Doncaster Reform group shun offer to join mayor's executive group
Reform UK has rejected an offer to be part of a new-look Executive Group on Doncaster Council, after sweeping the board at the recent election.The party won 37 of the 55 seats on the council, while Labour retained just 12 of the 40 it had previously held.Labour's Ros Jones, who narrowly held on to her role as Mayor and leader of the authority, offered to work with Reform and the Conservatives, but declined to invite them to join her cabinet.Reform group leader Guy Aston said the proposed group had "no portfolio [and] no decision making" and he was "not prepared to get involved," saying the party would impact decision making through normal scrutiny processes instead.
Speaking ahead of his first full council meeting, Aston described the 37 Reform councillors as a "citizens army"."We have cracked the two party system here more than anywhere else," he said."Our councillors are citizens first, they were not attached for years to political parties and they didn't attend branch meetings."These are concerned citizens now in power, they want the best for Doncaster not for their own political ideologies."
Aston, who previously served in the Royal Navy, would not be drawn on specific policies but did say he wanted a "constructive relationship" with the Mayor and would scrutinise policies on a "piece by piece basis"."There is no point in us bringing the house down around our ears" he added.Asked about the ongoing work to reopen Doncaster Airport he said while "nobody would not want an airport, it must not impact on the Doncaster council tax payer".In response to questions about councillor Mark Broadhurst, who came under fire for historic posts on Facebook, he said the matter was being "referred to the council"."It is not acceptable, the vetting was quite thorough, but something has gone wrong" he said.Aston's decision to reject Jones' offer came after the Conservative Group leader also turn down the invitation. In a letter to the Mayor, Steve Cox said he and deputy leader, Nick Allen, did not want to be part of "back room" discussions "with no scrutiny"."That's not how democratic decision making should work and you know it," he said.
Listen to highlights from South Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
36 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
UN urges UK to negotiate new Chagos deal that allows islanders to return
But a panel of experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council said retaining the base and continuing to bar Chagossians from Diego Garcia 'appears to be at variance with the Chagossians' right to return'. The Chagossians were expelled from the islands between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the joint UK-US base and have not been allowed to return. Although the UK-Mauritius deal includes a £40 million trust fund for the benefit of the Chagossians, the UN experts expressed concern that this would not provide an 'effective remedy' for the islanders. They also criticised an apparent lack of consultation of the islanders prior to the deal, saying: 'We are gravely concerned about the lack of meaningful participation of Chagossians in processes that have led to the agreement.' The experts added: 'In light of these significant concerns, we call for the ratification of the agreement to be suspended and for a new agreement to be negotiated that fully guarantees the rights of the Chagossian people to return to all islands of the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.' Conservative shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel urged the Government to 'do the right thing (and) stop this'. She said: 'We have been warning from the start that this deal is bad for British taxpayers and bad for the Chagossian people. 'Now even the United Nations is saying the very same. 'Labour has completely ignored this community from the get-go, and failed to consult with them at every step of the way. 'It is why I have introduced a Bill in Parliament that would block the (agreement) and force the Government to speak to the people at the heart of their surrender plans.' The deal follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice saying the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. As well as the fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. The deal also includes provisions preventing development on the rest of the archipelago without the UK's consent, which the Government has argued will prevent countries such as China setting up their own facilities. The agreement has also been backed by the United States. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been contacted for comment.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
This vision for Britain's nuclear future is to be warmly welcomed
A politician with such a long and mixed track record as energy secretary Ed Miliband should perhaps have been more wary of declaring that nuclear power will 'deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance', and that it is 'the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis'. Such things may yet prove to be so – and indeed investment in a new generation of nuclear power may well be inevitable. However, it is equally the case that the history of nuclear power in Britain, spanning some seven decades, has been far from an unalloyed success. At home and – sadly, more dramatically – abroad, scientists and engineers overconfident in their abilities and seized by the promise of the future have found themselves all too often watching the consequences of their complacency played out with devastating effect, most infamously at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Six Mile Island, but also at many other locations. Previous visions of a golden age melted down as rapidly as the faulty reactors. If the early post-war hopes for the peaceful use of nuclear power had been well founded, just as was claimed in the 1950s, the abundant electrical power generated by nuclear fission would have been so cheap it would have been pointless to meter and charge for it, fossil fuels would have been rendered redundant, and, as it happens, the pace of climate change greatly retarded. But it was not to be. Therefore, the public is right to be sceptical now about why, in the old and dangerous phrase, 'this time it's