Councillor slams Reform before being accused of 'sour grapes'
In an interview with the Local Democracy Reporting Service, Cllr Carr also took aim at the Conservative Party, which he claimed provided weak opposition to Conwy 's First Independent, Labour and Plaid Cymru coalition. The war of words follows Llandudno former Conservative councillors Louise Emery and Tom Montgomery jumping ship to Reform UK last week.
In the days that followed, it also emerged that Cllr Carr, an independent councillor, was also a member of Reform. The fall out continued when Cllr Goronwy Edwards resigned from his cabinet position and was 'removed' from the First Independent Group for not declaring membership of another party. Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox.
Cllr Carr, though, said he left Reform on Wednesday after being a member since June, claiming he was unhappy Cllr Emery was presented as the party's Conwy leader. 'I left Reform yesterday (Wednesday). I wasn't a member for very long,' he said.
'I thought this was a new way forward, and it seems the Conservatives moved in. Cllr Louise Emery, she was deputy leader (of Conwy County Council) when they put the council tax up. She initiated the working from home. The four-weekly bin collections – she went along with that. Whether Cllr Emery believed in them (the policies) or not, she went along with them.
'The first thing they should have done is become independents and then apply to join Reform. But the way they did it, it's so obvious they are worried about their seats. Cllr Emery only won by a handful of votes the last time. They were both worried about their seats.
'It was more Louise (Cllr Emery), not so much Tom (Cllr Montgomery). He's not so tainted by the past. She was deputy leader and all the things she's done, chair of local Conservatives, all things I don't agree with, and all of a sudden, she's a member of Reform.
'You've got to put new people in. Everyone is fed up with the same old councillors, aren't they? I did speak to Louise, but she didn't seem very enthusiastic. I sent an email and expressed concerns. None of this is personal. If people want to join (Reform), that's fair enough, but for her to take a leading position…
'That is the most annoying thing. Nigel Farage said, 'We will not be a home for Conservatives who want to keep their seats' – of course that's what's happened. I was hoping new people would come along and things would change because my residents are fed up with filthy streets. They are fed up of council tax increasing year on year.
'I was excited to join Reform. I was enthusiastic that something was going to change, but when it is the same old Conservatives, I don't want to be part of it, so I decided to leave. If it's going to be the Conservatives again, it doesn't inspire confidence.'
But Reform claims Cllr Carr's comments are nothing more than 'sour grapes'. In an official response issued by Reform UK, Cllr Louise Emery spoke on behalf of the Conwy group.
'David Carr was a Conservative member; he then joined the Labour Party seemingly to get elected in 2022,' she said. 'He then left the Labour Party and became an independent. He then joined the Liberal Democrats. Then left them to join Reform. All in three years.'
She added: 'Our understanding is that David applied to be approved to be a Reform Councillor, and he was rejected by the vetting process. This is nothing more than sour grapes from a councillor desperately searching for a way of getting re-elected. We joined Reform because we believe in real change for the future.'
Despite being a Reform member, Cllr Carr denied he attempted to become a Reform councillor. He responded: 'I did not apply to be a reform councillor. The vetting process takes five or six weeks. They said they were overwhelmed with the Senedd vetting for Senedd candidates. I never had any interests in becoming a Reform councillor. '
'I just joined because I was quite enthusiastic about the things they were saying. I was quite happy to be just a member. I thought new people were going to come in, not tainted by the past. But it seems it is the same old Conservatives again. It's put me off.'
Cllr Carr, a former long-standing Conservative, maintains he was not a member of any political party between 2018 and 2022 until, he said, he was asked to stand for Labour in May 2022. He said he left Labour in September 2022, disagreeing with their manifesto. Whilst remaining an independent councillor, he said he joined the Liberal Democrats in July 2024 as he 'liked their social care policies' before leaving in May 2025. Still independent, he said he then joined Reform in June 2025 and left on July 30.
Cllr Carr also took aim at the Conwy Conservative Group. 'The Conservatives don't provide any opposition on Conwy Council,' he said. 'I seem to be the opposition on Conwy. It's hard when you are on your own. They went along with all the things that council managers wanted for all those years, and now she (Cllr Emery) pops up and says, 'Oh, I'm leader of Reform.' She wants change? People are asking the question: if you wanted change, you could have done it in the past. That's why I don't want to be a member. I was disillusioned when that happened.'
