Fact check: Reform was largest party in Warwickshire local elections
Reform won around four in 10 of the seats on the council, gaining just over 30% of the total vote – making it the biggest party by both measures, however it did not win a majority in either sense.
The council does not provide a single public webpage displaying the vote tallies of all the wards in the last local election. The PA news agency compiled the results from all the different wards into a spreadsheet.
Analysis of that data shows that there were a total of 160,300 votes cast in the election, of which somewhat over 49,000 were cast for Reform candidates. That is around 30.7% of the vote.
While it fell short of exceeding 50% of the vote to obtain a majority, the result makes Reform the largest party by vote share, ahead of the Conservatives on 24.9%.
The analysis also shows that Reform won 23 out of the 57 council seats. That is around 40% of the total seats on the council.
Post on X (archived post and video)
Spreadsheet of PA analysis (downloads as spreadsheet)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Indefinite jail terms ‘not right and not fair', Lords say in call to end IPP injustice
Peers have demanded answers over the government's refusal to resentence prisoners trapped under 'no hope' indefinite jail terms, insisting: 'It is not right and it is not fair.' In an impassioned debate in the House of Lords, peers urged prisons minister James Timpson to take decisive action to end the injustice of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) jail terms. Successive governments have refused justice committee recommendations to resentence more than 2,500 prisoners still trapped under the abolished jail term. The open-ended sentences were scrapped in 2012, but not retrospectively, leaving those already jailed incarcerated indefinitely. Victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been highlighted by The Independent, include: Leroy Douglas, who has served almost 20 years for stealing a mobile phone; Thomas White, 42, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, 41, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. In a speech as his private members' bill to resentence IPP prisoners reached committee stage on Friday, Labour peer Lord Tony Woodley admitted it will not succeed without government support. Addressing IPP prisoners and their families, he told them not to give up hope, but added: 'Sadly, my bill by itself will not bring you justice. But it can help build pressure on the government to do the right thing, and it can help build public awareness of this industrial-scale miscarriage of justice. 'So please don't have false hope in my bill. Hope – but not false hope – is my aim here.' Raising a series of 'probing' amendments designed to 'expose the lack of logic' behind the government's refusal to resentence IPP prisoners, he said it is 'as big a scandal as the Post Office and the infected blood scandal'. 'Almost 100 prisoners have taken their own lives – hundreds more have been driven to insanity, with this no-hope, never-ending sentence,' he said. 'The only difference with IPP is that not enough people know about it.' He reminded the government that almost 700 IPP prisoners have served at least 10 years longer than their original minimum tariff. He added: 'How can the government deny resentencing to these people, still inside, over 10 years past their minimum sentence? 'My lords, let me remind you we are talking about people who have been locked up for over a decade longer than someone else convicted of the exact same crime, but before 2005 or after 2012. 'My lords, a lot of nonsense is spoken about 'two-tier' justice, but this is one situation where that label seems to apply. It is not right and it is not fair.' His proposals were backed by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Dr Alice Edwards, who said the jail terms have caused 'unlawful psychological torture' to prisoners. In a statement before the debate, she said: 'It is time to end the perpetual damage caused by the IPP scheme. 'These sentences have caused unlawful psychological torture and ill-treatment to too many prisoners under the care of successive British governments. 'A resentencing court is a promising way forward, in which there could be an initial prioritisation exercise of cases, necessary exclusions and, for those whose mental state requires psychiatric or other intensive treatment, their transfer to a secure mental health facility outside the prison service until such time as they are deemed fit, with regular reviews.' However, prisons minister James Timpson said none of the amendments eased his fears over resentencing, insisting the government's priority is public protection. He said the IPP Action Plan, designed to support each prisoner's progress to release by the parole board, is 'where we will sort this out'. However, he vowed to 'pull hard on every operational lever' to address the crisis and said he was carefully considering separate proposals put forward last month by an expert panel convened by the Howard League for Penal Reform. The panel, led by former lord chief justice Lord John Thomas, called for all IPP prisoners to be given a release date within a two-year window at their next parole hearing and for fewer offenders to be recalled.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Britain ‘vulnerable' after Labour reversals, warns credit ratings giant
