Council rejects VE Day anniversary parade because it's ‘too elitist'
A military parade marking the eightieth anniversary of VE Day has been rejected by councillors because it is 'too elitist'.
Dacorum borough council in Hertfordshire has eschewed hosting any formal event to mark the end of the Second World War in Europe on May 8.
This is despite the Lib Dem-run council holding a day-long event last year called '50 Fest' – which included a colourful parade through Hemel Hempstead – to mark its 50th birthday.
Instead, it has told residents to hold their own street parties if they want to commemorate the German surrender to the allies 80 years ago.
Special events are being planned across the UK including a flypast over London, and a thanksgiving service at Westminster Abbey attended by members of the Royal family and veterans.
Asked why there wasn't going to be a military parade, Caroline Smith-Wright, of Dacorum borough council, told a meeting on April 2: 'We have decided at this point to enable communities to come together and have street parties and I think that is for the community, that is for everyone, that encompasses everybody – it doesn't just leave the elite and people to just, kind of, parade.
'This is about normal people celebrating in their communities, bringing people together, sharing food, sitting at a table, celebrating and I think that's a fine way to celebrate VE Day.'
The decision was condemned by opposition councillors on all sides.
Tory Graeme Elliot said: 'I'm very dismayed about the lack of celebrations. My father fought in that war. I had an uncle who died in the Battle of France. That was the golden generation. So you think 50 years of a council is far more important than the men and women who gave their lives?'
Labour councillor Pete Hannell said the council should reconsider its position to honour the 'sacrifices' made.
He added: 'My children and grandchildren are facing a war in Europe now where the aggressor is being appeased in the way that Chamberlain was arguably appeasing Hitler in 1938.'
Jan Maddern, an independent, agreed: 'I'm quite dismayed by this as well. We missed in effect the 75th anniversary of VE Day because we were in Covid. I can remember having street parties where we all sat on our drives in my cul-de-sac, safe distancing from everyone else. I think we should do better.'
She pointed out that the council funded a box of bunting and other street party decorations for the last Royal wedding but would not be offering anything for the 80th anniversary of VE Day.
But in response, Ms Smith-Wright said: 'I do appreciate and understand everyone's strong feelings. As far as street parties go, we invite residents to sign up to have their road closed – that's an immense expense. It costs thousands to shut a road for a street party, it's free currently.'
The Liberal Democrats took control of the council last May but have been mired by controversy after two council leaders were forced to stand down amid allegations of misogyny and bullying.
Eight female Liberal Democrat councillors accused the leadership of failing to adequately deal with the claims and went independent, leaving the council with no overall control.
Hashtags
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
Reform is a serious political force in Scotland but Tories in trouble
Formerly a seat where the SNP could be confident of winning a substantial majority, Hamilton is now a marginal seat for the first time, with a Labour majority of just 602 votes over the SNP. Reform UK is clearly on the march in Scotland, and this result bears out the surge in support for the party seen in British-wide opinion polls so far this year, with over a quarter of voters who turned out in Hamilton casting their vote for the party. Read more It would be wrong to read too much into one by-election result. By-elections are unusual events, where governments tend to lose support, people may vote in protest and turnout is typically much lower than at Holyrood elections. Nonetheless, the result in Hamilton will matter to all Scotland's parties for its symbolic importance ahead of next May's Scottish Parliament elections. For Scottish Labour, this by-election win will help to reverse the recent narrative of Labour decline. Following the party's slump in the polls over the last 10 months, the result signals that Labour can still win in Scotland and will put wind back in the party's sails. It underlines that listening to and acting on voters' concerns can help to turn the party's fortunes around – Keir Starmer's announcement of a U-turn on cuts to the winter fuel payment may well have helped the party's popularity among voters in Hamilton. The win will also give the UK Labour Party a much-needed boost, after its heavy losses in parts of England at May's local elections, losing the Runcorn by-election to Reform UK and trailing 7 points behind Reform UK in the polls UK-wide. Nigel Farage is less popular in Scotland than he is in England (Image: free) The result is a major blow to the SNP, who were widely tipped to win the seat. While incumbent governments tend to suffer at by-elections, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is the kind of central belt seat that the SNP will need to retain if it is to hold onto power in Scotland next May. This result is an early sign that that will be a tough contest. The SNP has topped recent national polls, with a double-digit lead over Scottish Labour – a remarkable position for a party that has been in power in Scotland for 18 years. This by-election will be an unwelcome reminder that voters' preferences can and do shift. While John Swinney is widely seen as having steadied the ship since his election as party leader last May – and is the least unpopular of any of the party leaders among voters – this result suggests more turbulent times may lie ahead for the SNP. Reform UK were the unknown quantity ahead of this by-election. Their performance in Hamilton, finishing less than 1,000 votes behind the SNP, proves that the party can attract significant