The six Essex by-elections taking place in May
Just like across much of England, local elections have been cancelled in Essex this year.This is because local authorities are preparing for a major shake-up of local government, and elections for a Greater Essex mayor are expected in May 2026.But there are still six by-elections taking place across the county because of councillors standing down.Here is where voting will take place on 1 May.
Chelmsford Central and Moulsham
There are three by-elections in Chelmsford.Liberal Democrat Marie Goldman vacated her position on the county council and the city council to concentrate on her role as the city's MP - so both her two seats are up for grabs.The Chelmsford Central division on the county council has tended to be tightly contested between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.Goldman took the seat from the Tories in 2021 by 203 votes.Meanwhile, fellow Lib Dem Graham Pooley stepped back from his seat - for the Moulsham and Central ward on the city council - due to ill health.Labour, Reform UK and the Greens are fielding candidates too.A full list of candidates for both by elections are available on the city council website.
Ockendon, Thurrock
In Ockendon, voters will be able to choose two candidates for Thurrock Council on their ballot.The former Conservative council leader Andrew Jefferies decided to stand down, as has Labour councillor Ryan Polston.Ockendon has been one of the most closely fought wards in Thurrock. Labour won in 2024 after the Tories here in the previous four elections.A decade ago, Nigel Farage's former party UKIP won seats in Ockendon. The Clacton MP's new party, Reform UK, fancies its chances here this year.But it will have to contend with Greens, a Lib Dem candidate and an independent - as well as the two main parties.A full candidate list can be found here.
Mark Hall, Harlow
Mark Hall is an area to the north east of Harlow. The by-election is taking place after the Labour councillor quit.The area is made up of a lot of post-war terraced housing, with parks and playing fields. To the north of the ward is the industrial area around Edinburgh Way.This part of Harlow has traditionally been an area where Labour has won the most support. But the Conservatives won the council seat here in 2021 and UKIP in 2014.A full list of candidates is available here.
Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
27 minutes ago
- BBC News
Welfare concessions to be set out before key vote
The government is to release more details about the concessions it has made over proposed welfare changes, as ministers attempt to quell a rebellion of Labour and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the government is aiming to deliver a "fairer, more compassionate" benefits system, ahead of a vote on its reforms on week, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was forced into a U-turn to salvage his benefits changes after more than 120 Labour MPs threatened to vote down his deal with rebel MPs suggests the welfare reforms will only save £2bn a year, rather than the £5bn they were expected to save by 2030. The Conservatives said ministers had wasted an opportunity to reform welfare and have called for cuts to mental health benefits for all but the worst original welfare reform bill included proposals to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) and cut the health-related element of universal an amendment that would have halted the bill at its first hurdle was signed by 126 Labour backbenchers, who argued the plans were rushed and would push vulnerable disabled people into it became clear the bill would fall, the prime minister offered major concessions to rebel MPs - including limiting Pip cuts to only new government also reversed its plans to freeze the health-related component of universal credit, and the payment will now rise in line with inflation for existing will outline the terms of a review of the Pip assessment, to be led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms in collaboration with disabled regulations that would bring into effect the right for people receiving health and disability benefits to try work without fear of reassessment will also be laid in Parliament. But dozens of Labour MPs still have misgivings about the benefits changes and could defy the government in Tuesday's Efford, the Labour MP for Eltham and Chislehurst since 1997, told the BBC he would still oppose the government's welfare plans despite significant asked whether he had changed his mind, he said: "No, I've not, I'm afraid."There are still £3.5bn worth of savings that are required in these measures and we don't yet know the poverty impact that they will have."Efford said he thought many of his Labour colleagues were "waiting to hear what the government are saying today" and how the amended proposals would impact benefits added: "Until we know and understand the impact on them we shouldn't be taking what I see as a leap in the dark." Efforts continued through the weekend to talk to Labour MPs about the changes, and Kendall will hope to provide further reassurance to those still wavering ahead of Tuesday's vote on the second reading of the new law, called the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment said: "We must build a welfare system that provides security for those who cannot work and the right support for those who can."Too often, disabled people feel trapped, worried that if they try to work, they could lose the support they depend on."That is why we are taking action to remove those barriers, support disabled people to live with dignity and independence, and open routes into employment for those who want to pursue it."The Liberal Democrats are planning to vote against the bill and have called for the government to bring forward its programme to help people into work more leader Daisy Cooper said: "Liberal Democrats simply cannot support any measures that make things harder for unpaid carers, disabled people who rely on support with daily tasks in order to stay employed, and those whose disabilities mean that they will never be able to work."Ministers hope their reforms will boost employment among benefits recipients, at a time when 2.8 million people are economically inactive due to long-term nothing changes, the health and disability benefits bill is forecast to reach £70bn a year by the end of the decade, a level of spending the government says is "unsustainable".
