BBC under fire over ‘snide' description of new Reform mayor Andrea Jenkyns
The BBC has come under fire for a 'snide' tweet about a newly elected Reform UK mayor.
The organisation's BBC Politics account referred to Reform's Dame Andrea Jenkyns, the new mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, as 'the former Greggs worker and Miss UK finalist' in a tweet about her 'return to politics'.
James Cleverly, the former foreign secretary, called the message 'contemptible'.
In a scathing criticism of the broadcaster's tweet, he wrote: 'She's a former MP and minister. There are genuine questions about how she'll deliver on Reform's vague promises, or deal with Farage's ego now she has elected power and he doesn't, etc.
'But this is just snide. @BBCPolitics should delete and apologise.'
The tweet, which was published on Friday morning and had more than 775,000 views by 4pm, received backlash from other X users, including one who labelled it 'bitter' and another who said it was 'misogynistic'.
Another responded: 'More pompous, supercilious reporting from @BBC. Pure intellectual snobbery from an increasingly self-important organisation.'
Helen Joyce, the author and gender-critical activist, highlighted the BBC's own impartiality rules.
She said: 'Whoever wrote this tweet and signed it off should be put through disciplinary. They can keep their political opinions to themselves while they're at work at the state broadcaster, which has a duty not to be partisan.'
Dame Andrea, a former minister, was a Tory MP from 2015 until last year, when she finished second to Labour in the seat of Leeds South West and Morley in the general election. She then joined Reform in November.
Last year, Dame Andrea said that leaving the Conservative Party was 'not an easy decision,' but added: 'The ship is sinking and perhaps, sadly, beyond salvage but enough is enough.
'It is time to step aboard a movement with vision and purpose and the courage to fight for Britain's future.'
In her victory speech on Friday, after beating her nearest rival by almost 40,000 votes, Dame Andrea declared that it was a 'new dawn in British politics' and vowed Reform would 'reset Britain to its glorious past'.
In the BBC article about her win, she was described as the 'former Greggs worker and Miss UK finalist' who had 'a remarkable political comeback'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Starmer's time will be up if he fails to address two crucial issues
Labour's by-election win wasn't a shock: it was a lottery. Davy Russell was, of course, elected under the first-past-the-post system, which works perfectly well when there are only two main candidates. But that's no longer the case and hasn't been for a long time. Westminster MPs are elected in the same way and our current Labour government has the benefit of a massive majority from only 34% of the vote on the second lowest turnout in almost 100 years. The Electoral Reform Society calculated that 28.8 million people voted and 27.5 million eligible to vote did not: almost the same amount. That in effect, is a 17% endorsement for Labour and certainly not representative. John Milne ("For many, politics isn't working") hits the nail on the head when he writes that 'politics in our country is not working for a significant element of our population' and warns of 'the inequalities and injustices in our society and economy'. UK politics isn't working, firstly, because the UK electoral system is so unrepresentative and, secondly, because of the widening gap between the wealthy and poor of our society that our politicians seem unable or. more likely, unwilling to correct. I should be a natural Labour supporter but the party led by Sir Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar bears little resemblance to its founding principles. Evidently, many others feel the same and are turning to Reform UK in protest and, possibly, in the vain hope that its offer of change will work. Keir Starmer could fix the first problem by changing our undemocratic voting system. But if he continues to bury his head in the sand against the wishes of the majority of his party members, he might as well start writing his political obituary now. David Bruce, Troon. Read more letters: Why Labour should focus on the SNP Dr Gerald Edwards (letter, June 7) is mistaken that Reform were 'the real winners' and not Labour. who turned round a huge SNP majority and succeeded despite Reform splitting the vote. The winner is my old friend, Davy Russell, who heads off to Holyrood having fought a highly old-fashioned and much-derided campaign. He faced the public and convinced them that he could be trusted. He also made various so-called expert political commentators look very foolish. It was a disaster for the SNP by any measure, particularly since they marched into the count, chests out and totally confident of victory. It was a humiliation for the First Minister but Dr Edwards is correct to say that it was a very good result for Reform. However one major point is that both Unionist parties jointly polled over double the SNP vote. This was a very significant rejection of the SNP and their failures of the last 18 years. I've had various letters in the Herald forecasting the rise of Reform and the mistake of ridiculing them and disparaging Mr Farage. That won't help, and will only encourage people who are disillusioned to vote for them. Labour needs to focus on defeating SNP in Scotland and let Reform do their worst – best not to give them credibility. On a personal level I've known Davy for many years and can only pray that more genuine local candidates are pushed forward by Labour to ensure we can gain power at the Scottish elections next year. John Gilligan, Ayr. SNP's urgent priorities now The lesson from the Hamilton by-election result for the SNP is to let Labour and the Tories fight it out with Reform UK to represent the dwindling number of myopically indoctrinated supporters of the Union. The SNP must also focus on the critical argument that only independence can bring about a radical 'change in direction' for the UK through