swathes of voters north of the border as well as in England. The result emphasises that Reform UK are now a serious political force in Scotland. Ahead of the next Holyrood elections, the party has a real opportunity to paint itself as the home for voters who want change. While Nigel Farage is less popular in Scotland than he is in England, this does not appear to have been holding the party back in the polls – reflecting that the rise of Reform UK may be being driven by wider public dissatisfaction and the unpopularity of other parties more than by views of its leadership. The result signals continued gloom for the Conservatives in Scotland. While the party was widely expected to come fourth, this was a poor result for Russell Findlay's party, who managed to hang onto their deposit with 6% of the vote. Read more The pattern seen in recent Scotland polls of the Conservatives haemorrhaging voter support to Reform has been borne out at this by-election. On this evidence, the Conservatives have a mountain to climb if they are to convince Scottish voters to lend them their votes next May. Will the result in Hamilton turn out to be a sign of which way the electoral winds are blowing ahead of Holyrood elections next May? It certainly underlines that this is a time of volatility in Scottish politics and shifting voter preferences. While Anas Sarwar and his team will take heart from this win, Scottish Labour's fortunes are closely connected with those of the UK party. How Scotland's voters are feeling about the UK Government's performance under Keir Starmer's leadership is likely to be an important factor shaping voter support at the ballot box. If it is to take seats from the SNP next May, Scottish Labour needs to show those who voted for the UK party at the General Election because of issues like public services, the cost of living and inequality that they were right to do so. Emily Gray, Managing Director, Ipsos Scotland
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
From bros to foes: how the unlikely Trump-Musk relationship imploded
Two White House officials familiar with the matter said Trump expressed confusion and frustration in the meeting about Musk's attacks on his sweeping tax and spending bill. But he held back, the officials said, because he wanted to preserve Musk's political and financial support ahead of the midterm elections. By Thursday afternoon, Trump's mood had shifted. He had not spoken to Musk since the attacks began and was fuming over what one White House aide described as a 'completely bats**t' tirade by the Tesla CEO on X, his social media platform. Musk had blasted Trump's tax bill as fiscally reckless and a 'disgusting abomination'. He vowed to oppose any Republican lawmaker who supported it. The bill would fulfil many of Trump's priorities while adding, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $2.4 trillion to the $36.2 trillion US public debt. Privately, Trump had called Musk volatile. On Thursday, he told his team, it was time to take the gloves off. Sitting next to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office, Trump told reporters he was 'very disappointed' in his former adviser. Musk quickly hit back on social media and the back-and-forth devolved from there. 'The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's government subsidies and contracts,' Trump posted on Truth Social, his social media site. Within minutes, Musk said it might be time to create a new political party and endorsed a post on X from Ian Miles Cheong, a prominent Musk supporter and right-wing activist, calling for Trump's impeachment. The Trump-Musk relationship at its height was unprecedented in Washington — a sitting president granting a billionaire tech CEO access and influence inside the White House and throughout his government. Musk spent nearly $300m backing Trump's campaign and other Republicans last year. For months, Musk played both insider and disruptor, shaping policy conversations behind the scenes, amplifying Trump's agenda to millions online, and attacking the bureaucracy and federal spending through his self-styled Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Just last week, Trump hosted a farewell for Musk and declared that 'Elon is really not leaving'. Now, he had not only left but had turned into a top critic. Hours after Trump's Oval Office remarks, a third White House official expressed surprise at Musk's turnaround. It 'caught the president and the entire West Wing off guard', she said. Musk did not respond to emails seeking comment about the downturn in relations. His super PAC spending group, America PAC, and spokeswoman Katie Miller did not respond to calls and texts requesting comment. In a statement, the White House called the breakup an 'unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted'. The Musk-Trump breakup sent Tesla's stock price plunging and drove uncertainty among Trump's allies in Congress, who are working to pass the monumental spending package that Democrats and a small number of vocal Republicans oppose. The breakup could reshape both men's futures. For Trump, losing Musk's backing threatens his growing influence among tech donors, social media audiences, and younger male voters — key groups that may now be harder to reach. It could also complicate fundraising ahead of next year's midterm elections. For Musk, the stakes are potentially even higher. The break risks intensified scrutiny of his business practices that could jeopardise government contracts and invite regulatory probes, which might threaten his companies' profits. Some of Musk's friends and associates were stunned by the fallout, with a number of them only recently expressing confidence that the partnership would endure, according to two other sources familiar with the dynamics. The split had been simmering for weeks, said the first two White House officials, but the breaking point was over personnel: Trump's decision to pull his nomination of Jared Isaacman, Musk's hand-picked candidate to be Nasa administrator. 