Daily Mirror
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Liz Kendall to face MPs ahead of major PIP welfare vote
Welfare chief Liz Kendall is expected to face MPs today after a bruising week for the government over controversial disability welfare cuts. In a dramatic climbdown last week after a major revolt by over 100 Labour MPs, the PM agreed to protect all existing claimants from losing Personal Independence Payments. The changes to PIP - the key disability benefit will now only apply to new claims from November 2026, at a cost of around £3billion to the government. But disability charities have warned the new measures will create a "two-tier" system for disability benefits - and are still urging MPs to vote down the legislation at Tuesday's crunch vote. While some Labour MPs have said they will now back the government after last week's concessions, Keir Starmer is still facing a major rebellion, with 50-60 Labour MPs still said to be considering voting against the government tomorrow. It would be the biggest revolt of Mr Starmer's premiership so far. Disabled people could face extra costs of almost £15,000 a year by the end of the decade, grim research shows, as the row over the Government's welfare cuts drags on. Research released by disability charity Scope has estimated the extra monthly costs related to a person's disability have now risen to £1,095. Even for those who receive benefits, there is an average shortfall of £630 every month, as the payments don't go far enough, Scope said. The Disability Price Tag report, which is released annually by Scope and does not take into account the welfare reforms, estimates this is set to rise to £1,224 by 2029/30, totalling almost £15,000 a year. It would mean those with a disability would see a £704 shortfall in their benefits income by 2029, the study said. Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham told an event at Glastonbury Festival that MPs should still vote against the welfare bill tomorrow. 'It's simply wrong and I will never, ever support what is being proposed,' he said. 'This reminds me why I left Westminster because the default mindset of the two parties is to be tough on benefits. That mentality creates a deficit model that is distrustful of people… a system I know many disabled people fear interacting with." Dozens of Labour MPs are still said to be on the fence about whether to support plans to reform the welfare system in a crunch vote on Tuesday. Many MPs spent the weekend mulling over a major package of concessions offered by Keir Starmer last week. In a dramatic climbdown on Thursday, the PM agreed to protect all existing claimants from losing Personal Independence Payments (PIP). Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall is expected to deliver a Commons statement today - setting out major concessions on the welfare bill reached with rebels last week. Expect Ms Kendall to appear in the Commons after 1530 if the Speaker agrees to a government statement. In a dramatic climbdown last week after a major revolt by over 100 Labour MPs, the PM agreed to protect all existing claimants from losing Personal Independence Payments. The changes to PIP - the key disability benefit will now only apply to new claims from November 2026, at a cost of around £3billion to the government. Plans for a major review of PIP for new claims will also be set out today, which will be co-produced by disabled people, organisations who represent them and MPs. It is hoped that the terms of the review - which will place disabled people at the heart of it - will persuade nervy MPs that the legislation is now heading in the right direction.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Should Chris Coghlan be denied Holy Communion?
It is not, it's fair to say, a universal view among Catholic priests that MPs who vote the wrong way on assisted dying and the decriminalisation of abortion up to birth should be punished by excluding them from communion. But so it has turned out with Chris Coghlan, the Lib Dem MP for Dorking and Horley. He voted for assisted suicide and didn't vote at all on the Antoniazzi amendment allowing women to abort up to birth. Now he's complaining that his parish priest is intent on denying him communion at mass. Or as he put it on X: My Catholic Priest publicly announced at every mass he was denying me Holy Communion following the assisted dying vote. Children who are friends of my children were there. This followed a direct threat in writing to do this four days before the vote. In a piece in the Observer, he explained: I was deeply disturbed to receive an email from my local priest four days before the vote on Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill saying if I voted in favour I would be 'an obstinate public sinner'. Worse, I would be complicit in a 'murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded'. Such a vote would, he wrote, be 'a clear contravention of the Church's teaching, which would leave me in the position of not being able to give you holy communion, as to do so would cause scandal in the Church. The priest is in fact entitled to deny communion to those 'obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin' under canon 915 of the Code of Canon law. And plainly, in terms of the teaching of the Church, anyone voting to pass a law for assisted suicide – giving someone poison for the specific purpose of doing away with themselves, as opposed to, say, refusing life support – runs counter to the teaching of the Church in the most public possible way. The priest was arguably correct to describe him as complicit in a murderous act, though Chris Coghlan