Lincolnshire voters' views on why Reform swept to victory
A turquoise wave has swept over Lincolnshire, as Reform takes control of the county council and welcomes Dame Andrea Jenkyns to the position of mayor. BBC News visits Louth to discover why this Conservative Party heartland turned a lighter shade of blue.
"I need a holiday," laughs Carol Steels, 68, grabbing husband David's arm to stop him outside Louth Travel Centre.Adverts in the window promote turquoise waves lapping on to the sun-soaked beaches of Kefalonia and Florida. But it is a turquoise wave, closer to home, I am keen to hear their views on this afternoon.Specifically, the splash caused by Reform in both the Lincolnshire County Council and mayoral elections."We're Conservative voters," says Mrs Steels. "I think our local, Conservative MPs do a good job, but I can well understand why the county voted as it did."
Earlier, Reform UK took overall control of Lincolnshire County Council from the Conservatives. It also saw Dame Andrea Jenkyns elected as the county's first mayor following a resounding victory.Dame Andrea won in every area of the county except one with a total of 104,133 votes. Rob Waltham, for the Conservative Party, came second with 64,585 votes.Outgoing council leader Martin Hill, who led the authority for 20 years, told the BBC of a "tidal wave of Reform crashing over us".Mr Steels, taking a moment away from the calm waters of Kefalonia, offers further insight on the political sea change."This Labour government is trying to please everybody," he says. "The prime minister should speak his mind more like Nigel [Farage]."The Conservatives have been too busy backstabbing each other. Meanwhile, this election Reform have been telling everyone they will get things done for local communities."They also told people they will deal with issues around immigration."
Andrea Jenkyns: Ex-Greggs worker with knack for bouncing backFollow the latest election updatesAT A GLANCE: What happened overnight and what's still to come?
Could it be seen as a protest vote, I ask."Yes, I think it was," replies Mrs Steels. "People have just lost faith in politics. They want something different."Inside the travel agency, assistant Jo Pacey, feels the same."People here voted for Reform because they don't like the alternatives," she says.
However, owner Terry Robinson, 75, admits he was surprised by the outcome of the elections."The country has been looking for another party to come in for years," he says. "But I thought when it came to people putting their X in the box on voting day they'd back off. But that doesn't seem to have happened. People clearly want change in Lincolnshire."Andrew Dennis, 62, is selling flowers in the market."We need change, it's as simple as that," he says. "I'm here every day and that's what everyone tells me. They tell me they're fed up of Labour and the Conservatives."
Mr Dennis thinks Reform made its gains on its stance on immigration."Everyone is saying the same about needing to tackle illegal immigration to be fair," he says."Reform, during the election campaigns, have been saying they will deal with the problem [illegal immigration], and I think people here think Nigel Farage will do that. The other parties have not been able to sort it."But not all are fans.
Student Amber Burton, 20, says she is "very, very disappointed" with the election results."I really do not support Reform in any way, shape or form," she says. "I believe they have very dangerous values. I don't like Farage and his immigration and foreign policies."She is not surprised by the outcomes of the elections, however."We're a Tory stronghold here," she says. "We're going further to the right, and I can see us one day having a Reform MP, just as they do in Skegness."Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here.
LIVE: Follow the latest election updatesPOSTCODE LOOKUP: Check the results in your areaSIMPLE GUIDE: When will we know the rest of the results?FULL COVERAGE: Catch up on all our election stories
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
37 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why Scotland's public sector needs its own version of DOGE and we should all support it
Getty Images 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... For those of us who have taken the trouble to engage with Reform UK's personnel and their activities – so we might understand their concerns, ambitions and the motives behind them – the performance of Britain's disruptor party at last Thursday's Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election did not come as a surprise. Labour's victory was a shock because the SNP – and John Swinney in particular – had itself promoted the narrative of a Labour collapse as part of its campaigning tactics. To make this outcome appear especially credible the Labour Party itself had clearly switched into damage limitation mode by protecting its candidate from himself. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the end the vote delivered a tight three-way contest with only 1471 votes between the Labour, SNP and Reform candidates. With the Conservative candidate coming fourth with 1621 votes, never again should Rusell Findlay suggest voting Reform will result in an SNP victory. That sort of unjustified entitlement will be the death of Conservative or other pro-UK parties when Reform is clearly a serious contender. Let voters decide for themselves on the true merits of a candidate rather than be shepherded to vote against competitors. The prospect now lies ahead that the SNP may not form an administration after next year's Holyrood election and the possibility of genuine change might be possible. Accepting we have a proportional voting system at Holyrood I am not in favour of parties trying to build coalitions before they have been elected because it reduces choice for voters. Let the electorate decide which parties it wishes to reward for good reasons after which the elected representatives can take it from there. I am, however, in favour of parties giving serious consideration to policies that accentuate the common ground they might have with each other so that when attempting to build an administration, be it a full-blooded coalition or a confidence and supply arrangement, it is achieved in a positive and practical manner that makes good government possible. One of the issues that Scotland has to face up to is that it has its spending priorities all wrong. There are very serious faults with the quality and supply of many of our public services and the lack of funds finding their way to where they can make the most difference cannot be solved by taxing or borrowing more. Both of these possibilities are already stretched to the limit – so it requires changing the priorities. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ideas about how this might be done are again up for debate thanks to the election of President Javier Milei of Argentina and President Trump gaining a second term after the Biden hiatus. Both have taken a radical approach of asking hard questions about the justification of spending and making sweeping changes that involve not just trimming budgets but closing down some operations that are now considered to be unnecessary or provide duplication. This has been characterised by Trump's creation of a Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE for short. Now in England, where Reform UK has gained control of five County Councils, local doge projects are being established. In Derbyshire decisions are being taken in quick order to start by example by closing down committees and removing generous sinecures that provide allowances and expenses to councillors. The amounts are initially relatively small but they signal an intent to the public that councillors feathering their nests by establishing talking shops and generating paperchases must end. This can only make the acceptance of rationalising departments and making superfluous posts redundant easier to deliver. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But a word of warning. Making changes at the margins is not going to be enough. Simply cutting back on the number of administrators is not the solution to bad resource allocation. What is required is to accept some functions are not the business of the state, be they delivered by unaccountable quangos and agencies, local councils or legislative governments. Abandoning functions that are not seen as vital necessities will be required. Scotland undoubtedly needs its own form of DOGE to go through the lush spending of the Scottish Parliament – all while the homeless are without shelter, drug-dependents are without rehab, classrooms are without teachers, pregnant women are without maternity wards and convicted criminals are released because we are without enough prisons. The place to begin is to take more seriously the insightful reports of the Auditor General who reveals with disturbing regularity the poor decisions that have been taken which cost us millions. When we add millions together we get closer to saving billions – all of which can be used to reduce Scotland's taxes to at least the same level as England's so we can encourage the enterprise that will create genuine sustainable prosperity. By stripping the SNP's unnecessary spending vital services can be protected and improved. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It also needs a huge change in attitude – and it must start at the top. We need a Scottish Government to always think about the public pound when committing to defend its policies through the courts. The fact that defending the Scottish Government case in the Supreme Court regarding what constitutes a woman should have run up a bill of £170,000 should be universally condemned. The legal costs that started with Nicola Sturgeon and passed through the hands of Humza Yousaf and John Swinney should be paid by them. It was, after all, an action designed to save their political reputations and against at least half of Scotland's people. Likewise, any spending on the whole panoply of independence and grievance mongering or political hobbyhorses should be open to challenge. The turnaround of the Argentinian economy has led the once-defaulting basket-case economy to higher GDP growth, falling inflation and improving and a declining poverty rate. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scotland has a great deal to do to correct 18 years of SNP misrule all the more reason that being more realistic about what can be afforded must be as starting point.
New Statesman
39 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Labour's unlikely strategy for beating Reform
Photo by Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg via Getty Images It's April. It's a few weeks to the Runcorn and Helsby by-election. Organisers know it's tight. Activists know it's tight. Some estates and a few villages are looking good for Labour. Others are looking dreadful. The Labour campaign is searching for a winning strategy. Keir Starmer is not to be found. Labour threw a lot of strategies at the Runcorn and Helsby by-election. But one stays with me. As the activists piled in for their morning briefings before taking to the doors, the advice was simple, and surprising: 'Don't say Reform.' Instead, campaigners were encouraged to ask what voters on the doorsteps thought of Nigel Farage himself. But why elevate Farage, some wondered. Why even mention his name? Activists discarded the advice immediately, adamant they knew better. But others saw the sense. Counterintuitively, it's a sound strategy. And there is public data to talk about it. Reform is polling in the lead right now. And the local elections prove it: the party didn't just win the coastal region of Lincolnshire, or Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, it won in what were traditional Con-Lab battlegrounds. Projecting what these numbers would mean in a General Election is a fool's errand. First past the post is not made for four/five party politics. So Reform could win as few as 150 seats in the House of Commons. Or as many as 350. That's where we are right now. But Nigel Farage, who polls better than anyone for voter favourability, is floundering on one key metric. He trails as a prime minister in waiting. Britain needs Reform? Yes, say most voters. But does Britain need Farage? There is surprising reluctance. Survation and YouGov have both done the polling and while Reform has party poll leads, Keir Starmer still – somehow – leads the country as the public's preferred prime minister. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This all exposes something critical: Farage struggles on the question of officialdom. He is the Wat Tyler of our time. He speaks for the many. He speaks for the rabble. But the many do not see him becoming one of the chosen few. Did the peasantry wish to elevate Mr Tyler to Kingship? Which brings us to the Labour strategy. Farage is both a strength and a curse for Reform. The more the voters and media take Reform and Farage seriously, the more the voters will have to give consideration to the rising reality that Reform and Farage may very well form the next government. This is a weak point for the party. 'Don't say Reform. Say Farage.' Reform is a sentiment. It arouses sympathy. Farage has his fans. But he has his detractors. Prompting him on the doorstep could concentrate voters' minds in a way 'it's us or Reform' doesn't. 'It's this government or reform' – the results write themselves. But 'it's us or Farage' – now that's a strategy. [See more: Nigel Farage chases the Welsh dragon] Related
