Liam Mannix is a member of the Conservative Party and was a candidate in the 2026 local elections.
When the history books are written, it is a certainty that the upcoming Clacton by-election will occupy a special place for reasons of bizarreness if nothing else.
In one corner, we have Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, now former MP, and aspiring Prime Minister. On the other side we have Count Binface, a man so-called because he wears a metal dustbin on his head. Whether one views the contest with amusement or despair will depend entirely on personal preference.
I, on the other hand, am more interested in another aspect to this contest – the decision by the main parties to boycott it.
The reasons for this have been set out very clearly, and in many ways are understandable. However, I do disagree with this decision, and I will explain why.
I would like to begin by referring to my own experience earlier this year as a candidate in the local elections. I stood in a safe Labour ward in which we stood no chance of winning, even on a good night. As a party we would have been justified if we had made the decision to cut our losses and abandon it as a lost cause.
And yet, we chose not to do so and still contested the seat regardless of the outcome, as it was considered important that Conservative voters in the ward were given the opportunity to vote for a Conservative candidate.
By contrast, voters in Clacton will have no such option. Thus, many will be left potentially disenfranchised by this decision. In the process, a potential opportunity for us to win back former Conservative voters who defected to Reform at the last general election will be lost entirely.
There is another aspect to this I would like to comment on too. The general consensus of opinion is that Mr Farage is almost certain to fall foul of the Standards Commissioner when the investigation into him is completed. If this happens, it is likely that he will face a recall petition and an inevitable second by-election.
Having sat the upcoming contest out, all the main parties have confirmed their intention to stand if a second by-election does occur. On paper, this sounds like a solid argument but there is one tiny problem which no one appears to have foreseen.
Mr Farage could be cleared by the Standards Commissioner.
I do concede that this is a very remote possibility, and highly unlikely in view of the allegations being investigated. But the one certainty in life is that there are no certainties and nothing is guaranteed until the final bell sounds.
If my suggestion does hold water, and Mr Farage escapes serious censure, then what happens next? There will be no recall petition nor a second by-election. Were this to happen, who emerges from the affair looking stronger – the man who took his fight to ordinary voters or the parties who refused to enter the battle?
A final matter I want to look at is the issue of cost – particularly to the taxpayer. Elections, be they local or national, are not cheap. A rough estimate of the upcoming vote is that it will cost £200,000 or thereabouts. If a second contest were to be held, voters can expect to find themselves out of pocket to the tune of roughly £400,000, therefore.
It is arguable as to whether this first contest should have been allowed to happen in the first place, but to expect taxpayers to pay for two such contests in the space of a few months is a terrible waste of public money, which is indefensible at a time of straitened finances.
This is a theme we could have campaigned heavily on if we had stood in this election, comparing Conservative frugality with Reform profligacy, and it is one which I believe might have achieved the crucial cut-through factor with ordinary voters, not to mention the probity of the incumbent.
As a party, I feel we should always be ready to fight any contest which comes our way. Every extra voter won over to our cause is one further brick in the wall we are looking to rebuild. Every opportunity to get our message across should be seized, and every chance to win a seat back taken.
It cannot be stressed enough how much work is still needed to rebuild our brand and to gain ourselves a fresh hearing from the British public. We cannot assume that voters will necessarily desert Reform simply because of scandals afflicting its leader or other members of the party.
Whilst I understand the decision to sit this contest out, I do earnestly believe it to have been a mistake and I sincerely hope it is not one which we will later come to regret.
Liam Mannix is a member of the Conservative Party and was a candidate in the 2026 local elections.
When the history books are written, it is a certainty that the upcoming Clacton by-election will occupy a special place for reasons of bizarreness if nothing else.
In one corner, we have Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, now former MP, and aspiring Prime Minister. On the other side we have Count Binface, a man so-called because he wears a metal dustbin on his head. Whether one views the contest with amusement or despair will depend entirely on personal preference.
I, on the other hand, am more interested in another aspect to this contest – the decision by the main parties to boycott it.
The reasons for this have been set out very clearly, and in many ways are understandable. However, I do disagree with this decision, and I will explain why.
I would like to begin by referring to my own experience earlier this year as a candidate in the local elections. I stood in a safe Labour ward in which we stood no chance of winning, even on a good night. As a party we would have been justified if we had made the decision to cut our losses and abandon it as a lost cause.
And yet, we chose not to do so and still contested the seat regardless of the outcome, as it was considered important that Conservative voters in the ward were given the opportunity to vote for a Conservative candidate.
By contrast, voters in Clacton will have no such option. Thus, many will be left potentially disenfranchised by this decision. In the process, a potential opportunity for us to win back former Conservative voters who defected to Reform at the last general election will be lost entirely.
There is another aspect to this I would like to comment on too. The general consensus of opinion is that Mr Farage is almost certain to fall foul of the Standards Commissioner when the investigation into him is completed. If this happens, it is likely that he will face a recall petition and an inevitable second by-election.
Having sat the upcoming contest out, all the main parties have confirmed their intention to stand if a second by-election does occur. On paper, this sounds like a solid argument but there is one tiny problem which no one appears to have foreseen.
Mr Farage could be cleared by the Standards Commissioner.
I do concede that this is a very remote possibility, and highly unlikely in view of the allegations being investigated. But the one certainty in life is that there are no certainties and nothing is guaranteed until the final bell sounds.
If my suggestion does hold water, and Mr Farage escapes serious censure, then what happens next? There will be no recall petition nor a second by-election. Were this to happen, who emerges from the affair looking stronger – the man who took his fight to ordinary voters or the parties who refused to enter the battle?
A final matter I want to look at is the issue of cost – particularly to the taxpayer. Elections, be they local or national, are not cheap. A rough estimate of the upcoming vote is that it will cost £200,000 or thereabouts. If a second contest were to be held, voters can expect to find themselves out of pocket to the tune of roughly £400,000, therefore.
It is arguable as to whether this first contest should have been allowed to happen in the first place, but to expect taxpayers to pay for two such contests in the space of a few months is a terrible waste of public money, which is indefensible at a time of straitened finances.
This is a theme we could have campaigned heavily on if we had stood in this election, comparing Conservative frugality with Reform profligacy, and it is one which I believe might have achieved the crucial cut-through factor with ordinary voters, not to mention the probity of the incumbent.
As a party, I feel we should always be ready to fight any contest which comes our way. Every extra voter won over to our cause is one further brick in the wall we are looking to rebuild. Every opportunity to get our message across should be seized, and every chance to win a seat back taken.
It cannot be stressed enough how much work is still needed to rebuild our brand and to gain ourselves a fresh hearing from the British public. We cannot assume that voters will necessarily desert Reform simply because of scandals afflicting its leader or other members of the party.
Whilst I understand the decision to sit this contest out, I do earnestly believe it to have been a mistake and I sincerely hope it is not one which we will later come to regret.