Reform council claim ‘trans-related' library book ban ‘not a change of policy'
In a post on social media, Kent County Council (KCC) leader Linden Kemkaran said the books were to be removed with immediate effect after a fellow Reform Councillor said he had been informed of 'transgender ideologies' in the children's section of a library.
But KCC has since said that the book which triggered the ban was in fact on display at the front of a library in Herne Bay, rather than the children's section.
The council's Liberal Democrat opposition leader, Antony Hook has said that Reform not following 'proper process' in the council and announcing things on social media has created uncertainty.
Cllr Kemkaran added on X that 'telling children they're in the 'wrong body' is wrong and simply unacceptable' and said that 'trans-related' works would be removed from the children's sections of all 99 of the county's libraries.
The book Reform were referring to was The Autistic Trans Guide to Life by Yenn Purkis and Dr Wenn Lawson, which is a book for autistic trans and/or non-binary adults marketed as providing 'tools and strategies they need to live as their best self'.
There is no suggestion from the promotional material around the book that it contains any reference to telling children they are in the 'wrong bodies'.
In his video posted to social media on Thursday, the Reform Cllr responsible for the ban Paul Webb claimed: 'I was recently contacted by a concerned member of the public who found trans-ideological material and books in the children's section of one of our libraries – I've looked into this, and it was the case,
'I have today issued an instruction for them all to be removed from the children's section of our libraries.'
The council has since rowed back on his suggestion that the book was in the children's section and says that they have not, in fact, changed policy.
A KCC spokesperson told PA Media: 'We have not changed policy. We have simply issued internal instructions to reaffirm existing expectations: that adult books are not to be placed in areas specifically aimed at children, such as children's sections or public welcome displays where children select books.'
It is unclear how the council will classify transgender-related books, and whether there will be a tangible change as a result of this instruction.
Cllr Webb, the Cabinet Member for Community & Regulatory Services said: 'We rightly place child protection and safeguarding at the very top of our list of priorities, as should all adults, especially those that hold public office.'
Cllr Kemkaran heralded her colleagues' actions as showing 'courage and common sense in Kent' on X.
Cllr Hook told the BBC: 'It is bizarre that the leader of the council is making announcements on social media, rather than to the council.'
The copy of The Autistic Trans Guide to Life has been moved from a display at the front of the library 'to a section that is unlikely to be visited by children', the KCC spokesperson said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
No 10 regrets choice of ‘insipid' new cabinet secretary, sources say
Keir Starmer's No 10 increasingly has 'buyer's remorse' about the new cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald, who has only been running the civil service for six months, Downing Street and Whitehall sources have told the Guardian. Wormald, who was the permanent secretary at the Department of Health and Social Care during the Covid pandemic, was chosen by the prime minister from a shortlist of four names. Starmer made his pick in consultation with the head of the civil service and the first civil service commissioner, saying at the time that Wormald 'brings a wealth of experience to this role at a critical moment in the work of change this new government has begun'. However, multiple sources said some people around Starmer were growing to view the choice of Wormald as 'disastrous' for the prospects of radical reform of the civil service and had begun to explore options for how to work around him. One said Wormald was viewed as 'insipid' and prone to wringing his hands about problems rather than coming up with solutions, and too entrenched in the status quo. The Spectator reported on Thursday that Starmer had picked Wormald despite others being looked on more favourably by the expert panel that had shortlisted the candidates. It quoted a cabinet minister as saying: 'If you want to do drastic reform of the state, you don't appoint someone whose grandfather and father were both civil servants.' It is understood the panel did not rank the candidates, so there was no preferred choice, but gave four 'appointable' names who would do the job well and assessments of each one. The shortlist of four also included Antonia Romeo, now permanent secretary at the Home Office, Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office permanent secretary, and Tamara Finkelstein, the permanent secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. A government spokesperson said: 'The appointment decision was made in line with the usual procedures for appointing permanent secretaries. Under this process, a panel proposes a shortlist of appointable candidates for a final decision by the prime minister. 'The cabinet secretary is leading the work to rewire the way government operates, driving efficiency and reducing bureaucracy as part of prime minister's plan for change to renew our country.' The doubts about the choice of Wormald as cabinet secretary are not new but it has been a difficult few weeks for Starmer on domestic policy, with questions over why he became distracted by foreign affairs and missed the implications of a looming rebellion on welfare cuts. The cabinet secretary is the prime minister's most senior policy adviser and also responsible for running the civil service. In the past, prime ministers have attempted to solve problems with how No 10 and the government is run by splitting the role into a cabinet secretary, a Cabinet Office permanent secretary and a separate head of the civil service, as happened under David Cameron. These were merged back into a single cabinet secretary in 2014 after a three-year experiment in dividing power. The Times reported in April that No 10 was considering greater changes to the machinery of government to create more executive power at the centre, with fewer procedural demands on officials' time, a higher bar for public inquiries, and a civil service that better reflects Britain's class diversity. On his appointment, Wormald told civil servants they would have to 'do things differently' and promised a 'rewiring of the way the government works'. His position is likely to come under further scrutiny when the next stage of Covid inquiry reports are published in the autumn on core political and administrative decision-making. The first report found there had been 'a lack of adequate leadership' in Britain's pandemic preparation, saying the civil service and governments 'failed their citizens'.
