House of Lords removes ‘provocative' Pride flags from canteen
The House of Lords has removed Pride flags from its canteen following a complaint by a peer.
At the start of June, the River Restaurant was decked out in the banners to celebrate the beginning of Pride month.
However, among the banners used was the ' Progress Pride ' flag, which includes the colours of the trans movement and is seen by many as indicative of support for gender ideology – the idea that sex is a spectrum and that people can change their identity.
Baroness Nicholson, a Tory peer, complained to the Lord Speaker, Lord McFall, and officials agreed that they should be taken down as they had not been sanctioned by the authorities.
Similar flags were not displayed in the House of Commons canteen.
Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at the Sex Matters charity, said the decision to display the flags was 'provocative and inappropriate', and that it was 'reassuring' they had been taken down.
'The baby blue and pink of trans activism, which features in the flag, signals support for a harmful fringe ideology that justifies a wide range of human rights abuses, including puberty blockers for minors, surgeries that leave people sterile, the placement of rapists in women's prisons, and the destruction of single-sex services and spaces,' she said.
Critics advocate separating trans and gay rights
The Progress Pride flag, designed in 2021, is replacing the traditional rainbow Pride flag in many venues.
It includes an extra triangle of colour on the left hand side, made up of stripes including white, pink and light blue – the colours of the trans movement.
But many critics say the trans rights movement should be decoupled entirely from the gay rights movement, using the phrase 'LGB without the T'.
The flag also includes a yellow triangle with a purple circle to represent 'intersex' people – a classification which is rejected by many.
On Wednesday, Lady Nicholson tweeted pictures of the flags in the River Restaurant, which were displayed over the cooked breakfast items on sale, on the social media platform X.
When one user replied to say that they supported 'LGB without the T', she tweeted: 'Exactly.'
The flags had been removed by Friday lunchtime, following Lady Nicholson's complaint to the Lord Speaker's Office.
On Friday, she tweeted: 'The superb River Restaurant in the House of Lords has had the decorations that I pictured removed.
'The food remains as stunning as before. I am most grateful to the Lord Speaker for his swift and thoughtful response to my request. I respect all people in all walks of life always.'
Lady Nicholson was a Conservative MP between 1987 and 1995, when she made a high-profile defection to the Liberal Democrats in protest at John Major's policies.
She was made a peer in 1997 and later served as a member of the European Parliament for the Lib Dems. She returned to the Tory fold in 2016.
During her time in Parliament, she voted in favour of Section 28, which banned the 'promotion of homosexuality' by local authorities, and against gay marriage.
'Do pronouns get you a bigger plate of beans?'
A number of users on X responded to her picture of the flags.
Sean Ako said: 'As a gay man I find this to be incredibly dehumanising. Can't I have my breakfast in peace without having a flag waved in my face? I don't need to be celebrated first thing in the morning. I need to be caffeinated.'
Clean City Bird wrote: 'Honestly, what has the progress flag or same-sex attraction got to do with having breakfast? Do you get a bigger portion if you state your pronouns while they plate your beans?'
Margaret Kearney said: 'Think about the flags as you eat breakfast or have tea and toast. For some it could be a turn-off to eat anything. These flags have taken over everything. Thanks Emma for letting us know about this.'
A spokesman for the House of Lords said it had not been the Lord Speaker who had personally intervened.