Leader of Conwy's Conservative Group Cllr Cheryl Carlisle also responded to Cllr Carr's criticism. Cllr Carlisle also referred to Cllr Carr and his former affiliation with several political parties and groups.
'Cllr Carr is entitled to his opinions, but members of the public are able to watch online council and scrutiny meetings and will no doubt be able to form their own opinions as to the value of the Conwy Conservative group's voting record against exorbitant council tax rises and constant cutting of vital frontline services,' she said.
She added: 'Hopefully Cllr Carr will find a party or political group that will finally accept him, having been a member of in excess of five groups in the three short years that he has been a councillor.'
Public notices in your area
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
5 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Rayner pushes higher wages for 18-year-olds as Labour woos young
It comes as Labour tries to woo younger voters in an attempt to see off the growing threat from Nigel Farage's Reform UK Party, which is currently leading the polls. Ms Rayner set out plans last month to lower the voting age across Britain to 16 by the next general election – in a move she claimed will strengthen democracy. The Low Pay Commission will be tasked with setting out a path to lift the minimum wage for young workers to the full adult rate. Ms Rayner said the policy showed Labour was delivering on its promise to 'make low pay a thing of the past'. However, bosses warned that Labour was already taxing jobs for young people 'out of existence', with businesses already reeling from a £25bn National Insurance raid last autumn. Kate Nicholls, the chairman of UKHospitality, said another jump in the minimum wage for young adults would risk destroying even more of their jobs instead of helping workers. 'We understand the Government's objective of fair pay, but you can only have fair pay if you have got a job that actually pays,' she said. 'At the moment, those jobs are being taxed out of existence due to changes in the NIC [National Insurance contributions] rate.'
Telegraph
5 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour is borrowing against our children's futures
Much of the debate about our public finances is intensely short term. The in-vogue concern at the moment is the fiscal 'headroom' that each Chancellor has to work with – that is, the buffer between their spending plans and the fiscal rules they set for themselves. Rachel Reeves appears to have cut hers so fine that someone sneezing in the Treasury could blow her off course. As it happens, increased borrowing costs and the Government's inability to bring limited reforms to the welfare system means it is highly likely that tax rises are on the way in the autumn, as the Conservatives have been predicting since the general election. But even this will do little to change the fundamental economic picture. The truth is that we live in an age of fiscal irresponsibility, where governments increasingly look to pass the burdens of the present onto the future. That even this short-termist strategy now seems to necessitate desperate tax rises should concern us greatly. In July, the Office for Budget Responsibility published its fiscal risk and sustainability report. For a technical document, it did not mince its words. Britain's deficit is the third highest amongst advanced European economies. Its debt level is the fourth highest after only Greece, Italy and France. Efforts to make our public finances more sustainable have met with only 'limited and temporary success'. There has been a 'substantial erosion of the UK's capacity to respond to future shocks and growing pressures on the public finances', and the scale and array of risks to the UK fiscal outlook is 'daunting'. The most serious liabilities Britain faces are not so much to do with day-to-day spending decisions as they are about the chronic, structural issues with our economy and the state's role within it. They include an unfunded state pension which is designed to increase exponentially over time, even as the number of working people paying for it shrinks, the levels of public spending on healthcare, which is set to rise to more than a fifth of GDP by 2070 (we now already spend more on health than the entire Portuguese economy), and a welfare system that will see us spending £100bn per annum on health and disability benefits as early as 2029-30. What makes these vast financial commitments 'irresponsible', however, is the way we are currently funding them: that is, increasingly by borrowing from the prosperity of future generations. The national debt already stands at about 100 per cent of GDP and is forecasted to grow to over 270 per cent by the 2070s. Even this does not fully factor in the vast state and public sector pension liabilities for the British state – which some commentators argue increases the total outstanding liabilities to some £11tn, or four times the size of the economy. Instead of making tough decisions on spending and taxation today, we are passing on the financial obligations to the taxpayers of the future, who will face higher debt servicing costs. Labour is in a bind. It won't – or can't – take on the responsibility of reducing the welfare bill. It is changing the way the government measures debt, not to give a better picture of the public finances, but simply so it can borrow more. Yet the costs of borrowing have risen to the third highest of any developed economy since it entered office. And so it is being buffeted towards raising taxes to pay for a totally unaffordable level of public expenditure. Some on the Left suggest that this is its own form of fiscal