Harry Hughes-Slattery is a former Conservative candidate for Loughborough South on Leicestershire County Council
Standing as the County Council candidate for Loughborough South has been one of the most rewarding and revealing experiences of my life.
I ran because I believe in good governance, strong local representation, and the power of communities. Through work in the charity sector and higher education across Hertfordshire and Leicestershire, I’ve seen the leadership people deserve. But this campaign revealed deep-rooted problems in our political culture, issues that threaten the very fabric of our democracy.
The rise of the paper candidate
I witnessed a concerning lack of transparency from some candidates. One of my opponents delivered no leaflets, knocked on no doors, and didn’t show up to the count. Reform UK candidates vanished when the results were read. What if they had won?
It doesn’t matter which party you stand for, if you’re not willing to face your community, you shouldn’t be asking for votes. Our democracy depends on present, accountable individuals, not paper candidates.
Slogans over substance
Even those who did engage often offered slogans without substance, promises without plans, finger-pointing without solutions. Some claimed they would cut council tax, fire staff, and still improve services.
We are in difficult times. That’s why honesty matters. I was clear with residents about financial pressures and the limitations of local councils. Residents deserve truth and clarity, not political fantasy.
A national crisis in political education
This lack of depth in local campaigning reflects something much deeper: the complete and chronic absence of political education in our country. We seem to hope and pray people will understand or research our complicated “Mother of Parliaments,” but that is simply not the case.
On the doorstep, I spoke to countless people who were engaged, passionate, and committed to their communities, but they were confused. Many did not know what a County Council was or what it was responsible for. Others were unclear about the role of a councillor or how decisions are made locally, and how that differs, albeit slightly, from national politics.
That is not the fault of the public in any way, shape, or form, nor is this meant as a slight against the electorate. The fault lies with politicians and with our complex and outdated system that has failed to teach the next generation how democracy works.
We teach children algebra and Shakespeare, but not what our government and councils do. We don’t teach them how taxes are spent or how to contact their representatives. We do not stoke the fire of interest in civic participation, often under the guise of staying politically neutral. This is a failure, one perpetuated by successive Labour and Conservative governments alike.
Making political education core
This must change. Political education should be part of the national curriculum. We can’t rely on overworked teachers to fit it in where possible. Every young person should leave school understanding local and national government and how to participate.
This isn’t a political point, it’s a civic one. If we want to fight cynicism and apathy, we must equip people to understand and improve the system.
Local government confusion: The two-tier system
One of the biggest sources of confusion in this campaign was the structure of local government itself. In Leicestershire, we operate under a two-tier council system. That means some responsibilities sit with the County Council, while others fall to District or Borough Councils.
To most people, this is a bureaucratic nightmare and one they frankly do not care about. Yes, they like the local element, hell, we all do, but they do not care which tier is responsible. They just want their bins collected, their roads repaired, and their families supported in the best and most effective way possible.
This division of duties creates confusion, slows down delivery, and leads to duplication of effort. It is great that we have finally started to have a serious conversation about moving to single-tier systems, but even now, we seem to be making it more complicated by splitting councils in two to satisfy political egos.
Let’s be clear: if council boundaries are being decided based on political strongholds rather than the needs of residents, which is jerrymandering in its purest form. My view is that Labour is driving this effort, just look at the authorities that did not hold an election. Who controls them? Labour. Whereas a council like Leicestershire, a formerly Conservative-held authority, was simply trying to make local government more cost-effective and efficient.
We all know and understand that a one-tier system would be clearer for residents, more efficient for staff, and more accountable overall. It would save money and make local government more transparent. We must be brave enough to reform outdated systems if we truly want to serve those who elect us.
The dangerous allure of populism
But perhaps the most striking feature of this campaign has been the rise of populism. We have all seen it, and frankly, it is concerning.
We are seeing a political shift unlike anything in recent decades. Voters are angry, disillusioned, and desperate for change, and understandably so. The last few years have been incredibly difficult for many families, and the national parties have failed to deliver. Into that vacuum of frustration, populism has stepped in, offering easy answers to complex problems.
So what is populism? It’s a political approach that claims to represent the voice of “ordinary people” against what it frames as a corrupt or out-of-touch elite, people earning millions while walking around drinking a pint like one of the “lads.” And often, they are not from a council house background like myself.
At its core, populism oversimplifies complex issues into emotionally charged soundbites. It pits the public against institutions, experts, or anyone seen as part of “the establishment.” Yes, on the surface, it can be attractive, even those with switched-on political minds may find themselves questioning things. Who doesn’t want to “take back control” or “put the people first”?
But the danger of populism lies in its lack of substance. Populist candidates often campaign with anger, not plans. They stir division, use scapegoats, and promise sweeping change without ever saying how it will be delivered, funded, or sustained.
In this election, I saw firsthand how populist rhetoric took hold. It flourished on social media, where misinformation spread faster than facts. Candidates said whatever would get a cheer, regardless of whether it was true, deliverable, or even within the remit of a County Council (this was a common theme and always has been).
A call to Conservative integrity
Populism erodes trust in institutions while offering no meaningful alternatives. It makes disagreement seem like betrayal. It reduces debate to division.
As Conservatives, we must avoid falling into this trap. That doesn’t mean ignoring public frustration—it means confronting it honestly, with clarity and courage.
Being present matters. Honesty matters. People care about their communities—but they’re being let down by political games.
We owe our residents more than slogans. We owe them our presence, our respect, and our effort every single day, not just at election time.
If we want to beat political apathy, we must offer hope, not hype.
If we want to beat populism, we must offer clarity, not chaos.
And if we want to beat misinformation, we must offer truth, even when it’s hard to hear.