different'. With those heavy caveats, Mr Miliband's announcements about Britain's nuclear future are to be welcomed, and his reasoning endorsed. He is right, above all, to seek a great variety and plurality in sources of the UK's long-term energy supply. As the Germans discovered when the Nord Stream pipelines and gas supplies from Vladimir Putin's Russia were cut, it is extremely unwise to become so heavily dependent on any single source of energy. Mr Miliband declares himself an enthusiast for offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, and even fossil fuel sources where effective carbon capture can be achieved. In the nuclear sphere, he's also correct to adopt the previous government's plans for small, 'modular' reactors, which could speed up the transition from carbon and reduce costs. The only disappointment in that area is that time has already been lost, and Rolls-Royce and other private interests are not yet in a position to make any deployment pump meaningful wattage into the National Grid before the early to mid-2030s, as Mr Miliband told the House of Commons. The £14.2bn investment in the Sizewell C plant is a more traditional kind of project, and carries the familiar risks. Mr Miliband will need to be much more specific about private sector involvement, and who will bear the financial risks for such a costly programme over such a long and uncertain timeframe. Disposal of waste and decommissioning costs will also have to be fully transparent to carry public opinion, especially for the people of Suffolk, who will be hosting this latest iteration of a long-standing lodger. Of course, it all would have been better if successive governments hadn't slowed the nuclear programme in the aftermath of successive accidents, and had found the money to invest in previous decades. In fact, the Sizewell C plant is set to become Britain's first new nuclear power station since 1995. The French have long prioritised nuclear power and weathered the recent energy crisis better than the British or the Germans, more tied as they were to foreign gas and soaring world prices. The aim now is to ensure that the new generation of nuclear power doesn't turn into a costly disaster, and can indeed help the transition to renewables and lower energy bills. Cheap, plentiful power and net zero on track? Mr Miliband may yet leave a legacy more permanent than any of his colleagues. Golden, indeed.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Six years late and £28bn over budget, this project signals disaster for Ed Miliband's nuclear plans
'Build and repeat.' That is the plan for Sizewell C, the nuclear plant on the Suffolk coast which Ed Miliband has announced plans to pump billions of pounds into. Writing in The Telegraph, he hailed a new 'golden age' for the British nuclear industry, pledging £14.2 billion for two reactors at Sizewell which will, eventually, provide six million homes with electricity. Eventually being the operative word. News that the Government is throwing its weight behind nuclear in the midst of the Energy Secretary's pursuit of net zero was met with relief by some campaigners – and, indeed, by anyone who doesn't want to find themselves plunged into darkness if the grid is forced to grapple with unreliable renewables. But concerns have been raised about the modelling. Sizewell is to be a rinse and repeat of Hinkley Point C, the two-reactor power station in Somerset which has been beset with problems from the moment EDF first broke ground there in early 2017. The Government says it's to be almost an exact replica. Meanwhile on its website, Sizewell C points to 'the benefits of replication'. 'Sizewell C will use the same design as Hinkley Point C,' it adds. It says Hinkley has already 'created a huge workforce and supply chain' and that replication 'means Sizewell C will benefit from all the efficiencies and expertise learnt by our sister project'. Efficiency and expertise. It's one way of summing up Hinkley, though it does rather overlook the £28 billion it has gone over budget to date, the endless delays and challenges from environmentalists, not to mention the international political tensions. China's General Nuclear is a significant shareholder in the project, but in 2023 halted funding for it as relations between London and Beijing worsened; the same year the UK government took over the country's stake in Sizewell C. Meanwhile, work at the site crawls on, its deadline shifting and bill expanding. Still, EDF says Hinkley's second reactor is being built 25 per cent faster than the first unit, and suggests this should be taken as good news for Sizewell's envisaged two reactors, which are, effectively, planned to be the third and fourth in Britain's nuclear quartet. Meanwhile, experts agree it makes sense in principle to transfer the lessons learnt and systems already established at the Somerset site to Suffolk. Iolo James, head of communications at the Nuclear Industry Association, stresses the importance of 'building in fleet rather than building one at a time'. 'The more you build, the cheaper and quicker that is,' he says. That may be true, though there has been nothing cheap or quick about Britain's nuclear renaissance so far. Where we were once pioneers in the push for nuclear power (the world's first commercial-scale nuclear power station came online in Calder Hall, Cumbria, in 1956), decades of sparse investment have meant the UK has now fallen far behind other countries. At Sizewell, many question how possible it will be in practice to shift operations from one side of England to the other. Alison Downes, of the campaign group Stop Sizewell C, suspects the idea that you can simply move teams and processes without a hitch is unrealistic. 'The company want people involved in Hinkley Point C to come over and do what they've done there again at Sizewell C, but unless there's a seamless transition and the roles that they're just finishing at Hinkley start at Sizewell, then the likelihood is those people will go off and find other jobs and then are lost to the supply chain,' she says. 