responsibility. But this fails to recognise that higher rates will harm the ultimate source of tax revenue, which is a productive economy. Reform isn't much better. They spy an opportunity to attract voters in the so-called 'upper Left' quadrant on the political spectrum – those with socially conservative but economically statist views and values. They advocate for tighter borders, but greater state involvement in the economy and more generous welfare spending. Cobbling together economic policies based simply on what is most likely to attract a particular section of the British public in the next election, however, is the very same political problem that has gotten us into this mess. So there's a gap in the political market. But if the Conservatives wish to be the party that the public trusts to restore the public finances, they will have to offer a drastic change to the status quo. And that will mean making some far harder decisions than those to which they have committed so far. Firstly, a truly fiscally responsible government would need to reverse a long-standing policy of seeking to take people out of paying tax. Before the post-2020 phenomenon of 'fiscal drag' – in which people were dragged into paying more tax by the combination of frozen thresholds and inflation – Conservatives bragged about taking people out of paying income tax altogether by increasing the personal allowance. We need a complete about-turn in this approach. It is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility to have more and more people benefiting from a system which they do not have a stake in financing. And it's bad politics. To generate a coalition in favour of lower tax rates, we need more people with a stake in sustainable public finances. Secondly, indexing benefits so that they cease to bear any relationship with our ability to pay for them is indefensible. When it comes to the state pension, there is no fund into which savings are built up for an individual worker. Current pensions are being paid for by those in work, and the triple lock introduced in 2010 means its funding requirement is always ratcheting upwards. This needs to be scrapped, a more proportionate index for the triple lock introduced, and efforts to increase private retirement savings radically boosted. Finally, the Conservative articulation of fiscal responsibility cannot come down on the side of raising taxes to accommodate high expenditure, as Labour have proposed. It must do the reverse. In particular, we must level with voters on the NHS. It is not the envy of the world. In fact, on metrics like healthy life expectancy, the only worse system is the US's model of fully private insurance. And it is cripplingly expensive. Again, the only less affordable system in the world is the American. The Dutch and Singaporean models suggest ways to improve both affordability and health outcomes. Fiscal responsibility is a signal. Balanced books, a lower debt burden and a smaller state demonstrate a commitment to the view that the centre of economic life ought not to be at the level of government but in the private, wealth creating sector. But it is not simply about balancing the books year to year. A Conservative Party wishing to present itself as the only force in British politics willing to make the necessary decisions in the cause of long-term prosperity must also address a short-termism which is driving us towards an economic iceberg, and sapping tomorrow's workers of their purchasing power. That means disavowing some policies with which it has been associated for far too long.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Now will the small minds of the SNP twig what voters care about?
Gus Connelly, Calderbank. Time to trim constituency Yet another bright light in Holyrood is dimmed, as Deputy First Minister [[Kate Forbes]] announces her intention to stand down from politics in 2026. Ms Forbes certainly lit up the Chamber back in 2020 as the first female to deliver a Scottish Budget (incidentally at short notice) and she brought great ability and commitment to her new-found position. To be an MSP in such a rural and geographically taxing constituency as Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch would be difficult for anyone, but for a mum with a young child it presents a scenario which raises questions. Should the Boundary Commission be considering geographically halving the constituency to make it manageable? Should Parliament be looking for options for such a widely-spread constituency? The make-up of constituencies should be manageable in the interest of constituents and their representatives. Catriona C Clark, Falkirk. Read more letters How much did Sturgeon cost us? In her paean of praise for Nicola Sturgeon's 'many achievements', Ruth Marr (Letters, August 2) draws a veil over the costs to the public purse of these policies. With regard to the SNP's abolition of prescription charges, perhaps one example will suffice to illustrate the financial impact of this policy. The cost to NHS Scotland in 2023-24 for paracetamol prescriptions alone was £14 million. Adding pharmacy dispensing charges of £7m brings the total cost to £21m. A Google search reveals that a pack of paracetamol can be bought for around 90p in any supermarket. Alan Ramage, Edinburgh. • It is notable that the list of "achievements" by Nicola Sturgeon given by Ruth Marr all involve her spending other people's money. I wonder if Ms Marr can come up with an example of Ms Sturgeon making a positive contribution to achieving economic growth in Scotland. She certainly made many negative contributions like destroying the ferry service to Arran and allowing her erstwhile allies in the Green Party to introduce