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
The Starmiversary is here - where did it all go so wrong?
On May 22 2024, Rishi Sunak stood outside of Downing Street in the pouring rain and announced he was calling a General Election. Six weeks later, Sir Keir Starmer pulled up in his car to No 10 on July 5. As he stepped out, the sun came out. The metaphor was clear. In contrast to the bleak, miserable end to the Tories' time in charge, here was a new leader promising brighter days ahead. During his first speech, he told the nation: 'If you voted for Labour yesterday, we will carry the responsibility of your trust, as we rebuild our country. 'But whether you voted Labour or not, in fact – especially if you did not, I say to you, directly, my government will serve you.' Looking back at that day a year on, it might not be too hard to argue that optimistic idea about Starmer bringing a warm glow to the country was quite a pathetic fallacy. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. Labour's polling numbers have collapsed since that day, and the party is now consistently stuck several points behind Reform. The PM himself is doing only marginally better, with a net favourability rating of -34 according to YouGov. On Tuesday, the government suffered its biggest ever rebellion despite gutting its flagship welfare bill. The following day, the Chancellor wept openly during PMQs. By Thursday evening, one of Starmer's MPs, Zarah Sultana, announced she was leaving the Labour party and would 'co-lead the founding of a new party' with the ex-Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. He said discussions were 'ongoing' after the announcement. Outlining her reasons for leaving the party, Sultana accused the Labour Government of failing to improve people's lives, and claimed it 'wants to make disabled people suffer' in reference to ministers' proposals to reform welfare – a claim that was rejected by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. So where did it all go so wrong? It's impossible to pick a particular moment where the trouble started. But if we were going to have a shot regardless, polls wouldn't be a bad place to start looking. They seem to suggest Starmer's approval rating falls off a bit of a cliff around the end of July 2024 – barely three weeks after he started his new job. What was happening politically around the end of July? Well, one big thing happened on July 29: that was the day Rachel Reeves stood up in Parliament and declared a massive cut to the winter fuel payment. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video In hindsight, it's a little baffling. Starmer's government was still defining itself to voters, trying to project an image about who they were and what they represented. There's an argument that the Chancellor was aiming to get the tough but necessary decisions out of the way as early as possible, so they would have faded to the back of voters' minds by the next general election. But clearly, first impressions matter. Despite the recent backtrack, in which the payment was returned to everyone receiving a pension who has an income below a £35,000 threshold, this might have been the moment many voters made up their mind about the PM and his ministers. And of course, the Winter Fuel Payment was not the only announcement in this vein. There was inheritance tax on farms, and the retention of the two-child benefit cap. All these 'tough decisions' circled around something else mentioned for the first time in that July 29 speech: the '£22 billion black hole' in the public finances that Reeves said she had found left over by the Conservatives. Many of Labour's woes in government can be traced back to this figure. According to the Parliamentary transcript Hansard, the phrase '£22 billion black hole' has been used in the House of Commons no fewer than 287 times since last July, largely in the context of justifying unpopular choices. Plenty of political goodwill has been spent on filling it but, as might be expected from a black hole, everything else has been sucked into it too. Several of the government's policies enjoy broad public support – charging VAT on private school fees to fund state education; closer alignment with the European Union; and expanding free school meals, for example. More Trending But it's the tricky decisions that the government says it must make to get the country on a firmer fiscal footing that really stick with people. As a result, a year after the party's landslide victory, the Labour government has found itself defined more by the things it didn't want to have to do, than the things it did want to do. This week, the sun was blazing again ahead of the first Starmiversary. But the Prime Minister may well have spent those days wondering how much longer it'll be until the clouds clear for him. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: What we know about Zarah Sultana's new party 'with Jeremy Corbyn' after she quits Labour MORE: From tears to cheers, readers discuss Rachel Reeves and tax rises MORE: Rachel Reeves crying exposes a grim double standard
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Why we will all share in the Chancellor's tears
