LABOUR and the LibDems have failed to reach an agreement on running a single "anti-sleaze" candidate in the by-election for Tory MP Owen Paterson's seat.
Both parties have now said they will fight the North Shropshire by-election after Paterson announced he would be stepping down following a 24-hour debacle during which Boris Johnson humiliatingly U-turned after attempting to overhaul the disciplinary process to save him from suspension.
Casual communications between the opposition parties to field a unity candidate in North Shropshire had taken place, but the move was not considered viable.
READ MORE: How the Owen Paterson sleaze scandal sums up the Tory government
Paterson, a long-standing friend of the Prime Minister, had been found to have breached Commons rules by lobbying officials and ministers for two companies paying him more than £100,000 a year.
The rural constituency is considered ultra-safe for the Tories, with Paterson having held it since 1997, but allegations of sleaze aimed at his party under the current leadership will likely feature strongly in the contest.
A date is yet to be set for the by-election in North Shropshire, where Paterson won 63% of the vote in 2019, beating Labour by nearly 23,000 votes, with the LibDems coming third.
But the LibDems were talking up their chances following their shock victory in the former Tory safehold of Chesham and Amersham in June.
Officials expect concerns over controversial planning reforms could again feature on the doorstep, as well as the Conservatives’ handling of sewage polluting rivers.
A Lib Dem source added: “The Liberal Democrats are the anti-sleaze party in this election and the best placed to win votes from the Conservatives.
READ MORE: 'Scandal after scandal' as PM refuses to rule out peerage for Owen Paterson
“We came second to the Tories in last May’s local elections in North Shropshire, showing that we are the main opposition to Boris Johnson’s sleazy and corrupt Government here.”
Discussions surrounding a unity candidate were understood to have fallen flat with it being decided that the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act introduced in 2000 makes it challenging for parties to share data, funding and staff.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel