New Labour leader elected to run Cambridge City Council
A new Labour leader of a city council has been elected after the previous post-holder stepped down to concentrate on being a ward councillor.Cameron Holloway, who represents the Newnham ward on the authority, was formally elected during the council's annual meeting on Thursday.Mike Davey, the authority's former leader, announced his intention to step down in March, in order to also spend more time with his family. Holloway, who served as the executive councillor for community safety, homelessness and wellbeing, said his priority "will always be to serve our community to the best of my abilities".
He added that he would "work tirelessly to ensure that every resident's voice is heard, to empower and support our communities, and to protect the environment – now and for future generations".
Recent appointments
The Labour Party runs Cambridge City Council with 24 councillors; there are 12 Liberal Democrat councillors, five Green Party councillors and one Conservative member. Rachel Wade, a Labour councillor who represents West Chesterton, was also appointed deputy leader of the council on Thursday.
Dinah Pounds, a Labour councillor who represents Romsey, was elected as ceremonial mayor of Cambridge at the same meeting. Her deputy mayor will be Richard Swift, a Labour councillor for West Chesterton.
Follow Cambridgeshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
17 minutes ago
- BBC News
PM acknowledges need for clarity on winter fuel payment changes
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said "the sooner" his government provides clarity on changes to the winter fuel payment "the better".Speaking to the BBC's Today programme, he reiterated that ministers were reviewing which pensioners should receive the payment but added he wanted to be "absolutely clear where the money is coming from" before setting out the details. After coming to power in July last year, the Labour government announced it was withdrawing the annual payment - worth up to £300 - from more than 10 million last month Sir Keir said he would be partially reversing that decision, making changes to allow "more pensioners" to qualify again. The government is yet to spell out which pensioners will regain their entitlement to the money, although Treasury Minister Darren Jones has said millionaires should not be getting "subsidy for their energy bills" and that payments would be "targeted to those that need it the most". An announcement could come at the Budget in the autumn or even as early as next week when Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivers her Spending Review. Asked if he still believed his government had been right to restrict winter fuel payments last summer, Sir Keir said he had inherited an economy that was "completely broken"."It was our duty to stabilise the economy and to fill in that £22bn black hole. I'm not going to resile from that."His U-turn came after pressure from some Labour MPs, who are also expressing concern about the two-child benefit cap and proposed cuts to disability on whether he would consider increasing taxes to raise more money, the prime minister said the UK's underlying problem in recent years had been "flat or anaemic growth"."I don't think you can tax yourself to growth - we have got high taxes as it is."Reform UK, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party have called for the winter fuel payments to be restored to all pensioners. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said "millionaire" pensioners should not be eligible. Previously, the winter fuel payment had been paid to all pensioners regardless of income or wealth. Households with a pensioner under 80 received an annual lump sum of £200, rising to £300 for pensioners over taking office, Labour restricted the payment to those pensioners who qualify for pension credit and other income-related benefits - a move which saved an estimated £ income threshold for pension credit, the main benefit to qualify to continue to receive winter fuel payments, is currently £11,800 a year for individuals and £18,023 for pensioner a new way of increasing the number of eligible pensioners is likely to be tricky for the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said creating a new means-test would create "hassle" for pensioners and result in many not claiming the think tank, the Resolution Foundation, has estimated that expanding the threshold pension credit by 10% could cost £2.5bn.