himself maintains that assisted suicide (whereby a practitioner presents the patient with a lethal dose of barbiturates or some other cocktail of toxins) is different from direct euthanasia, whereby someone, for instance, injects the patient with toxins directly. I'm not sure that's quite the distinction he thinks it is; a murderous act pretty well covers giving someone a lethal dose of poison, even if it's actually delivered by the would-be suicide (let's see how long that provision lasts). And voting to legalise this process is as morally culpable as taking part in it. The question is, whether a public denunciation is the best way to go about changing hearts and minds, even those of self-regarding LibDems. My nice liberal priest friend thinks Coghlan's priest 'is a prat and he should be ashamed of himself. It goes against everything we stand for; we're not in the business of publicly punishing people. The man presumably was following the dictates of conscience, which is the first law. I don't think it helps the church and I don't think it helps this particular chap to change his mind.' And naturally, my liberal clerical friend quotes the late Pope Francis on the matter, to the effect that 'communion is not a reward for the perfect but medicine for the soul'. That's one way of looking at it; the other, more conventional view, is that you shouldn't take the eucharist if you're in a state of grave sin. (Me, I'd like to see that definition more widely applied.) But all this fuss tends to distract, I think, from the actual issue as to whether the Church's approach to assisted suicide is right. And there's absolutely nothing in the bishops' statements on the issue that is specifically religious. That is to say, the Catholic and, I'd say, the Christian view, is nothing else than the moral view that people who aren't remotely religious can share. You may not, like the bishops, regard life as a gift from God, but there's nothing specifically Catholic about their concerns: Can MPs guarantee that the scope of the Bill will not be extended? In almost every country where assisted suicide has been introduced the current scope is wider than was originally intended. What role, if any, will the judiciary have in the process? We were told that judicial oversight was a necessary and vital part of the process; now we are told it isn't needed at all. What will protect the vulnerable from coercion, or from feeling a burden on family? Can the National Health Service cope with assisted suicide or will it, as the Health Secretary has warned, cause cuts elsewhere in the NHS? Can MPs guarantee that no medical practitioner or care worker would be compelled to take part in assisted suicide? Would this mean the establishment of a 'national death service'? In contrast to the provisions of this Bill, what is needed is first-class, compassionate palliative care at the end of our lives. This is already provided to many in our society but, tragically, is in short supply and underfunded. No-one should be dispatched as a burden to others. Instead, a good society would prioritise care for the elderly, the vulnerable, and the weak. As Cardinal Nichols put it: Once assisted suicide is approved by the law, a key protection of human life falls away. Pressure mounts on those who are nearing death, from others or even from themselves, to end their life in order to take away a perceived burden of care from their family, for the avoidance of pain, or for the sake of an inheritance. The radical change in the law now being proposed risks bringing about for all medical professionals a slow change from a duty to care to a duty to kill. Even Chris Coghlan might concede that much. This is why it's so insanely annoying that he's trotting out the usual canards about Catholicism in public life. 'I am not the Catholic MP for Dorking and Horley. I am the Liberal Democrat MP for Dorking and Horley,' he writes, a la John F. Kennedy. But there is nothing specifically religious about the Church's position – if you exclude that bit about life being God's gift. It is one which any conscientious individual might take on prudent and rational grounds, without any spiritual motivation whatever, unless we are to assume that concern for vulnerable people is a Christian prerogative. Coghlan doesn't need to swank about not being bossed about by priests – a position highly gratifying to any English parliamentarian, invoking all sorts of latent prejudice – but instead he should ask himself whether the Church itself has a point. Its argument isn't arcanely religious unless it's arcanely religious to say that human life is sacred. By turning this into a Martin Luther moment – Coghlan stands up to bossy cleric – he is distracting attention from the fact that he voted for a measure which will diminish the value of human life at its most vulnerable. I don't in fact think the priest is being helpful here, though he was perfectly within his rights to warn Chris Coghlan that his vote was at odds with his faith. Publicly condemning him risks turning this rather tiresome Lib Dem into some sort of poster boy for the rights of conscience. But conscience can be a tricky organ; influenced by fashion and opinion as well as by an innate moral sense. Right now, the real problem isn't whether Coghlan will be turned away from the altar rail; it's whether institutions such as Catholic hospices will be required to participate in assisted suicide or whether they will in fact receive specific protection by law to prevent that happening. If they are required to participate in helping people kill themselves, they'll have to close. Over to you, Chris 'Compassion' Coghlan.