'Informal decorations were put up locally to mark the beginning of Pride month,' he said. 'These were taken down at an appropriate point due to their unofficial nature.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
9 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour ‘abandons' manifesto pledge to hire more teachers
Labour has been accused of abandoning its flagship manifesto pledge to recruit 6,500 new teachers. In its pitch for the 2024 election, the party vowed to enlist 6,500 extra teachers in key subjects to tackle shortages across the country. The Government has since claimed it is on the right track, pointing to more than 2,000 new teachers recruited last year. But it has now admitted that it is not counting primary school teachers towards the target, shortly after it emerged their numbers have fallen by nearly 3,000. The revelations, first reported by TES, the specialist education magazine, have led to claims that Labour is fiddling the figures to inflate its achievements. In a statement on Thursday, the Department for Education (DfE) said there are now '2,346 more teachers in secondary and special schools in England compared to last year, as Government makes progress on its additional 6,500 teacher target '. However, the overall number of teachers in state-funded schools in England fell in 2024-25. This is because the primary school total has dropped by about 2,900, while the number of secondary and special school teachers, as well as those working in pupil referral units, has gone up by about 2,350. The DfE has since confirmed to TES that primary teachers will not count towards the 6,500 target. Outrage from Tories It has sparked outrage from the Tories, who accused Labour of abandoning one of their central manifesto pledges. Neil O'Brien, the shadow education minister, told The Telegraph: 'Labour have abandoned not just their main education pledge but one of their main promises in their whole election manifesto. 'And everyone knows why they have dropped it. The statistics show the number of teachers overall is down under Labour. 'Falling teacher numbers are driven by a particularly sharp fall of 2,900 fewer primary school teachers under Labour. So now they are suddenly saying that primary school teachers don't count, which is so rude to primary teachers.' The drive to recruit 6,500 teachers was supposed to be funded by Labour's VAT raid on private schools. But questions have been raised about the amount of cash the change will raise, with Treasury analysis suggesting it could actually require the Government to spend an extra £650 million per year. In March, the National Foundation for Educational Research found teacher vacancies in England were at their highest rate since records began. 'They broke both promises' Mr O'Brien added: 'They promised that taxing independent schools would pay for more state school teachers and also promised they would compensate schools for the national insurance tax increase. 'They broke both those promises and now children are losing out as a result, and their response is to try to fiddle the figures. It's pathetic.' Damian Hinds, the former education secretary, also suggested that the DfE had been dishonest about the target. Last year, the Tory MP tabled a parliamentary question asking which phases of education would count towards the goal. In response, Catherine McKinnell, the education minister, said: 'This Government will work with the sector to deliver its pledge to recruit 6,500 additional teachers across schools and colleges over the course of this parliament to raise standards for children and young people and deliver the Government's mission to break down the barriers to opportunity at every stage.' Mr Hinds posted on X: 'In a written question I asked ministers specifically 'which phases of education count towards the 6,500 target of new expert teachers'. 'The answer says 'across schools and colleges' and does not say 'except primary'.' The DfE has been approached for comment.
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves must do more than hope for the best when it comes to paying for Labour's spending
R achel Reeves has an unenviable task as she puts the final touches to the government -wide spending review she will unveil on Wednesday. It will be a defining moment for the Labour government as she sets out departmental spending limits up to the next general election. The headlines garnered in the run-up to the chancellor 's big day are misleading. We have been promised £15.6bn for local transport projects, mainly in the North and Midlands; £4.5bn a year for schools; £22.5bn a year for science and tech, and £187m to bring digital skills and AI learning into classrooms and communities. While all are worthy, the government is playing a rather cynical game. Some of its pre-announcements stem from the extra £113bn of capital spending for which Ms Reeves created room last October by sensibly changing her fiscal rules so investment projects do not count towards her target to balance revenue and spending by 2029-30. However, her determination to stick to her fiscal rules to prevent a wobble on the financial markets means that Wednesday's statement will impose a squeeze on day-to-day budgets. Although overall spending will rise by an average of 1.2 per cent a year on top of inflation, big increases for health and defence will mean real-terms cuts for other budgets, possibly including the Home Office (which funds the police), housing and local government. So there has been a bruising round of negotiations between the Treasury and ministers such as Angela Rayner, who is responsible for housing and councils, and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary. During a media round on Sunday, Peter Kyle, the science secretary, did not rule out real-terms cuts to the police and housing. While the squeeze will technically be less severe than the austerity over which George Osborne presided from 2010, the danger for Labour is that it will feel like austerity 2.0 for many voters. Labour backbenchers are well aware of this and, after the party's poor results in last month's local elections in England, have pushed ministers into a U-turn on Ms Reeves's disastrous decision to means-test the pensioners' winter fuel allowance and extracted a promise from Sir Keir Starmer of more measures to combat child poverty, possibly by easing the two-child limit on benefits. There could also be a tweak to the £5bn of cuts to disability