Reform UK's Jenkyns first 100 days as Lincolnshire mayor
So what has Dame Andrea achieved so far?In a fast-moving video on social media, the mayor said she had been "banging the drum for Lincolnshire" and "planting the seeds of growth" during her initial three months in the role.But with a party that could be described as Marmite – many love them, others hate them – there will always be sceptical voices watching their every move.Critics of Reform UK claim their opposition to net zero policies could jeopardise future investment in renewable energy and put thousands of jobs at risk from the Humber to The Wash.As a recent press conference in Lincolnshire, senior party figures said they had "declared war" on green energy projects.Dame Andrea has been a vocal critic of solar farms and even pledged her support for fracking.The mayor recently compared the fight against green energy to the battle faced by Bomber Command, which flew from Lincolnshire during World War Two.Labour MP for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes Melanie Onn said: "After 100 days I'm still no clearer about what positive aspects Reform mayors are going to bring to our area."I really worry that turning their backs on any form of industry means that we are not going to get the economic benefits that devolution should bring."Dame Andrea has insisted she will not be deterred by her critics and will push ahead with a number of projects that will "turbo charge" the economy of Greater Lincolnshire.The mayor is promoting a Great Exhibition for Lincolnshire in October, which she says will promote investment and trade across "our amazing county".Also scheduled for the autumn is a plan to create a Transport for Lincolnshire board, which will push for more investment into the county's infrastructure, particularly on rural bus services.The mayor has also pledged that in the next 12 months, work will start on building a Veteran's Village in Lincolnshire, to accommodate those who have served in the armed forces.Dame Andrea will serve a four year term as head of a combined authority, with a budget of £24m a year.Whether you like her - or not – Dame Andrea Jenkyns continues to be seen by many as an important flag bearer in Reform UK's transition from a party of protest to a party of power.
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.
Download the BBC News app from the App Store for iPhone and iPad or Google Play for Android devices
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Reform-controlled council axes funding for Pride march as deputy leader brands event 'political street theatre'
A Reform-controlled council has cut funding for a Pride march next year after its deputy leader branded the event 'political street theatre'. Darren Grimes, Durham County Council's second-in-command, said the money would instead be diverted to key services. The decision, however, has sparked fury from the event organisers and historic trade union, the Durham Miners' Association. The groups said the event is inclusive of everyone, attracts thousands of people from all over the UK, promotes tourism and helps to boost the local economy. Thousands of people descend on Durham every year for the annual celebration of the LGBT+ community. Durham County Council invested £12,500 in this year's event which is held across two days in May. Announcing the council's decision to scrap the funding, Mr Grimes said: 'Durham Pride won't be getting a single penny from this council next year. 'If Labour or the Lib Dems want to raid their members' budgets to fund political street theatre, that's on them - Reform will spend ours on the services everyone relies on, not on flying the latest alphabet flag for the professional offence industry. 'Pride stopped being a celebration of gay rights a long time ago. 'It's morphed into a travelling billboard for gender ideology and political activism that many in the gay community - myself included - want no part of. 'Taxpayers shouldn't be bankrolling it. The event can and will go ahead safely, but Durham County Council isn't an ATM for contested causes. 'Our residents deserve bins emptied, roads fixed and services funded - not more council-sponsored politics in fancy dress.' The row comes after Durham County Council sparked fury by removing a Pride flag from outside the council's HQ ahead of this year's event. A Ukrainian flag erected by the previous administration outside Durham County Hall was also removed. Liberal Democrat county councillor Ellie Hopgood said: 'We know from their social media posts that Reform councillors are keener on Russia's flag than Ukraine's or Pride's.' She added it was a 'petty and mean-spirited act' ahead of a Pride in Armed Forces event. But the council's deputy leader, Mr Grimes, defended the decision to fly the Union Jack, flag of St George and the County Durham flag. 'Together, they represent every Briton, gay or straight, black or white, Christian, Sikh, or otherwise, who has fought, died, and sacrificed under those colours,' he said. 'Flying our national and local flags is an act of unity. Swapping them out for niche political symbols is just more toxic identity politics.' Reform had previously been forced to clarify its stance on the flying of flags from council buildings. The party had announced that Reform-controlled councils would only fly the Union Jack or St George's flag. But there was uproar after it was claimed this would also ban the flying of county flags, such as the red rose flag of Lancashire. Reform later clarified that it would allow the flying of county flags.
Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Governments spent £2.5m ‘covering up' Afghan data leak
The Labour Government and its Tory predecessor spent almost £2.5m on the Afghan data leak super-injunction, figures have shown. Nearly 24,000 Afghan soldiers and their families were secretly offered asylum after being caught up in the most serious data breach in history. It led the Government to earmark a total of £7bn to relocate Afghan refugees to Britain over the course of five years. Despite the heavy cost of the scheme, the breach was kept secret from the public for 683 days by two successive governments after the first use of a super-injunction by ministers. The super-injunction cost the taxpayer a total of £2.41m, according to figures obtained under freedom of information laws. The Government Legal Department spent almost £1.82m on time and charges for lawyers in relation to the gagging order. A further £598,624.68 was spent on disbursements, the Guido Fawkes political blog reported on Friday. The use of the super-injunction was the first such measure issued 'contra mundum' – against the world – and led to what one judge described as a 'scrutiny vacuum'. The data breach was kept secret to the point that Sir Keir Starmer was only told about it on entering Downing Street after winning the general election last summer. A two-year legal battle was fought to keep the leak a secret, including securing the super-injunction. This meant journalists from The Telegraph and other media organisations faced jail if they reported on the data breach or mentioned the existence of the legal battle. A Royal Marine had sent an email to a group of Afghans in February 2022 which accidentally included a spreadsheet containing the details and identities of 25,000 Afghans applying for asylum. It emerged a year later when an anonymous Facebook user posted extracts of the data, prompting the biggest ever covert evacuation operation in peacetime – Operation Rubific. The previous Tory government argued that the secrecy was necessary to stop data falling into the hands of the Taliban, who swept back to power in Kabul in August 2021. But a Taliban official went on to tell The Telegraph that the group had obtained the 'kill list' shortly after the original leak and already started to hunt down those who were named. John Healey, the Defence Secretary, issued a 'sincere apology' for the incident when the injunction was lifted on July 15, shortly before Parliament rose for its summer recess. Mr Healey insisted that he had felt 'deeply concerned about the lack of transparency' around the data breach. He told the Commons: 'No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner.' Officials have said that almost 7,000 Afghans would be brought to Britain as a direct result of the breach, with a scheme set up specifically to deal with the fallout. The Ministry of Defence has said that 4,500 of these are already in the country or are in transit, with a further 2,400 yet to travel. A further 17,000 Afghans who were affected by the breach have also been deemed eligible to come to Britain. Of this group, 14,000 are already in Britain or in transit. Sir Ben Wallace, the defence secretary at the time of the data breach, said last month that he made 'no apology' for applying for the injunction. 'It was not, as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover-up,' Sir Ben said. 'I took the view that if this leak was reported at the time, the existence of the list would put in peril those we needed to help out.'