Rather, I feel drawn to the aftermath. The forced smile, the reassurance aimed at markets. That plus the concession that there is a cost associated with the Commons retreat – 'and that will be reflected in the budget'. Read More: A throwaway phrase – but one rich with intent. In the autumn we will all witness spending curbs – or tax increases. Or both. As a consequence of this week's events. But first those tears. We should all extend sympathy to a fellow being in evident distress. Mostly, the House would assuredly do that, within limits. In the Commons, there is a commonality of feeling which straddles partisan division. There are more connections and friendships across the aisles than would be thought from the bogus sound and fury of what passes for Parliamentary discourse. The role of MP can be a relatively lonely one. A tribune of the people, yet subject to the whims and discontent of the electorate. The only ones who truly understand the stresses and strains of the job are other MPs. Hence the fellow feeling. And those limits? On the subject of the Chancellor's discomfiture, I chanced to be on the wireless broadcasting to an astonished nation alongside Christine Jardine, the Liberal Democrat MP. Christine Jardine (Image: PA) She said that she had witnessed the tears – and had felt like crossing the chamber to offer a comforting hug to Rachel Reeves. However, she stayed in her place. Aware, she said, that protocol in the Commons would frown upon such a fracture of party lines. I am sure that is right. There are no rules, as such, governing such matters. However, being the Commons, there is accumulated custom and practice. Which solemnly suggests that opposing parties should stay two sword lengths apart. But what of the Chancellor's own side? Should they not have offered more assistance? How about the Prime Minister? He explained later that he had not noticed his chum's distress. Prime Minister's Questions, he averred, is 'pretty wired' – and he was focused on coping with that. Even accepting that, his response was limp. He was explicitly challenged by the Leader of the Opposition to defend the Chancellor. His answer was to list the collective successes of the government, noting that Ms Reeves had led on each and concluding: 'We are grateful to her for it.' Read More: Was that it? The best he could do? 'Grateful to her' sounds like the sort of phrase accompanied by a carriage clock and a gentle shove out the door. But no. Sir Keir plainly realised he had fallen short, albeit inadvertently. In subsequent comments, including at a shared appearance, he went out of his way to stress that she was a star who would light up 11 Downing Street for many years to come. Which was apparently designed to placate the markets. Sensible folk, dealing with the trials of everyday life, might well advise flaky traders to get real and avoid being spooked so readily. But, still, I understand. These are deeply troubled times, the age of anxiety. The markets required reassurance not so much about an individual as about the firm fiscal rules that the incumbent Chancellor has promised to observe. To avoid the problem, should the Chancellor have stayed away from the Commons, aware that she was upset? But that would only have prompted questions about her absence. As she said herself, her place is by the PM's side. Especially when the government's entire fiscal strategy is under strain. The cuts to disability benefits were designed to save £5bn by the end of the current term. That £5bn had been factored into Treasury sums – and must now be found elsewhere. This cannot be resolved by a day-late smile from the Chancellor and a comforting hug from the PM. This is deeply, deeply challenging. Plus there is another factor. The Commons may assist a member in evident distress. But the House also develops a collective, Darwinian momentum of its own when it detects weakness. On the government benches, the Prime Minister and Chancellor are now palpably weakened. Not by a few stifled tears or the PM's innocent neglect. But by the complete, chaotic collapse of a core policy, that of curbing disability benefits. Yes, it will be said that reform has survived to some degree. That the objective of encouraging disabled people into work remains. But the Labour back benches have risen and rejected the cuts to welfare benefits. They have said no, firmly, to the PM and the Chancellor. It is all too easy for such rebellion to become habitual. For the discontent to extend to any proposed spending cuts. Or to tax hikes, if they strain credulity. As I also noted on the wireless, the problem for the PM is that the entire approach to cutting disability benefits ran contrary to Labour instincts – which he appeared either to lack or to disregard. Further, the Chancellor had already made herself unpopular with the troops by the assertive stand she took on the winter fuel payment. Yes, I understand, she was, once more, playing to those powerful markets. For a Labour Minister, it was a deliberately counter-intuitive attempt to stress her determination to curb the spending package, to stand firm. But it left Labour backbenchers unhappy and sullen. The welfare reforms, on top of that, proved to be a step too far. Way too far. It will now be decidedly difficult for the PM and Chancellor to retrench. To regain the solid support of their MPs while clutching the grail of market confidence. Difficult but not impossible. Political tears are generally reserved for moments of high emotion – or departure. Moments of turmoil. Nicola Sturgeon giving evidence to the Covid inquiry. Vaughan Gething fearing an upcoming confidence motion as Welsh FM – which he duly lost. Weep no more. Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves now need to project certainty and smiling reassurance. If they can. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre – and Dundee United FC
