SNP take over Dumfries and Galloway Council from Tories
It comes after Conservative Gail Macgregor quit as council leader moments before a vote of no confidence on her this afternoon.
In a note to council officials, Cllr Macgregor said she had decided to quit with 'the heaviest of hearts.'
Seven councillors left the Conservative group to form two separate groups; Novantae and Dumfries and Galloway Independent Group.
There are currently 11 SNP councillors with the Conservatives dropping to 9 representatives, just in front of Labour with 8.
This could result in the fourth council administration in Dumfries & Galloway in the past three years.
Announcing her resignation, councillor MacGregor said: 'It has been an absolute privilege to serve the people of Dumfries and Galloway as Leader of the Council for the past 26 months.
'During this time I have always tried to lead with a collaborative approach, and I will always do so for the good of the people we serve and the services we provide.'
An emergency meeting will take place this afternoon in which members are expected to choose a new administration.
The Conservative group has led the administration in Dumfries and Galloway over the past two years. It followed the collapse of the rainbow coalition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
7 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
South Wales Guardian
23 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
Edinburgh Reporter
35 minutes ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Questions raised over whether pro-Palestine protest should be banned on safety grounds
Questions have been raised over whether a pro-Palestine protest in Edinburgh should be banned on public safety grounds. A Support Palestine rally has been scheduled for 19 July, but officers have said past events run by the same organiser have had inadequate stewarding and management. The council's public safety department objected to the procession going ahead, with an officer saying: 'The reason for our objection is based on recent experience with this applicant, with serious concerns about the applicant's ability to deliver a safe and controlled procession of this scale in the city centre. The officer said the organiser of the planned demonstration was also behind demonstrations on 29 March and 5 April, which saw 'serious public safety risks'. He continued: 'On the 29th of March, the procession caused severe congestion at the junctions of Princes Street, Hanover Street and the Mound. 'This resulted in large groups of pedestrians and vehicles competing for space. Police Scotland had to intervene to expedite the parade's movement across the junction, which was necessary to avoid the deterioration of public safety conditions. 'On the fifth of April, participants in the procession entered the tram route. This created an uncontrolled crowd environment and introduced serious hazards to life and safety. 'Despite assurances from the organisers in advance, no effective stewarding or containment was in place to prevent this. 'Bus and tram services had to be turned around, and participants and the public were placed at considerable risk.' The officer said that the council's public safety department had concerns over whether the organiser could handle the estimated 2,000 attendees safely, given that the previous demonstrations had been smaller. A Police Scotland representative followed up to say: 'This is a very difficult event to police continually. There's a public safety risk that concerns us. 'While ad hoc it is manageable, it is becoming a regular occurrence which is becoming logistically challenging for us.' Earlier in the meeting, SNP councillor Norman Work said: 'I just wondered if there would be concerns about safety? 'I think it should be a rare or special vein for [a procession across Princes Street to occur.] It can cause a lot of disruption.' Later on, Conservative councillor Neil Cuthbert also questioned what could be done about the parade, saying: 'The applicant for this has also applied on other dates, but they've been withdrawn. Is there anything we should draw from that? 'And is it possible to say, great, it can go ahead, but in a different location?' Council officer Andrew Mitchell explained to councillors the legal test required for a protest to be banned, saying that it would require the event to 'place an excessive burden on police'. Conservative councillor and committee convener Joanna Mowat asked the Police Scotland representative if the bar for a ban had been reached. She said: 'In your opinion, were the issues caused by the previous protests, did that place an unreasonable burden on the police?' The police officer replied: 'We've had to invoke our emergency powers in order to manage traffic, which we shouldn't have to routinely do. 'But as we look at the burden of the police, we'll ultimately just stop traffic, we will absolutely stop everything in order to maintain public safety. Ultimately, we have the police officers to do that.' By Joseph Sullivan Local Democracy Reporter Like this: Like Related
