Who is Derbyshire's new leader Alan Graves?
"I know I have been around the block a long time but the majority of my members have not."Alan Graves is about to take the reins as the new Reform UK leader of Derbyshire County Council with 41 party colleagues who are almost entirely brand new to their positions.The same cannot be said for the 62-year-old, a councillor and parliamentary candidate going back decades.Before his election as county leader, a Reform colleague of his on Derby City Council, where he also leads the party, described him to me as "the obvious choice".
Praise was not just limited to his local colleagues.Rarely amongst their new cluster of council leaders, Reform UK's senior leadership team have known Graves for a long time as the man who spearheaded their first group of elected councillors in the country."Alan is a seasoned local government veteran," one Reform figure glowed, describing him as a "champion" who will "lead with distinction".It was his cluster of Reform UK councillors on the city council, a rare slither of turquoise in English local government, that prompted the then-leader Richard Tice to describe Derby as the party's "spiritual heartland" to me during their spring conference there in 2023.The now deputy leader of the party told me this week he was "delighted" to see Graves installed as leader."His hard work and commitment is second to none," Tice said.
His opponents, of course, have their reservations."Alan is an experienced councillor who I am sure has the capability to lead", said Derby City Council's Labour leader Nadine Peatfield."But I believe he will find the experience of leading a multimillion-pound organisation extremely different to heckling from the sidelines."
Alan Graves is a retired software sales director who was first elected to Derby City Council as a Labour councillor in 1995 but left the party in 2008. He has since been in UKIP, the Brexit Party and finally Reform UK since 2020.Graves stood for Parliament as the Brexit Party's candidate in Derby North in 2019 and for Reform UK in Derby South in last summer's general election, finishing second behind Labour.Graves was also the party's first mayor, when he was elected to the position in May 2023, beating his Labour opponent by one vote.At the time, Labour councillors including the now MP for Derby South Baggy Shanker, walked out in protest.All this is the reason why there were some raised eyebrows when he told me this week that he was not a "career politician"."I'm a person in politics not a politician...I don't try and go up the greasy pole," he told BBC Radio Derby in 2024 when he was running for mayor of the East Midlands.He went on to lose the race to Labour's Claire Ward.
Graves told me he intends to stay on as a city councillor for Reform UK representing Alvaston, something his opponents will likely criticise. This is especially the case given he has been critical of other councillors for seeking two roles in the past, including those who are both councillors and MPs."There's lots of councillors that have two council roles and I'm no different to that," he told me.
As part of his 2024 East Midlands mayoral campaign, he vowed to seek legal advice on scrapping the position within his first 100 days.Another part of his platform was to ensure the new combined authority "does not waste money" - so he has been talking about what has now been coined Reform's "DOGE" message since well before this recent local election campaign.In another reflection of this, he has also said previously he would cut cabinet positions on the city council down to just three roles - though he later apologised when in the same breath, he appeared to use a cabinet member's maternity leave as an example of councillors not pulling their weight.
All this is indicative of the fact that Derbyshire's new leader is not someone who is afraid to wade into controversy. In fact, the very next day after his election this week, we met again at a hearing he faced at the city council.A committee found he had broken council rules by reading out extracts of a confidential report in a social media video.Graves had been unhappy about how a dispute between himself and another councillor was handled by officers.He told me he had no regrets."It's exposed the council for the fact that there's lots of injustices going on," he said.I asked if it showed he has a cavalier attitude towards the rules."Absolutely not. I've been doing this for 30 years and this is the first time it's happened," he responded."I didn't get the justice I deserved."
What can we expect?
Graves was reluctant to go into too much policy detail when he emerged from Reform's AGM at Matlock County Hall this week."Give us a chance to sit in the chair", he said.But we can likely expect net zero initiatives and spending to be curbed, a leadership prepared to "fight" the Home Office on any further moves to house asylum seekers in Derbyshire hotels, and some symbolic dictats on diversity training and what flags should be flown outside the council.But, as a colleague of his in the party put it to me recently when their commitment to community funding was questioned, "everything is under review".