Britain's public finances have been left 'vulnerable' by Sir Keir Starmer's about-turn on welfare cuts, the world's largest credit ratings agency has warned. S&P Global said the inability to make 'modest cuts' to the welfare budget showed Rachel Reeves faced a 'formidable political challenge' to keep spending under control. 'In our view, it remains to be seen whether the Government succeeds in following through on its wider plans for keeping public spending in check as announced in the June 2025 spending review,' the agency told clients. A failure to rein in runaway public spending could leave Britain ill-prepared for future potential financial crises. S&P warned that the Government had shown an inability to tackle spending, including the proposed £5bn welfare cut, meaning it had 'very limited budgetary room for manoeuvre'. The agency said high spending would also keep government borrowing costs higher for longer as the UK's credit rating would not improve until its finances were in check. It said: 'We consider the UK's fiscal position as vulnerable and one of the key constraints on our 'AA' sovereign rating. We expect that UK budgetary consolidation will remain a slow process.' Sir Keir was forced to gut planned welfare reforms to avoid an embarrassing defeat in the Commons on Tuesday. The 11th-hour climbdown means the legislation will deliver no savings and will blow a £5bn hole in Ms Reeves's budget. S&P Global said the episode had brought into question whether the Chancellor could balance the nation's books as planned. The credit ratings agency expects the UK deficit to be reduced only slightly from 5.9pc of GDP last year to 5.5pc this year. Ratings agencies are used by the world's investors to assess the creditworthiness of borrowers, including countries. The industry is dominated by just three companies, of which S&P Global is the world's biggest. As such, its verdict on Britain's finances is hugely influential. S&P's update does not suggest it is considering changing the UK's current credit rating. However, it will be seen as a warning to the Government about the urgency with which it must tackle the public finances. It comes a day after major bond investor Legal & General warned that repeated policy changes from Labour had shaken investors' faith in the Government's plans. The cost of government borrowing on Friday remained higher than before Tuesday's vote on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. The yield on 10-year UK gilts – a benchmark for the cost of servicing the national debt – stood at 4.53pc, compared to 4.45pc before Tuesday's vote. Jack Meaning, an economist at Barclays, said extra spending on benefits and anticipated cuts to the growth outlook meant 'the Chancellor's fiscal rules [were] highly likely to be breached at the autumn Budget'. 'The fragility of the fiscal position has come into focus, making tax increases in the autumn almost inevitable,' he said, predicting an extension to the long freeze to income tax thresholds. Salman Ahmed, at investment giant Fidelity International, by contrast said the Chancellor may put off balancing the books in the autumn and instead hope for growth to come to the rescue. 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
High Court judge refuses to temporarily block Palestine Action terror ban
Palestine Action is set to be banned after a High Court judge refused a bid to temporarily block it from being designated as a terror group. Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from banning the group as a terrorist organisation before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move is set to come into force at midnight after a High Court judge refused Ms Ammori's bid for a temporary block. Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Lawyers for Ms Ammori were also refused permission to appeal and were told to go to the Court of Appeal itself. The proposal was approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords earlier this week and would make membership and support for the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Some 81 organisations are already proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Hamas, al Qaida and National Action. At a hearing on Friday, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, asked the court to suspend the 'ill-considered' and 'authoritarian abuse of statutory power' until a hearing due around July 21. Mr Husain told the London court: 'This is the first time in our history that a direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists.' The barrister said that his client had been 'inspired' by a long history of direct action in the UK, 'from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid activists, to Iraq war activists'. The hearing later in July is expected to deal with whether Ms Ammori can bring a High Court challenge over the planned proscription. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that there was no 'express provision' to protect lawyers representing her in the potential legal challenge from criminal consequences if the ban came into effect. She also said that if the ban came into effect the harm would be 'far-reaching', could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh later named Normal People author Sally Rooney, who lives abroad and 'fears the ramifications for her, for her work, for her books, for her programmes' if she shows support for Palestine Action. 'Is the Prime Minister going to denounce her, an Irish artist, as a supporter of a proscribed organisation?' 'Will that have ramifications for her with the BBC, etc?' Ms Ni Ghralaigh asked. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the ban of Palestine Action. The barrister also said that if a temporary block was granted, it would be a 'serious disfigurement of the statutory regime'. He said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Friday's hearing comes after an estimated £7 million worth of damage was caused to two Voyager planes at RAF Brize Norton on June 20, in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. Four people were charged in connection with the incident.