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
UK manufacturing shrinks again but may be ‘turning a corner'
The UK manufacturing sector shrank again last month but may be 'turning a corner', according to new figures. Factories saw the recent downturn linked to trade tensions, US tariffs and higher costs slow down during May but highlighted that confidence was still 'subdued'. The S&P Global UK manufacturing PMI survey, watched closely by economists, showed a reading of 46.4 in May, up from 45.4 in April. Any reading above 50 indicates that activity is growing while any score below means it is contracting. The sector is, therefore, still contracting, but at a slower rate. It was a stronger performance than expected, with economists having predicted a reading of 45.1 for the month. Rob Dobson, director at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said: 'May PMI data indicate that UK manufacturing faces major challenges, including turbulent market conditions, trade uncertainties, low client confidence and rising tax-related wage costs. 'Downturns in output, new orders and new export business have continued, and business optimism has stayed subdued by the historical standards of the survey. 'There are some signs of manufacturing turning a corner, though. 'PMI indices tracking output and new orders have moved higher in each of the past two months, suggesting the downturn is easing, and came in better than the earlier flash estimates for May.' Firms saw factory production contract again as companies scaled back production due to a reduction in new work, both in the UK and from overseas clients. Total new business volumes also decreased further, although this was at a slower rate than the previous month. Weak global market conditions, trade uncertainty, low customer confidence and cost pressures linked to the recent rise in employer national insurance contributions were all linked to the continued decline. However, some firms indicated that warmer weather conditions helped support positive sales in May. The latest figures come amid continued uncertainty over US President Donald Trump's tariff plans, which continued to change in recent weeks. Mr Trump said a new 50% import tariff on steel and aluminium will come into force on Wednesday. The US agreed earlier this month that it will ultimately drop these tariffs from imports of these products from the UK, but firms in these sectors are now expected to face the 50% rate until the details on UK-US deal are confirmed.
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Defence doesn't just need more money. It needs wholesale reform
Today saw the unveiling of the much awaited Strategic Defence Review. Commissioned nearly a year ago and presented by an independent panel including Lord Robertson, Fiona Hill, and General Richard Barrons it has been a long time coming and the crescendo of speculation and rumours is now at an end. Which is a shame really because the review itself is something of a disappointment. It's long, well written, insightful in places and contains some interesting strategic guidance. The problem is it lacks foundations. Defence doesn't just need more money. It needs a root and branch overhaul of the systems, infrastructure and mindset that underpins it. These are largely absent from this document at a time in which they are needed more than ever. The SDR was designed to: 'determine the roles, capabilities and reforms required by UK defence to meet the challenges, threats and opportunities of the twenty-first century, deliverable and affordable within the resources available to defence within the trajectory to 2.5 per cent. The Review will ensure that Defence is central both to the security, and to the economic growth and prosperity, of the United Kingdom'. But what drafting it has shown, almost from the off, is the gulf between what the Ministry of Defence thinks it needs to achieve this last sentence and the 2.5 per cent the Treasury thinks it can afford to do so. The Prime Minister, despite making 'defence the central organising principle of government', has not arbitrated to the extent required to resolve this difference. The current promise of '2.5 per cent by 2027', an increase in 0.2 per cent, is not enough to do anything but paper over the cracks caused by 30 years of underinvestment. Only now is the Defence Secretary talking in terms of '3 per cent by 2034' which by many, myself included, is too little too late. Unless this is resolved, the SDR remains window dressing. A document that doesn't articulate and then balance Ends, Ways and Means is not a strategy; it's a think piece. The Hague summit later this month will be key. Many countries attending are now talking openly in terms of a rapid 'increase to 3.5 per cent on defence and a further 1.5 per cent on broader security measures'. We can not pretend to hold any sort of a leadership position on defence if we don't move in the same direction, and fast. The usual, 'by the end of next Parliament', or 'when economic conditions allow' will show that we are still not serious and our allies who are already prioritising this spending over their own domestic needs will not be impressed. It has also been noticeable during the build-up to today that the ministry has done that thing it occasionally does when the pressure is on, to forget that there are actual military people at the other end of these decisions – the pesky armed forces getting in the way of the politics of Defence again. The respective heads of service consequently have been given very little time to explain to their teams why not much is going to change. The content itself is based around 'five defence pillars'. The first is a move to 'war-fighting readiness' with suitable robust accompanying rhetoric about lethality and deterrence. Second can be summarised as 'Nato first (but not Nato only)'. From a navy perspective this clearly means focussing on the North Atlantic, protection of Critical Undersea Infrastructure (CUI) and the nuclear deterrent, but does not rule out global deployments such as the one HMS Prince of Wales is currently undertaking. The third describes how defence is an 'engine for growth', but here