"It's about getting the brush out and making sure we do a proper sweep...I think people will see changes quite quickly", Graves said."We are normal people and we're going to try and change the way the council does things."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
44 minutes ago
- BBC News
Family visa income threshold should be lower, review says
The minimum income threshold for family visas should be relaxed, a government-commissioned review has recommended.A report by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has suggested a reduction from the current level of £29, warned against previous proposals to raise the threshold to the same level as for skilled workers - £38,700 a year - saying it could breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).The Conservatives said that the UK should leave the ECHR if it "stops us from setting our own visa rules". Article 8 of the ECHR enshrines the right to family threshold is the minimum income a British citizen or settled resident must earn to bring their partner to join them in the UK. If the partner is already in the UK on a valid visa, their income also counts towards the minimum applications are made by people not already living in the UK. The MAC suggested a range of possible new thresholds. It said a level between £23,000 to £25,000 would enable families to support themselves.A threshold of between £24,000 to £28,000 meanwhile would put more emphasis on economic wellbeing - both of the families themselves and for said it did "not understand the rationale" for setting the family visa threshold at the £38,700 level for skilled workers, as the two visas have "completely different objective[s]".A £38,700 level would be the "most likely to conflict with international law and obligations".It is the government's decision whether to accept any of the MAC's recommendations. Prof Brian Bell, chairman of the MAC, said that balancing family life and economic wellbeing was a "real trade-off"."There is a cost to the UK economy and UK taxpayers of having this route, and we should just be honest about that and say there is a trade-off," he said."But similarly, on the other side, people who say 'we should set it at very high numbers to make sure that we don't lose any money' ignore the massive impact that has on families and the destruction of some relationships and the harm it causes to children." A higher threshold would also have a "negative impact on the family life of a larger number of people", the MAC said. It noted many families with lower incomes still earn enough to support themselves even if they do not make a net positive fiscal impact on the said an adult would need to earn £27,800 to have a neutral impact on the public finances - and £40,400 for a couple to have no impact in the first year a spouse arrived in the MAC did not recommend a higher threshold for families with children, saying the impacts on family life for them would be "particularly significant". In 2023 the previous Conservative government announced plans to raise the salary threshold to £38,700, as part of plans to cut the level of they backed down following criticism that this would keep families apart, settling on a £29,000 threshold with plans to gradually increase it did not implement those further rises when the party came into government and asked the MAC to review the committee said the threshold of £29,000 was already high compared to other high-income countries it had looked at. The MAC said it "was not possible to predict with any confidence" the impact different thresholds would have on the level of net migration - the difference between those entering and leaving the did suggest lowering the threshold from £29,000 to roughly £24,000 may increase net migration by up to 8,000 migration in 2024 was an estimated 431,000 people, down almost 50% on the previous followed record high levels in recent years, with the government under political pressure to get numbers down further. The MAC also criticised the Home Office for its data collection, saying insufficient data "greatly hindered" their review.A Home Office spokesperson said the government was considering the review's findings and would respond in due course. Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said migration figures remain too high and that the government "must urgently re-instate the Conservative plan to further increase the salary threshold"."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," he ECHR, which was established in 1950, sets out the rights and freedoms people are entitled to in the 46 signatory countries and is a central part of UK human rights month, the government said it would bring forward legislation to clarify how aspects of the ECHR should apply in immigration cases.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
What's behind Keir Starmer's decision to back nuclear power?
Keir Starmer has committed the UK to its first significant stake in a new nuclear power plant since the 1980s. The decision to invest almost £18bn of taxpayer money into the Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk was welcomed by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, as the beginning of a 'golden age' of nuclear investment that would be critical to the government's net zero goals. The government said on Tuesday it would commit £14.2bn to the project, including the £2.7bn it earmarked for Sizewell C in the autumn budget. It has already committed £3.6bn to Sizewell over the past two years. Britain's nuclear renaissance will also include spending about £2.5bn of taxpayer money building some of Europe's first small modular reactors (SMR), after the government gave the green light to plans for Rolls-Royce to build three in the UK by the early 2030s. For critics, the technology's high costs and lengthy construction time have always eclipsed the benefits of abundant low-carbon electricity, given Hinkley Point C's current price tag of up to £35bn and repeated delays. There are also persistent concerns over the safety of nuclear reactors, and the disposal of nuclear waste. But questions over whether countries can meet the growing demand for electricity without fossil fuels, and avoid blackouts, mean many governments now believe nuclear represents a price worth paying. Megawatt for megawatt, nuclear power is far more expensive than most renewable energy technologies. But, unlike wind and solar farms, nuclear reactors do not need investment in battery backup technologies to provide a steady, reliable source of low-carbon power. The guaranteed electricity price offered to Hinkley Point C was initially £92 per megawatt-hour but this will fall to £89.50/MWh with the go-ahead for Sizwell C, under the terms of the government's contract with French state-owned EDF. By contrast, the guaranteed price for offshore windfarms which were successful in last year's subsidy auction was just under £59 per megawatt-hour. 