'He was not happy' about Isaacman, one of the White House officials said of Musk. Isaacman, a billionaire entrepreneur and close Musk ally, was seen as key to advancing Musk's vision for space exploration and commercial space ventures. After his nomination was scuttled, Isaacman posted on X: 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump, the Senate and all those who supported me.' The move was viewed within the administration as a direct snub to Musk, the two officials said, signalling a loss of political clout and deepening the rift between him and Trump's team. Before the Isaacman episode, top White House aides behind the scenes had already begun limiting Musk's influence — quietly walking back his authority over staffing and budget decisions. Trump himself reinforced that message in early March, telling his cabinet that department secretaries, not Musk, had the final say over agency operations. At the same time, Musk began to hint that his time in government would come to a close, while expressing frustration at times that he could not more aggressively cut spending. His threats and complaints about Trump's bill grew louder, but inside the White House, few believed they would seriously alter the course of the legislation — even as some worried about the fallout on the midterms from Musk's warnings to cut political spending, the first two White House officials said. Still, a fourth White House official dismissed the impact of Musk's words on the president's signature bill. 'We're very confident,' he said. 'No one has changed their minds.' But there was bafflement at the White House at how a relationship that only last week had been celebrated in the Oval Office had taken such a turn. Time will tell whether the rift can be repaired. White House aides have scheduled a call between the two men on Friday.
Edinburgh Reporter
2 hours ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Lorna Slater will stand for leadership and selection
In just under a year's time the Scottish Parliamentary election will have decided who will be running the government for the following five years. As is the way of the polls there are some showing that Labour will win, and others that the SNP will win. The proportional representation by which MSPs are elected is not supposed to return a majority government – it happened only once, unusually, with the SNP under Alex Salmond in 2011. Labour won most seats and most votes in 1999 and 2003 but no overall majority. In 2021 the SNP was one short of a majority (there are 129 seats so the majority is 65). In an effort to do business more easily, then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, entered into the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens and Lorna Slater and Patrick Harvie, the co-conveners of the party became government ministers. Now that there is one year before the election Lorna Slater said that her party offers the 'real, hopeful' and 'transformative' change that Scotland needs. We met with Ms Slater on the day when the programme for government was about to be announced by John Swinney the First Minister. She did not believe it would bring many changes, but was proved wrong on one policy – the scrapping of peak rail fares. However the Scottish Greens later responded to the announcement to say that while very welcome and a 'huge win for commuters and climate' the policy change amounted to a U-turn by the government. They also pointed out that this policy was 'initially secured by the Scottish Greens through budget negotiations in 2023 before it was then dropped by the SNP who said the numbers did not stack up to allow them to continue supporting it'. Ahead of the Programme for Government Ms Slater – who hopes to be selected to stand as Green candidate next year, and who hopes to continue as co-leader after an internal election in the summer, said: 'I don't think there'll be any new news. I think it will absolutely be a holding pattern. They don't have a plan for bringing down people's bills, because that would involve having an ambitious heat and buildings bill to insulate homes and improve the grant system and really roll out that programme. 'I think that they're going to kind of curl in on themselves and be unambitious because they're worried about doing anything ambitious before an election.' Out of government Asked if she misses being in government Ms Slater said: 'I really miss the ambitious positive energy we have because we had some really good, ambitious things going, and all the bills that have come out since we've been in government without our influence have been gutted. 'Natural Environment Bill, gutted, heat in buildings Bill, gutted, rent controls watered down. And it just goes to show that with the Greens in there, we were much more ambitious on taking practical action on climate, much more ambitious on tackling landlords, tackling polluting corporations, tackling the vested interests – and the SNP have a lot less interest in that. They have much more interest in keeping things as they are, sort of steadying the ship instead of making big change. And the Greens were about making that big change.' As to the fallout from Scotland's deposit return scheme which has landed the government in court, being sued by Biffa for their expenses getting ready for legislation which did not materialise, she is matter of fact. She said: 'The legislation for that was, of course, passed before I was elected. So in 2020 Scottish Parliament agreed that Scotland would have a deposit return scheme. So that already existed before I was in post, my role was to work with industry to implement that scheme. And that I did, we were weeks away from launching the scheme. 'We had nearly all the producers in Scotland lined up. I think it was 95% of the items that were on shelves in Scotland. The producers of those items had paid their money. They were part of the scheme and we had a workable scheme. It would absolutely have launched on time. It would have had maybe a bit of a rocky start, a bit of a phasing in period, but we absolutely would have launched on time. 