there is a clear munitions and land bias. Shipbuilding – something that could contribute massively – barely features. If you just take the Harland and Wolff yard in Belfast, they are about to start building the Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ships that our carriers so badly need, but progress is painfully slow. After this they will build the Multi Roll Support Ship that will underpin our Commando Force – this has been discussed for four years now and nothing has happened and now can't because of the FSS backlog. Finally, many years from now, they will move on to building more fleet tankers. But where are these orders, what is the timeline and where is the imperative to accelerate it? Where is the ambition and drive that the industry needs to thrive and expand in accordance with this 'engine for growth'? This is almost an exemplar of the whole thing; loads capability and revenue potential and yet seemingly no one with the leadership or levers to get on with it. Fourth is the requirement to innovate, largely driven by the lessons from Ukraine. If you have any dealings with Small and Medium Enterprises trying to get business in the MOD, you will know that we have created very nearly the worst business environment possible for these engines of UK excellence and change. Our speed of drone production is woeful and has to change if we want to just keep up, much less excel. SMEs hoping this document would unlock funding and a new framework into which they could plug will be disappointed. The fifth and final pillar is about national resilience and a whole-of-society approach to national security. If getting the public to care about resilience means they in turn care about defence enough to make it votable, then we should drive hard for that. From a naval perspective there are no real surprises. There is a reiteration of the importance of the sea to our survival as an island nation followed by a section on the importance of the nuclear deterrent, CUI protection (both data and energy) and how fast the threat to that is changing. There is a push to 'uncrewed where possible, crewed where necessary', how that could affect carrier operations in the future and how AI will improve our Maritime Domain Awareness, which is so important around the UK, Baltic and High North. Nuclear powered attack submarines get a boost with an aspiration for the Aukus tri-lateral agreement to eventually provide us with twelve of these behemoths. This might be the single line in the report that best reflects the strategic nature of what is now required. Twelve would be an excellent operational outcome but requires a huge uplift in expenditure that would include a second build line at Barrow. Great, but none of that is happening at 2.5 per cent. Likewise, the aspiration to increase to 25 frigates and destroyers. With the Type 31 about to start flying off the shelf, what does the overall surface ship breakdown look like between current and future destroyers (the stalled Type 83 programme), the anti-submarine Type 26 and the general purpose Type 31 frigate. Whatever happened to the Type 32 – does this get reborn or should we just keep building the Type 31 and export the ones we don't need. What about icebreakers, mine warfare support and patrol vessels. Start totting that lot up and you can see why many of these questions were dodged. The review discusses exports which is an area where the UK is increasingly being seen as a good ally (insert 'as the US wobbles' if you wish). Away from the navy there are a couple of interesting sections. The plan to grow the army is commendable until you realise we are talking about going from 73,000 to 76,000, at which point it feels performative, particularly as they continue to lose soldiers at a rate of about 300 a month. Growing the Army is an excellent idea, but we need to make it meaningful. There is a very interesting section on the possibility of acquiring a fleet of F-35As for the RAF. I argued here not long ago that this would be a good way to bridge the gap that is appearing between the ageing Typhoon and the 6 th Generation Tempest fighter. Nice to see it being aired as an option in the SDR. Even more interesting is the idea that these jets could be part of a tactical nuclear strike option. As a country I think we need this, but the financial, legal and operating complexities inherent in using the F-35 as the solution makes your eyes water. In terms of overall defence and security architecture, this review is but one part. I have mentioned the Hague summit later this month which may or may not alter the headline figures. We also know that the investment decisions required to make this a costed strategy will be deferred to a Defence Investment Plan due in the autumn. If there is optimism to be drawn from this SDR it is to see it as part of a whole, but given how hard we have found cohering just the defence part in a timely fashion, I shall remain sceptical until proven wrong. Overall this SDR reminds me of a cake. A nice looking one with some pretty icing and the promise of some candles tomorrow. The problem is, the defence cake doesn't really need more icing, it needs a new pedestal, more base ingredients and if not new chefs, at least a wholly new approach to baking. The risk aversion and lack of accountability that has plagued defence decision making in recent decades is not addressed. Neither is the treasury-led sense that defence is tomorrow's problem, certainly when compared to other domestic priorities. If you're a glass half full type, the review should be seen as part of a whole, but let's see. And at least the Treasury isn't visibly eating the cake like in previous reviews. But there is no escaping the fact that everyone in Europe thinks the defence paradigm has now changed sufficiently to force through more money and new ways of working. We have between now and the Hague summit to show that it has here too, or we will be left behind, lose defence credibility and most importantly, be less safe. Tom Sharpe OBE served for 27 years as a Royal Navy officer, commanding four different warships. He specialised first as a Fighter Controller and then as an Anti Air Warfare Officer