'Hinkley has been delayed, yes, but Sizewell has also been delayed. It's very difficult to get two projects of this size to perfectly dovetail.' Even if they do manage to bring some of that infrastructure across, it's hard to make the case that Hinkley has been a poster project for Britain's nuclear prowess. Last February, EDF said it had taken a near £11 billion hit amid delays and overrunning costs on the project. The month before, it said the plant was expected to be completed by 2031 and cost up to £35 billion. Factoring in inflation, the real figure could be more like £46 billion. It was, let's not forget, initially supposed to have started generating electricity in 2017 and cost £18 billion. When construction finally began the same year, it was expected that the plant would be completed by 2025. It will now come online six years later than that and at more than double the cost of the initial estimate. So not, it would be fair to say, an unmitigated success as major infrastructure projects go. Then again, some would argue successful infrastructure is an oxymoron in Britain today. The latest estimated spend for HS2 is £102 billion – almost double the projected cost. Crossrail cost £4 billion more than expected and weathered significant delays. And across the country, countless projects – bridges, tramlines and motorways – remain unfinished or unbuilt altogether. 'The public expectations on this sort of stuff is so low nowadays,' says Ed Shackle, a researcher at Public First. 'With all of these big promises – and that goes for things like HS2 as well – they are not expecting the Government to do anything. They're very sceptical that the Government could deliver anything big.' The plan to launch us into a nuclear-powered future might sound promising, but can Labour get it done? While the public is supportive of the idea of projects like Sizewell in principle (Public First's polling shows there is a 41 per cent net support for the building of new nuclear power stations) and wants the Government to make big swings, time and again they have seen these things fail or fall by the wayside. 'They think the country is in a very bad way and we need major overhaul, but major projects have been poorly managed and delivered, and in their local areas, people see decline everywhere,' says Shackle. 'They want to see actual delivery behind these big promises.' Downes points out the last update on Hinkley came in January last year, 'when there were still five or six years to go, so there was plenty of time for things to get even worse'. That same month, EDF said further delays were in the offing because of a row about fish. The energy company was struggling to agree protection measures for fish in the River Severn. Fears thousands could be killed in water cooling intakes had 'the potential to delay the operation of the power station'. This was after months of tussling with environmentalists over the plant's seawater cooling system. At the time, Sir Keir Starmer, then in opposition, said delays to Hinkley were evidence of a system that was 'holding us back and stifling growth', citing 'countless examples of Nimbys and zealots gumming up the legal system often for their own ideological blind spots to stop the Government building the infrastructure the country needs'. Now, dovetailing the construction of Sizewell with Hinkley is one of the main things bolstering confidence in the Suffolk project. Stuart Crooks, managing director of Hinkley Point C, said the 'innovation and experience' developed at Hinkley 'will benefit our twin project at Sizewell C from the start'. 'We have trained a new workforce and built the nuclear supply chain,' Crooks says. 'Now those skilled workers and businesses can give Britain the energy security and economic growth it needs at Sizewell C, together with small modular reactors and future large nuclear plants.' Supporters also argue things will be different the second time around. The first nuclear build since the 1990s, Hinkley, they say, was always destined to take longer and cost more than initially predicted. 'It's been well documented that Hinkley has had issues in terms of going over budget, and the timescale,' says James. 'That's predominantly due to the fact that we haven't built a nuclear power station in a generation... We've had to relearn how to build them. 'The way Sizewell will benefit from that is all the learnings from Hinkley will be there for Sizewell and its team when it starts construction in earnest... If you view Sizewell C as unit three and four [after Hinkley's one and two], then you'll see the efficiencies become even greater for that project.' Julia Pyke, joint managing director of Sizewell C, tells The Telegraph the site would be an 'exact copy, above ground, of Hinkley Point C'. 'When the design for Hinkley was brought into the UK, they had to make 7,000 design changes – because we're a copy, the equivalent for us is just 60,' she says. 'What that means in practical terms is that we know, in a way that Hinkley didn't know, how much concrete we need to pour, how much steel we need, how much cable we need to buy; we know how many hours it took to undertake a task for the first unit at Hinkley and the savings they were able to make for the second unit, and we can learn from that. We have a greater cost certainty because of that fixed design.' It sounds promising, but campaigners are less optimistic, pointing out the significant geographical differences between the sites. 'I get the principals behind replication – but the thing you can't do is replicate the site,' says Downes, who understands Sizewell is set to be a more expensive site to develop than Hinkley. 'There are very specific complexities around the Sizewell C site... It's quite likely that any savings they might expect to make through replication will be absorbed in the more complex groundworks.' While Hinkley is 'a dry site', Sizewell C is by the sea. 'It's going to need huge sea defences. They've got to build a crossing over a Site of Special Scientific Interest. They've got to build a deep cut-off wall. There's a lot of associated development that's needed because there's less infrastructure than there is down at Hinkley Point C. These are the sorts of things that concern us.' The Energy Secretary, for his part, is still adamant this is to be the start of a 'golden age'. 'We will not accept the status quo of failing to invest in the future and energy insecurity for our country,' he said. 'We need new nuclear to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance, because that is the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis.'