New Statesman
39 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The Tories must do more than apologise for Liz Truss
Photograph by Henry Nicholls - Pool/Getty Images. Better late than never, and better something than nothing. The Conservative Party should have distanced itself from Liz Truss at the first opportunity – emphatically, unequivocally and ruthlessly. On the steps of Downing Street on 25 October 2022, as his first act as Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak should have condemned the mini-Budget, apologised to the nation and made it clear that Truss would never be a Conservative parliamentary candidate again. It would have been a justified response to the chaos of the preceding few weeks and a signal that the party had changed. It did not happen. Sunak acknowledged that 'mistakes were made' but left it at that. He was too cautious about splitting his party. The membership had voted for Truss (he should have announced his intention to remove their rights to elect the leader, too) and a large minority of the parliamentary party had backed her. It would have been a bold gamble, and the case for such a move becomes more persuasive when one knows for certain of the electoral obliteration that lies ahead. Maybe we should not be too harsh on the last Conservative prime minister but we do now know how the infamous mini-Budget was brought up at every opportunity in last year's general election, and is continually referenced by Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves. This is not just out of habit but will be a consequence of extensive polling research. The public remain furious at the chaos and uncertainty that was unleashed. Mortgage-holders, in particular, will not be quick to forgive. The Tories can survive many accusations, and still win elections. But they cannot win while being perceived as economically reckless. Not only is it a political vulnerability, but the Truss experience prevents them from delivering effective criticism of their opponents. At a time when Nigel Farage is advocating turning on the spending taps while also implementing massive tax cuts, the Conservatives are right to say he is being fiscally irresponsible. But when they say he is 'Liz Truss on steroids', it sounds amiss coming from Truss's party (especially when the line is delivered by those who served her loyally). And if the fears that the bond market vigilantes will turn against the UK come to pass, the Tory attack on Labour will also lack real punch. These factors resulted in the most substantial criticism of the mini-Budget from the Conservative frontbench. Shadow chancellor Mel Stride acknowledged that it had damaged the Tories' economic credibility, and that the party should show contrition. Stride – a reassuring figure who was critical of the mini-Budget at the time – was right to do so, but even then there was too much equivocation. Despite the advance briefing, there was no explicit apology. The language was characteristically measured and thoughtful, but what was needed was something a little more eye-catching and memorable. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Better still, the sentiments should have been expressed by the party leader, not the shadow chancellor. But when Kemi Badenoch was asked subsequently about the mini-Budget, she equivocated. She started to make the argument that the problem was the higher spending on energy support announced on 8 September, not the unfunded tax cuts set out on 23 September (she should check the dates of the market turmoil) and stated that she 'did not want to be commenting on previous prime ministers'. The strategy of distancing the Tory Party from Truss had been watered down after just a day. It is not good enough. Having left any serious criticisms for too long (31 months too long), this is no time for half measures. If the Conservatives want the right to be heard again by those voters who prioritise economic stability, they need to do this properly. Emphatically, unequivocally and ruthlessly. That means not just taking on Truss, but the thinking behind the mini-Budget. Contrary to the arguments made by the Trussites, tax cuts generally do not pay for themselves. Fiscal responsibility should come before tax cuts. Independent institutions such as the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility are not to blame for our economic difficulties. The events of autumn 2022 were not the result of a conspiracy but incompetence. The leadership of the Conservative Party should be making and winning those arguments now. This means that it will be impossible to offer unfunded tax cuts at the next general election as part of a retail offer, but that is the price that must be paid to recover economic credibility. While they are at it, there are other aspects of the party's recent history that should be addressed. The Conservatives were deeply damaged by the partygate scandal and the impression that the rules that applied to everyone else did not apply to them. According to a parliamentary committee on which there was a Tory majority, Boris Johnson misled the House of Commons about this matter and a 90-day suspension from the Commons would have been recommended had he not resigned as an MP. If the Tories want a reputation for economic competence and integrity (and that should not be too much to ask), they should make it clear that both Johnson's and Truss's days as Conservative parliamentary candidates are over. When distancing themselves from those aspects of their past that alienate the voters they need, what is required from the Tories are confident strides, not small, tentative steps. They have at least made a start, but it would be a grave mistake to think that the job is done. Related