and sickness benefits hurriedly announced in March. The government must prioritise the fight against child poverty; without intervention by ministers, it would rise significantly over the five-year parliament, which would be an indictment of Labour. Ms Reeves must find a way to make good her promise in her article for The Independent last week to ensure ' every young person can fulfil their potential '. Admittedly, that will not be easy, given all the conflicting pressures on her to spend more. Although Wednesday's statement will not be a Budget, Ms Reeves should do more than rattle off a list of spending commitments without making clear where the money will come from. There is already a risk of doing so on defence. The strategic defence review unveiled last week is based on the government's ambition to raise defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP in the next parliament but it has not yet allocated the funds to go beyond a rise from 2.3 per cent to 2.5 per cent by 2027. The UK will come under pressure to commit to 3.5 per cent at a Nato summit later this month. Ms Reeves should also provide clarity on which pensioners will receive winter fuel payments in the coming winter. The about-turn has been slow and messy, to the consternation of Labour MPs. In responding to such pressures, the chancellor and prime minister have cited the economy's 0.7 per cent growth in the first quarter of this year but there is no guarantee that will be maintained. They should not lose sight of the need to balance higher spending with genuine public sector reform. There will be a limit to how much can be achieved through 'efficiency savings'. The suspicion is that, in spending more on defence, winter fuel payments and child poverty, Sir Keir and Ms Reeves are willing the ends without providing the means. They should level with the public about how their sums will add up. For now, they may be tempted to adopt a Micawberish approach in the hope that the fiscal picture improves by Ms Reeves's second Budget in the autumn. Again, that is far from certain: more holes might be blown in her headroom against her rules by an uncertain global economic outlook in the age of Trump 2.0 and the Office for Budget Responsibility downgrading its optimistic forecasts for productivity growth. Unless she changed her rules to allow more borrowing, the chancellor would then have to implement tax rises or spending cuts or a combination of both. When things might get even worse, the chancellor needs more than a strategy of hoping for the best.
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
Government needs the can-do mindset I experienced in the Army to push change through fast
Government moves too slowly. That's not just the fault of the current government or the last one – it's the system. Slowed down by bureaucracy. Paralysed by 'can't-do' figures. Obsessed with process over progress. I come from a background of delivery. In the Army, working in a 'human intelligence unit' – liaising with agents and special forces – we had to move from first gear to fifth in an instant. Lives depended on it. Getting ahead of the enemy, protecting our people and achieving results was the mission – not talking it to death. Confirming the location of a high-value target, whilst also ensuring they were alone and targetable, or identifying the precise site of an improvised explosive device factory, required creativity and a determined mindset – a willingness to take calculated risks to save lives and win. When I worked in counterterrorism at the Ministry of Defence, delivery wasn't optional. We built a culture of 'can-do'; creative, risk-aware and focused on action. It wasn't about perfection. It was about progress. Government could learn a lot from the mindset of the finest military in the world and the departments that work every day to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. An unstoppable political will must go hand in hand with a mindset of delivery. I think back to our counterterror planning meetings. The mission? To stop terrorists attacking our great country. No timewasters. Just serious professionals putting ideas on the table, pulling them apart, war-gaming every outcome, then locking in a plan and going all-out to deliver. That mindset – challenge, rigour and rapid execution – is what the system of government has desperately lacked for decades. Too often, it's delay by design. Endless consultations. Five-year strategies that take ten. Pet projects blocked by internal turf wars. Take the Lower Thames Crossing: more than £1.2 billion spent before a single spade in the ground – all because of drawn-out decision-making and red tape. Or the A9 dualling project in Scotland – promised by 2025, now pushed back to 2035. Ten years of drift. These delays are not acts of God. They are failures of will. The truth is, Whitehall needs reform. There are dedicated, brilliant people across the civil service – but too many are trapped in a system built to say 'no'. Risk aversion is often rewarded, not challenged. Delivery is too often deprioritised in favour of process, and meaningful reform is blocked by a sprawling web of arms-length bodies and quangos that diffuse responsibility and stifle urgency. We need a leaner, more focused state – one that empowers departments to move at pace and is held accountable for outcomes, not paperwork. That means streamlining quangos where appropriate, ending duplication, and changing the mindset within government itself. Ministers must be prepared to challenge officials – not to attack, but to sharpen decision-making and force clarity on delivery. Wes Streeting 's approach to the NHS offers a blueprint. He's made clear that, as health secretary, he expects faster delivery, more accountability, and a culture that doesn't settle for 'this is just how things are done'. Abolishing NHS England shows a steely commitment to the change he expects. But reforming structures is only half the battle – changing the culture is the real prize. Government must operate with a sense of mission, not maintenance. The British public doesn't care whether a successful policy comes from Bevan or Thatcher. They care that it works. That it's delivered. We need to strip out the ideology and face complex problems with a solutions-based mindset. Let the evidence lead. Move fast. Be willing to make mistakes in the name of making progress. And above all, get things done. Because there's serious work to do.