'The upfront cost [of nuclear] is undoubtedly high,' said Dr Iain Staffell, an associate professor at Imperial College London. '£14bn could fund around 10 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind versus just 3.2 GW of nuclear. But, these reactors will run day and night, especially valuable when the wind is not blowing.' Prof Mark Wenman, also at Imperial College London, added that the costs needed to be balanced against the fact that these reactors 'will produce low carbon electricity for 80 or possibly 100 years, 24/7, providing around a 10th of the current UK electricity needs'. 'Once paid for, nuclear reactors produce the cheapest electricity of any kind, so this investment should be seen as future-proofing the UK electricity system,' Wenman said. Experts believe that powering a country on 100% renewable energy is technically possible. But there is clear evidence that grid systems running predominantly on wind and solar power can be more expensive in the long run, and could be at higher risk of blackouts. This is because renewable energy cannot help to keep the electrical frequency of the grid stable at around 50Hz in the same way that the spinning turbines of a power plants have done in the past by creating inertia. The answer, according to the government's National Energy System Operator (Neso), is to encourage renewables to become the backbone of the energy system while keeping alternatives such as nuclear, biomass and gas to provide backup for when renewable resources are low and grid stability is needed. The government's independent climate advisers agree. The Climate Change Committee recommends that the UK's nuclear capacity doubles by 2050 because while it is 'relatively expensive on a levelised cost basis' it can provide 'valuable zero-carbon generation at scale'. Britain risks losing the benefits offered by nuclear plants by shutting its ageing nuclear reactors faster than it can build new ones – leaving a gap in the UK's supplies of low-carbon electricity at a time when demand for clean energy is growing. The UK's five existing nuclear power reactors generated 14% of the country's electricity last year – down from the industry's late-1990s peak when 18 nuclear reactors provided more than a quarter of Britain's power. Four of these plants are due to close before the end of the decade, even with plans to extend their lifetimes, while only one nuclear power plant is under construction. The Hinkley Point C project in Somerset was originally due to begin generating electricity by 2017 but it has been delayed until the early 2030s. Driving Britain's nuclear renaissance is the tech industry's appetite for nuclear power. Starmer unveiled plans for a once-in-a-generation nuclear expansion earlier this year alongside an open invitation to tech companies such as Google, Meta and Amazon to invest in AI datacentres in Britain, which could be powered by small modular reactors. This is because world's biggest tech companies are investing in extending the life of nuclear plants and building small modular reactors to help meet the enormous power demands of their datacentres. This growing demand is expected to accelerate with the adoption of artificial intelligence. Earlier this month Meta struck a deal to keep one nuclear reactor of a US utility company in Illinois operating for an extra 20 years to help supply the company's datacentres with low-carbon power. It follows a similar deal from Google to supply its datacentres with nuclear power from half-dozen small reactors built by a California utility company. In addition, Microsoft has paid for the restart the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, the site of the most serious nuclear accident and radiation leak in US history. 'They are very keen to get the datacentres in and they're very alive to the fact that the power is a big issue,' Starmer said.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Packmoor residents oppose plans to build 1,200 homes in village
Hundreds of residents have signed a petition urging the council to reconsider "catastrophic" plans to build up to 1,200 homes in a City Council wants to build the residential development on 80-hectares of council-owned farmland in some residents said the proposals would result in the loss of valuable green space and would put pressure on local council said its Packmoor masterplan would allow a "clearer view" of proposed improvements to highways and local amenities. A petition opposing the plans gained more than 300 signatures in five petitioner, Darren Bamford, said the council was "not listening" to the feedback of residents following the recent consultation."The sheer size of these proposed plans would be absolutely catastrophic for Packmoor," he said."We urge the city council and cabinet to reconsider the proposed masterplan, the impact it could potentially have on Packmoor, its residents, our unique identity as a village and loss of our greenspace."A technical assessment of land to the south-east of Packmoor suggested that it could deliver between 800 and 1,200 homes but most of the land would remain open space.A spokesperson for the local authority said it had "engaged extensively" with hundreds of residents in Packmoor and other areas in the last two years."The council's cabinet has now determined that it is appropriate to develop a masterplan as the next stage in engaging residents," they explained."It is recognised that some residents are opposed to this decision but it will enable a clearer view of the residential, extra care facilities and highways improvements that could be delivered alongside new homes and affordable homes." This news was gathered by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, which covers councils and other public service organisations. Follow BBC Stoke & Staffordshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