'But then because Alister Jack (then Secretary of State for Scotland) interfered with it from February 2023 by putting doubts in the media, (and that was despite the fact that he had stood on Boris Johnson's manifesto to implement a deposit return scheme with with glass), he was able to use the internal market act to veto the scheme. 'Alister Jack never gave any justification or basis for that interference. We asked repeatedly why he didn't want glass in the scheme. He never produced any evidence for that. So that was purely political interference in terms of the scheme itself.' At the time in April 2023 the Scottish Greens called for an investigation into the comments Mr Jack made, saying he had misled the House of Commons. Ms Slater said that this particular interference shows how the Internal Market Act has been used to 'stifle devolution'. She said: ' The deposit return scheme was a fully devolved matter, protecting the environment, recycling schemes – all fully devolved. That the internal market act can be used to undermine Scotland's ambitions and to harm Scottish businesses is a shocking state of affairs.' Under the still relatively new UK government administration she still holds the view that devolution is under threat. She said: 'It's an interesting question about how the Labour government is going to treat this. I have noted of course, that Wales is being allowed to continue forward with a deposit return scheme that has glass in it, even though that does interfere with the Internal market act. So why can't Scotland? Why does Wales get a free pass, and Scotland doesn't. So it isn't clear at all that Keir Starmer is changing direction. He hasn't said he will repeal or even revise the internal market act. So the status quo remains. It depends on the goodwill of individual ministers.' One of the reasons that the Scottish Greens and the SNP made for a relatively easy marriage was over the question of independence on which they agree. Ms Slater said: 'I'm a proponent of Scottish independence, and that is the only way we can be sure to put in place plans and programs that we know won't be interfered with by the UK government.' Whether or not I am selected as a candidate, the Scottish Greens will be standing on being a proudly progressive party of Scottish independence. Other parties, Labour, SNP, have conceded that left ground are moving toward the centre. They're allowing Reform to pull them in that rightward direction. You can see that with Labour, with its anti immigration policies, with its neglect of the social security net, the betrayal of the WASPI women, betrayal of disabled people, people who need benefits to live on – sick and disabled people. 'The Scottish Greens will not betray that ground. We are solidly behind equalities. We are absolutely trans rights supporters. We are absolutely in favour of ambitious work toward net zero. We are not going to give this ground. All of these things are really important to us. Human rights are important to us. A secure social safety net. Taxing the rich to pay for it is something we will we are not shy about saying, the rich for too long, have been under taxed. Have increased their wealth enormously well the poorest suffer. We have hungry children in this country. We also have billionaires. The Scottish Greens don't think that that's right, and that's the ground that we are going to contest the election.' This then shows little change in any policy which the party has stood on before – and their numbers improved at the last election. She continued: 'We are a party of values. We are a value led party. We believe in peace, equality, sustainability and human rights. Radical local democracy. We are not going to change our values, we believe that we set out a vision for a fairer, greener, independent Scotland, and it's how effectively we can persuade people that we have the power to implement such a vision, that it is possible that the future can be brilliant. We just have to decide to make it so. Constituency As to her constituents in Lothians they tell the stories of poverty and lack of benefits that are heard all too often. Ms Slater said that at the top of people's minds is their 'quality of life, and that includes everything from being able to pay their rent, being able to find housing in Edinburgh to anti social behaviour, whether it's in Portobello or Corstorphine. And people are experiencing anti social, social behaviour in the streets, all the usual troubles that go with having an NHS and care system industry and people being able to find places for loved ones in care homes people being able to get medical procedures in a timely manner. 'All those things are, of course, what people are concerned with. We also get a reasonable amount of case work because of decisions of the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Those are decisions that are not taken it at the Scottish level, but we work with constituents who are, you know, facing exorbitant fees, deportation, uncertainty in their visa status because of paperwork problems, those are all the kind of things we can support people with.' But there is at least one small chink of light. Asked if it is easier to work with the UK Government under Labour she concedes it is 'slightly easier, yes it is slightly easier. The Conservative government was extremely hostile to Scottish interests. Some of their MPs wouldn't take, correspondence from MSPs, wouldn't help our constituents if they went through an MSP – so they had to always go through an MP. 'I think things are definitely more cooperative, but it doesn't solve the problem that so much of what we need to do we can't help people with because it has to go to London, because it's not devolved. 'And every single day we come across things, Oh, can we help with this? No, it's not devolved. If only Scotland were an independent country, we could take action these things, and that is frustrating every single day.' Lorna Slater MSP Like this: Like Related