The Guardian
2 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why I withdrew my book from an LGBTQ+ literary prize
Last week, I withdrew my nomination from the longlist for the Polari first book prize. The awards had become mired in controversy due to the nomination of the Irish author John Boyne, best known for The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, for the main prize for his novel Earth. Four days before the longlist announcement, Boyne had written in the Irish Independent, celebrating JK Rowling 'as a fellow terf' and saying of women who had 'pilloried' her for her gender activism: 'For every Commander Waterford, there's a Serena Joy standing behind him, ready to pin a handmaiden down as her husband rapes her.' I think such a viewpoint is abhorrent, but Boyne is free to hold whatever views he wants. What was unacceptable was a statement from the Polari prize addressing the backlash, emphasising its commitment to 'support trans rights and amplify trans voices', but defending Boyne's inclusion on the grounds that submissions are assessed purely 'on the merits of craft and content' and that 'within our community, we can at times hold radically different positions on substantive issues'. I immediately withdrew upon reading it, after the resignation of judge Nicola Dinan, who won the prize last year, and withdrawal of fellow longlisted author Mae Diansangu. Since then, a further judge has withdrawn and at least 16 authors across both lists have excused themselves from consideration. It was not a difficult or painful decision – I felt misled about the principles underpinning the organisation and I no longer cared to be awarded by it. I have, in the past, been shortlisted for my work alongside writers whose views I did not agree with. But in those instances, their positions didn't undermine the stated values and politics of the prize. This isn't a matter of differing views, but of an institution properly and accurately representing itself. The prize has always been for the entire LGBTQ+ community, as evidenced by previously shortlisted, and winning, entries from trans writers. And so it is a contradiction to include someone who is trans-exclusionary (terf stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist). The prize claims that it does 'not eliminate books based on the wider views of the writer'. But a prize claiming to be a celebration of LGBTQ+ inclusion should know that the condition of trans people isn't reducible to a debate in which people are simply holding 'different positions' – they are a minority group facing unprecedented levels of harassment and political antagonism. Not all of my fellow longlisted authors have chosen this path; some have, while affirming their commitment to trans rights, stated their intentions to remain. Avi Ben-Zeev (the only trans author nominated) stated his reasoning as, 'If I walk away, I'm erasing my trans story' and regretted that 'transphobia has shifted the conversation away from the celebration of LGBTQ+ literature', while emphasising the solidarity between longlisted writers regardless of their decision. I can understand such a position, but I think it undermines collective solidarity, rather than being an example of it. I think there is significant power in authors acting as a collective bloc. I was particularly moved by the example of the US writers who withdrew from the PEN America literary awards last year, in protest against the institution's lack of criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza. And to me, the real celebration of LGBTQ+ literature has come not from the prize, but from the community that has rallied behind the withdrawn authors. Our withdrawal has been followed by a 800-strong petition to remove Boyne from the longlist. That is not about him per se – he is obviously suffering great personal upset at this situation. It is, once again, about the stated aims of the organisation. We have, of course, been subjected to the usual name-calling: described as the 'Trans Taliban' and 'Queer Isis' by Julie Bindel; accused of being proponents of 'radicalised', 'totalitarian' politics by Canadian novelist Allan Stratton. Some have accused critics of bullying Boyne, and compromising freedom of speech and expression. But we have not called for his books to be pulped, and evidently he has, and continues to be, more than free to share whatever views he likes and write as many books as he wants. Boyne has since issued a statement outlining his views on trans rights and calling on the writers who have withdrawn their nominations to restore themselves to the longlist, writing that he has 'shelves full of awards at home' and that while he would not withdraw, he would ask the judges not to shortlist him. Perhaps some writers will take up this offer. But from where I stand, the response is not for Boyne to propose, as this action is not specifically about him – it is about Polari as an institution. Where does it go from here? This year's prizes are still going ahead and a 'shortlist' will still, somehow, be forged from the depleted pool of authors (PEN America, under similar circumstances, had the good sense to cancel its awards). Polari has also said it will be 'undertaking a full review of the prize processes', to avoid the 'hurt and anger' caused by this year's awards. I do wonder what that will look like. Poring through the public statements of all authors to ensure that nothing offending has been said? I can only hope that whatever processes are put in place will be sufficient to secure the confidence of the queer writers who have found themselves having to weather abuse and hostility for taking a public stand. Mostly, though, I think – with or without Boyne's nomination – Polari needs to figure out what it wants to be. If it wants to be a prize that is inclusive of trans-exclusionary views and writers, it is free to do this and must accept that large swaths of the community will find this intolerable and disengage. I suspect that this reluctance to commit is exactly because of that. As the response to this boycott has shown, the swell of public support is behind those who are supportive of the entire LGBTQ+ community. At one time, Polari seemed to recognise this: Bindel herself has noted that in 2021, after 'the trans train had chugged into town', she was told by its organisers that her presence at an event would cause 'a major pushback'. Polari finds itself at another crossroads, called upon to tell us what kind of organisation it is and where it really stands. Perhaps bridges will be rebuilt and the community will return, or we will go off and build something else. Jason Okundaye is an assistant newsletter editor and writer at the Guardian. He edits The Long Wave newsletter and is the author of Revolutionary Acts: Love & Brotherhood in Black Gay Britain Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
