Internal rivals might be displeased with his absolutely honking performance in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, losing a safe SNP seat to a Labour party that he said wasn't even in the race, but if anyone is entitled to vent about the man's performance it is the general public. They thought they were getting a political handyman, someone who would roll up his sleeves and fix the breaks, cracks, squeaks and grumbles across government. Thirteen months later, the same faults remain. Decrepitude has become the norm. Which brings us back to the 'who' question. Let's say the plotters give Swinney his jotters. Who follows him into Bute House? Stephen Flynn is a name insiders keep bringing up, and I keep advising them to put right back down. Flynn is a wide boy with a restless mouth and a smug manner and zero in the way of executive experience. He is a less qualified Humza Yousaf. Angus Robertson? Cold, aloof, and unrelatable. If Scottish elections were held only in Stockbridge and Kelvinbridge, he'd romp home, but the farther you get from a university, a Waitrose or a book festival, the further his appeal diminishes. Kate Forbes could make a decent fist of it but the green-haired brigade would sooner see Reform in government than allow a Bible-believing Christian to lead the party. Not that any of this matters, of course. The problem is the SNP itself, its failure to govern and its shifting priorities. Scotland will not flourish under Swinney. It will not flourish under Flynn or anyone else touted as a possible successor. The SNP is not a party that exists to make Scotland flourish; it exists to make Scotland independent. Yet the Nationalists are no closer today to achieving either than they were 18 years ago when they entered government. Scotland did not flourish under Alex Salmond, whose energies were directed to the SNP's raison d'etre. It was of little consolation to those who hoped for economic and social progress during those first seven years, but Salmond spoke often of independence as the necessary condition for transforming the country into a powerhouse of prosperity, innovation and fairness. Unionists could dislike his objectives and his personality while recognising that he had ambition for the country, however misguided. Scotland is still not flourishing but nor is it making much progress towards independence. Under the post-Salmond leadership of the SNP, the unholy trinity of Nicola Sturgeon, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, the journey has not merely stalled, the destination has changed. The immediate objective is not tending, growing or marshalling the independence movement, but entrenching and expanding their own ruling caste, a self-perpetuating elite whose purpose is not social or constitutional change but the acquisition of power and status for their own sake. They are in office to be in office and every decision is taken with the maintenance of office in mind. They are embedding themselves as the new Scottish establishment, helpfully sporting yellow rather than red rosettes so they may be distinguished from the old establishment, and nothing - not the improvement of education, nor the recovery of the NHS, nor even independence - will get in their way. That establishment was on full display last week in John Swinney's mini reshuffle, an ingathering of the inconsequential, an anointing of the adequate. It's hard to be disappointed in the calibre of ministers, for how do you work up any kind of feeling towards a Tom Arthur or a Màiri McAllan? There is nothing there to oppose because there is nothing there. At the head of this committee of beige sits Swinney, the beigest man of all.. No spark, no passion, no vision, no clue. Tomorrow, the First Minister will address the Scotland 2050 conference in Edinburgh where he will urge us to reject 'another 25 years of Westminster mismanagement' and instead 'look around us at our immense potential today, and have the confidence that we can do better with the full powers of independence'. The party that proclaimed 'Scotland free by 93', and then 'Nationalist heaven in 2007', now wants its followers to believe independence will be nifty in 2050. At some point, the party faithful will have to accept that they are not being led but strung along. The SNP will not deliver a booming economy and radically improved public services to ordinary voters, and nor will it, in its current incarnation, deliver independence to those for whom the constitution comes before all else. The SNP will deliver only for the nomenklatura in whose grips it has been held for more than a decade now. That ruling elite has its priorities but they are not those of the general public nor, for the most part, of the rank and file of the independence movement. They are nationalists who put themselves before the nation. Why remove John Swinney as leader when he is the ideal figurehead of today's SNP? A man with a lanyard, indistinguishable in ideology or political purpose from all the other men and women with lanyards, no more or less likely to grow the economy, close the attainment gap, meet A&E targets or secure another referendum on independence. If Swinney were to go now, he would leave no legacy, only consequences, fashioned by his failings but borne by others. The young people denied a quality, life-changing education. The local government services cut and the people who relied upon them abandoned. The hollowed out town centres, the boarded up shops and businesses, the pervasive economic despair and societal gloom of a country where venturing beyond the major cities will bring you face to face with communities that have been given up on for so long they have given up on themselves. A first minister worthy of the office would set about tackling these social ailments, but John Swinney is not worthy of the office, and nor are any of those who would be likely to succeed him.