measures like National Planning Framework 4 that are strangling economic development all over Scotland. I also wonder if Ms Marr is aware that her hero's actions in relation to the ferries, including having the Glen Sannox launched on her direct orders six months before the ship was ready so that she could upstage the Conservative Defence Secretary when he was announcing new jobs, and her contribution to the closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery by further high-handed actions, have resulted in the new "greener" ferries actually being responsible for more emissions of carbon dioxide than their conventionally powered predecessors. This is because the diesel fuel that the conventional ferries use can be brought to Ardrossan by electrically powered railway trains but the Liquefied Natural Gas needed to make the new ferries "greener" has to be transported from Essex on diesel-powered lorries. You couldn't make it up. Peter Wylie, Paisley. Indy target should be two-thirds As GR Weir (Letters, August 2) has not answered my simple question as to how he would define his 'stable majority" for independence, allow me to propose two-thirds for consideration. In my view, irrespective of how, when and by whom the decision to hold another inevitably divisive referendum on independence is taken, the stable polling majority sufficient to justify it must be understood in advance, and to achieve independence the actual voting result must at least confirm that polling majority. That result can then be taken as the settled will of the people at that time. The same requirements would apply to any subsequent calls for a rejoin referendum. As Mr Weir will know, to change the constitution of the [[SNP]], the principal advocate of independence, requires at least a two-thirds majority (Article 27), so nationalists should have no difficulty in supporting my proposal. Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop. Why can't they admit mistakes? Kevin McKenna's interview with Jackie Baillie on Saturday (''I hated how Sandie Peggie's daughter was used', says Scottish Labour deputy leader', The Herald, August 2) highlights an uncomfortable but increasingly familiar feature of our politics: an unwillingness to accept responsibility for past decisions. In December 2022 Scottish Labour gave full support to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. The party whipped its MSPs to vote in favour and, with their backing, the legislation was passed by the Scottish Parliament. Since then, the well-publicised cases of Isla Bryson and Sandie Peggie have shown that public concern is widespread – particularly about allowing individuals to legally change their gender through self-identification, thereby acquiring all the rights of their preferred gender. Labour now appears to be pivoting in response to that unease. Jackie Baillie attempts to distance the party from the fallout by suggesting Labour's support of the bill was dependent on key amendments and a future consultation with the UK Government. This rings hollow. If those amendments were so crucial, why did the party not withdraw its support when they were not accepted? And what purpose does consultation serve after a bill has been passed? This kind of political hedging only deepens public distrust in the integrity of politicians. Would it not be more honest and more effective to simply say "Sorry. We got this wrong"? George Rennie, Inverness. How will Nicola Sturgeon be remembered? (Image: PA) Let the media into Gaza The first and continuing victim of war is truth. Despite evidence from non-Palestinians, western doctors among them, about the near-famine conditions in Gaza, it has not come as a surprise to watch and listen to Israeli officials claim it is a lie that Palestinians are facing starvation. From what I have seen from interviews with [[Israel]]i citizens, they too believe the world is subject to Hamas propaganda. There is a way for the world to see, without bias, the actual conditions under which Palestinians are now compelled to live – reverse the present [[Israel]]i policy and let the world's media into [[Gaza]] so that we can all see for ourselves from objective reporting. If not, why not, is the question Keir Starmer should put to his [[Israel]]i counterpart. As for Hamas, is it not past time for those in its leadership languishing in the safety of Qatar to be asked why, given its ability to construct miles of tunnels in Gaza, it did not build shelters for the population when it must have known that Israel would respond to the atrocity of October 7 with a fury not seen before? Jim Sillars, Edinburgh. Shame on Ian Murray The Secretary of State for Scotland's antipathy towards the Scottish Government is persistent, but surely reached a new low when he castigated Public Finance Minister Ivan McKee for using the word 'genocide' during a BBC broadcast discussion about recognising the state of Palestine ("Minister confirms Scottish Government 'genocide' in Gaza position", heraldscotland, August 3). Ian Murray wants the courts to decide what is genocide, presumably before the UK Government acts, and despite the fact that the UN Special Committee, Amnesty International and Médicin San Frontières have all used the term to describe the continuing Israeli actions in Gaza. In addition, reports from the front line bring us daily reports of massive fatalities, destruction of infrastructure, displacement of communities, murder of aid workers, and human rights abuses, all of which meet the criteria for genocide. But Ian Murray wants to wait on the courts, and by doing so extends the United Kingdom's complicity in the despicable acts of the Israeli state. Shame on him. Graeme Forbes, Edinburgh.