the constitutional change necessary to seriously address the fundamental problems confronting "broken Brexit Britain". The lesson for John Swinney is that it is now urgent that he arouse the passion and vigour for independence quietly dormant within him, or step aside, at least from the leadership of the SNP, and support an individual who can inspiringly lead the country to independence before the end of this decade. A majority of MSPs supporting independence in the next Scottish election must represent a mandate for the Scottish Parliament to hold a binding constitutional referendum which, if denied by the UK government, must legitimately underpin making the next General Election a 'de facto referendum' on independence. A majority of votes at the Scottish election must represent a mandate to commence independence negotiations should the UK government fail, over a maximum period of one year, to pass legislation enabling the Scottish Parliament to hold constitutional referenda. Manifestos of the SNP and the other independence parties should state both these commitments and the necessary actions that will follow should a resultant mandate be met with continued undemocratic intransigence by the UK government. Further procrastination by the UK government on implementing the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Scotland must not be accepted. To paraphrase the currently popular words of the Roman general, Vegetius, if you want true democracy, prepare to fight cynical totalitarianism. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian. No rest for the Hamilton voters I think it was Harold Wilson who said that a week is a long time in politics. He of course was right – and what a week we have seen in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. First, we had the First Minister of Scotland claiming that only the SNP can beat Reform and stating that Labour cannot win here. Then we had Reform and Nigel Farage having to defend a campaign video condemned by rivals as 'blatantly racist', followed by Farage accusing Sarwar of introducing sectarianism into Scottish politics. Meanwhile, the voters who deliver the final verdict get on with their lives, thinking 'what have we done to deserve all of this?' The final verdict was delivered by the people who rejected Farage and Reform, rejected Swinney and the SNP and plumped for the local hero Davy Russell and Scottish Labour. I have to give huge credit to Anas Sarwar for his dignified response to Farage and Reform and his noble response to the SNP, which cosied up to Reform by attempting to give them credibility by describing the election as a two-horse race between them. The residents of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse will be relieved that it is only a week that is a long time in politics as they get back to a bit of normality – forgetting it starts all over again in the first week of May 2026. Willie Young, Aberdeen. Time for Swinney to jack it in In his interview on BBC Scotland's The Sunday Show, John Swinney was still touchingly clinging to the independence panacea, citing polls claiming 54% support. That doesn't stack up with the Hamilton result. On a turnout of 44% the SNP got 30% of the votes – that's only 14% of the total electorate. Applying these numbers to the 4.3m voters of Scotland, their 2014 Indyref total of 1.6m votes plummets by one million to around 600,000. Come on John, you know it's over, so why not publicly announce you've jacked it in? Then Holyrood 2026 can be about which party has the best policies and candidates to halt the nosedive in our health, education, worklessness, Net Zero and public services. Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven. Sarwar was embarrassing Martin Geissler acquitted himself well in his Sunday Show interview with Labour's Anas Sarwar. But that is more than could be said for Sarwar, who was unsatisfactory. He rattled off criticisms of the SNP (not all of them undeserved) but when it came to defending Labour's record in office, its policies and its U-turns he spoke very quickly and without much in the way of conviction. Asked how Labour could put more money into people's pockets, he outlined, in the space of a few seconds, various measures but declined to elaborate and then quickly detoured into the NHS, Swinney and Farage. Geissler tried to pin him down but Sarwar didn't seem to listen to the questions that a hard-pressed electorate deserves serious responses to. Were I a Labour voter I would be embarrassed by Sarwar's painfully thin and cliched answers. S. McArthur, Glasgow.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: Reform's policies are not far right, they're common sense
Reform has plenty to offer moderate voters, says reader Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... David Hamill (Letters, 9 June) writes that Reform is preaching 'far right poison' while the new Hamilton MP, Davy Russell, stated that 'the poison of Reform is not us', although 7,000 of his constituents voted for Reform. Anas Sarwar has described Nigel Farage as a 'pathetic little man'. Inflammatory language has no place in political debate I doubt if any of the Farage haters have ever looked at Reform's policies, which are available for all to read online in a 28-page document. They challenge much of the current policy consensus across Labour, the SNP and the Conservatives and I suppose that is what so enrages those who do not believe that this consensus has failed Britain and Scotland. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The party's aspirations include cutting migration, with the UK already having a population density of 300 people per square kilometre; stopping the Bank of England paying £35 billion a year in quantitative easing interest; lifting the income tax starting rate to £20,000; cutting the 6,700 EU laws still in use hindering growth; abolishing corporation tax for 1.2 million SMEs; scrapping net zero, saving billions; reforming the NHS to cut waiting times, but keeping it free at the point of use; putting bobbies back on the beat; removing transgender ideology from schools; and reviewing diversity, equality and inclusion policies. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and Deputy Leader Richard Tice at a press conference in Aberdeen last week (Picture:) These are not far right polices, there are simply sensible policy proposals which much of the electorate regard as common sense. Too many of our politicians fear to speak out against their party policies which they know are wrong. William Loneskie, Oxton, Lauder, Berwickshire Denial duo What do David Hamill and First Minister John Swinney have in common? Following the Hamilton election they are both in denial. Mr Hamill says 'three-quarters of the voters in Hamilton want nothing to do with the pernicious, far-right poison preached by Reform' but neglects to say that 87 per cent of the electorate didn't vote for the SNP. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Mr Swinney says 'the SNP is in the process of recovery', but with a swing away from the SNP of 16.8 per cent, what does he think will constitute a full recovery? Bruce Proctor, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire Turn the tide Ian Murray MP wants to 'turbocharge' the economy with nuclear power (your report, 9 June). A far cleaner, cheaper, low-tech way to cut electricity prices would be to harness the tides. A 2021 paper to the Royal Society claimed that a Severn Barrage alone could supply 6-7 per cent of UK demand; sling road/rail across the dams and it's a double bonus. Scotland, with its indented coast, would be ideal for such projects, in particular the Black Isle firths, where the boost to the northern economy would be significant, and the Invergordon to Nairn drive cut by a whopping 15 miles. George Morton, Rosyth, Fife Nuclear nod A long time ago I used radioactive isotopes to study smallpox and an antiviral agent that had the potential to stop it in its tracks. Ever since I have made it my business to evaluate the safety of nuclear reactors and nuclear waste, and have concluded that with the exception of the Soviet Union, our obsessional attention to safety in their design and use means that it has not been possible to ascribe any health harm to humans from them, unlike coal waste at Aberfan or oil extraction like Piper Alpha, or, worst of all, climate change-causing CO2 waste generated by burning fossil fuels. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So I consider the SNP and Greens' antinuclear policies based on arguments about safety (your report, 9 June) to be evidentially wrong. In any case, they will soon be overtaken by events. When the gas has run out and the wind doesn't blow, to prevent blackouts Scotland will be obliged to import electricity generated by nuclear reactors from England. Hugh Pennington, Aberdeen It's over, John In addition to points raised in The Scotsman's report on John Swinney's BBC Sunday Show interview (9 June) he was still touchingly clinging to the independence panacea, citing polls claiming 54 per cent support for the SNP. That doesn't stack up with Hamilton. On a turnout of 44 per cent the SNP got 30 per cent of the votes. That's only 14 per cent of the total electorate. Applying these numbers to the 4.3 million voters in Scotland their 2014 Indyref total of 1.6m votes plummets by one million to around 600,000. Come on John, you know it's over, so why not publicly announce you're jacking it in. Then Holyrood 2026 can be about which party has the best policies and candidates to halt our health, education, worklessness, Net Zero and public services nosedive. Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire Who cares? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Otto Inglis (Letters, 9 June) writes an excellent assessment of the Hamilton by-election, but for all the analysis and comment, it should be noted that almost 56 per cent of the electorate could not be bothered to vote, so really don't care who represents them in the Scottish Parliament. Malcolm Parkin, Kinnesswood, Perth and Kinross Spad news The SNP have announced that their bill for Spad services in the previous year has been a jaw-dropping £1.7 million of our taxes. In any case, considering the party's image plunged to rock bottom in the period, they should be asking for their – our – money back. Alexander McKay, Edinburgh Do nothing I recall, many years ago, being on a course to help senior doctors to become managers in the NHS, as if there weren't enough of them already! We were taught that among the many actions that might be employed to solve any problem there was always the 'do nothing' option. I am currently suffering from a progressive and untreatable lung condition. I am in constant distress due to shortness of breath which is only partially relieved by Oxygen therapy. I can do little more physical activity than shuffle around my house and the condition is putting extra strain on my heart. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Last week, still being of sound mind, I obtained, with no problem, a form I can carry around which says that should I have a cardiac arrest, I do not wish to be resuscitated. Here is a perfect example of a problem where doctors can, without risk of retribution, apply the 'do nothing' option, while at the same time, not reneging on their Hippocratic oath, which says 'first do no harm'. While the assisted dying issue rages on, could not resuscitating be construed as doing just that, by the back door? (Dr) S R Wild, Edinburgh Reform Forces Introducing the Defence Review, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer repeated words he heard on HMS Vanguard, 'nothing works unless we all work together'. Money is short. The Defence Secretary John Healey spoke of 'defence reform' and he should question the need for three services. Most of the RAF's 30,000 personnel are in the UK, as are most of its 500 aircraft (including 46 support aircraft, 37 helicopters, 160 trainers, 90 gliders). The RAF has 75 per cent of all MoD aircraft and 50 per cent of frontline aircraft, the other half being Army or Navy. Only 20 per cent of RAF personnel have flying duties, most of its 'aviators' are ground crew or support staff, yet 20 per cent are officers – including 40 air marshals and 100 air commodores. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Most RAF operations support land forces, some support Maritime Britain. With 60 uniformed personnel for every aircraft, trainer and glider, the £10 billion-plus a year RAF, with its ten display teams, seems overmanned and under-employed. In times of plenty all this may be justifiable – it's not today. Defence costs too much to maintain three services. Unsentimental reorganisation of HM Forces would help make them 'battle-ready', providing huge savings, advancing the government's 'defence dividend'. There is no need for a separate air force. An army and navy with RAF air assets and personnel transferred would see defence emerge leaner and more cost-effective and, importantly, be operationally more efficient with no loss of air capability. 'Nato first' would be better achieved by the UK being tasked as the principal maritime power in the eastern Atlantic, the land powers of the Continent providing the principal armies. The Defence Review should prompt radical change here and in Nato. Lester May (Lieutenant Commander, Royal Navy – retired), Camden Town, London Power babies Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Rarely has the saying 'the love of money is the root of all evil' borne such lethal purchase than during the monumental falling out between Donald Trump and Elon Musk this past week. It seems a long time ago that Musk and his fellow oligarchs made up a billionaire front row for Trump's inauguration as president. Their fallout has been a long time coming, not helped by Musk's infamous Nazi-style salute on that occasion. He never recovered from the deserved barb that he was unelected, all the while wielding a hacksaw indiscriminately through whole swathes of US life in the notorious DOGE. It says everything about US politics that the Democrats would now even consider taking Musk's money. The whole affair stinks of two-uber rich big babies tossing their grown-up toys out of the pram. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh Write to The Scotsman
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level
Skilled workers are only eligible to come to the UK if they earn a salary of £38,700 or more, compared to £29,000 required mainly for British citizens or settled residents to bring their partner to the country under family visas. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The previous government planned to introduce the higher threshold for family visa applicants to be equivalent to the skilled worker level. But the committee's report said: 'Given the family route that we are reviewing has a completely different objective and purpose to the work route, we do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method. 'We do not recommend the approach based on the skilled worker salary threshold as it is unrelated to the family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8).' Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to private and family life that can be applied to migration cases in the UK. The UK's current £29,000 threshold is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. The analysis found a high proportion of applicants for partner visas are women and 90% are under the age of 44. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route applying from outside the country. The committee's analysis gave some options that a threshold of £24,000 to £28,000 could give more priority to economic wellbeing, such as reducing the burden to taxpayers, than on family life. It also suggested a criteria of £23,000 to £25,000 to ensure families can support themselves but not necessarily require them to earn a salary above minimum wage. Chairman of MAC, Professor Brian Bell, said: 'While the decision on where to set the threshold is ultimately a political one, we have provided evidence on the impacts of financial requirements on families and economic wellbeing, and highlight the key considerations the government should take into account in reaching its decision.' While the committee said it is not possible to predict how different threshold changes would impact net migration, it said lowering the amount to £24,000, for example, could mean an increase of around one to three percent of projected future net migration. The report added: 'Determining the MIR threshold involves striking a balance between economic wellbeing and family life. 'Whilst a lower threshold would favour family life and entail a higher net fiscal cost to the taxpayer, a higher threshold (below a certain level) would favour economic wellbeing. 'But a higher number of families would experience negative impacts relating to financial pressures, prolonged separation, relationships, adults' mental health and children's mental health and education.' The committee advised against raising the threshold for families with children as despite them facing higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear 'particularly significant' for children. It also recommended keeping the income amount required the same across all regions of the UK. The MAC also said their review was 'greatly hindered' by insufficient data and urged for better data collection by the Home Office on characteristics of each applicant to be linked to outcomes to inform further policy decisions. Reacting to the recommendations, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the report shows that raising the salary threshold will drive migration numbers down and urged for the threshold to be increased to £38,000. 'Migration figures remain far too high. It's time to end ECHR obstruction, raise the salary thresholds, and take back control of who comes into this country,' he said. 'As Kemi and I said on Friday, if the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course. More broadly, the government has already committed to legislate to clarify the application of Article 8 of the ECHR for applicants, caseworkers and the courts.'
