Liberal Democrat councillor Ellie Hopgood and the removed flag (Image: Supplied)
A council taken over by Reform UK at the local elections this month has taken down the Ukrainian and LGBTQ+ Pride flags flying outside its headquarters. Nigel Farage’s party secured 65 seats and overall control of Durham County Council following seismic results at the ballot box on May 1.
Less than a month after taking the reins, the new majority of Reform council has seen fit to order the two flags removed, leaving the Union Jack, flag of St George and the County Council banner flying outside the county hall building at Aykley Heads, in Durham. The move has sparked anger from Liberal Democrat councillor Ellie Hopgood, whose party previously ran the authority in coalition with the Conservatives and independents.
Ms Hopgood said the decision to remove the flags has happened just days before a Pride in Armed Forces march in Durham on Saturday.
She told the Daily Express: “We don’t need to choose between pride flags and the Union Jack. We can have both. We can honour our country at the same time we honour the sacrifice of those who served it.
Durham County Council was taken over by Reform UK in elections in May (Image: Claire McKie/ ChronicleLive )
“Even Reform surely realise that this is totally unacceptable ahead of a celebration of those who have served in our military. Nigel Farage needs to step in, urge his councillors to apologise and reinstate these flags ahead of this show of respect to our armed forces.”
Ms Hopgood raged that she believed Reform were more interested in sharing the Russian flag than supporting Ukraine, adding: “To tear down these flags ahead of Saturday’s Pride in Armed Forces event shows a complete disrespect to all those who have served our country’s military.”
The council’s deputy leader, Reform UK’s Darren Grimes, who himself is gay, defended the decision to remove the pride flag and told the BBC the party was not anti-gay but was “anti-tokenism”.
Durham County Council have been taken over by a Reform UK majority (Image: Claire McKie/ ChronicleLive )
Mr Grimes, a former GB News presenter, said he was proud the council was flying the Union Jack, flag of St George and the County Durham flag.
He added: “As a gay man and the Deputy Leader of Durham County Council, I’m proud to fly three flags from County Hall – the Union Jack, the 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.
“The Liberal Democrats – a party that tried to overturn the largest democratic vote in our history and still can’t define what a woman is – are in no position to lecture anyone on respect. Flying our national and local flags is an act of unity. Swapping them out for niche political symbols is just more toxic identity politics.
“Let’s be crystal clear: no one in Reform UK is ‘anti-gay’ – least of all me. But we are anti-tokenism. Our armed forces, gay and straight, didn’t fight for the Pride flag, the Ukraine flag, or any other flag-of-the-month. They fought for Britain – and they deserve to see their flag flown with pride.”
The Daily Express have contacted Durham County Council for comment.
Fury as Reform Council Removes Pride and Ukrainian Flags After Takeover
A fresh political row has erupted after a Reform UK-controlled council removed Pride and Ukrainian flags from public buildings following the party’s takeover, reigniting a wider debate over national identity, local government and the role of symbolic displays in public institutions.
The decision has attracted criticism from opposition politicians and campaigners, while Reform representatives have defended the policy as part of a broader approach to council buildings and public symbols.
For Reform, the issue is straightforward. The party has argued that councils under its control should concentrate on national and local identity, with official buildings displaying the Union Flag, the St George’s Cross and relevant county or council flags rather than flags representing particular causes or organisations.
Critics see the policy very differently.
They argue that removing the Ukrainian flag, which has been displayed on many British public buildings since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, sends an undesirable message about Britain’s solidarity with a country at war. Meanwhile, opponents of the Pride decision argue that removing the rainbow flag abandons an important public symbol of inclusion.
The dispute therefore goes far beyond the flags themselves.
It has become another example of the increasingly sharp political divisions surrounding Reform UK’s rapid expansion at local government level.
Reform’s new approach to council buildings
The controversy follows a series of local election victories that gave Reform control or significant influence over several councils.
One of the clearest examples came in Kent, where Reform won a large majority of seats and subsequently introduced a policy limiting the flags displayed on council buildings.
The party’s argument was that public buildings should represent the entire community rather than particular interest groups.
Reform politicians have emphasised the Union Flag, St George’s Cross and local county symbols as shared representations of British and local identity.
From that perspective, the removal of Pride and Ukrainian flags is presented as a question of consistency rather than hostility towards the communities or causes represented by those flags.
Supporters of the policy argue that a council building should not become a platform for political campaigning or symbolic endorsements.
Opponents, however, say that public symbolism can have a legitimate role in demonstrating solidarity and inclusion.
That disagreement is at the heart of the controversy.
The Ukrainian flag has a particular significance
The decision involving the Ukrainian flag has generated especially strong reactions because of the circumstances in which the flag was originally displayed.
Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Ukrainian flags appeared on public buildings across Britain as a sign of solidarity with the Ukrainian people.
The blue and yellow flag subsequently became a familiar symbol outside town halls and council offices.
For many Ukrainians living in Britain, its presence has represented more than a political statement.
It has been seen as a visible expression of support for a country fighting a major war and defending its territory.
That is why removing the flag has attracted criticism beyond ordinary local political disagreements.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has also criticised decisions by Reform-led councils to remove Ukrainian flags, arguing that symbolic gestures can have consequences for relationships between countries.
Reform’s position, however, is that removing the flag from a council building does not mean withdrawing support for Ukrainian people.
Several Reform representatives have made the distinction between foreign-policy support and the symbols displayed on local-government buildings.
That distinction is central to the party’s defence.
The Pride flag dispute
The Pride flag has created a different but equally contentious argument.
For years, many councils across Britain have displayed the rainbow flag during Pride Month as a symbol of support for LGBT+ communities.
Supporters say such displays demonstrate that public institutions welcome residents regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Reform councils have increasingly questioned whether local authorities should display such symbols.
In some cases, council leaders have said that only official national, armed-forces or local authority flags should be displayed on council buildings.
Reform politicians argue that councils should serve everyone and should therefore avoid appearing to favour particular campaigns or interest groups.
Opponents argue that neutrality does not necessarily mean removing symbols of inclusion.
They believe councils can recognise particular communities while continuing to represent the entire population.
That philosophical disagreement has made the Pride flag one of the most visible symbols in Britain’s wider culture and identity debate.
Why the issue matters to Reform
The flag controversy fits into a broader political message that Reform has been developing since its expansion at local level.
The party has repeatedly argued that Britain needs to restore a stronger sense of national identity.
Its politicians frequently emphasise British traditions, the Union Flag, the St George’s Cross and local communities.
The decision over flags is therefore not an isolated administrative matter.
It reflects Reform’s broader political philosophy.
The party wants councils to focus on what it describes as core responsibilities, including roads, waste collection, local services, housing and financial management.
Supporters say councils should spend less time on symbolic political initiatives and more time delivering basic services.
This message has considerable political appeal among voters who believe local government has become too focused on political campaigns rather than practical concerns.
But opponents argue that the two responsibilities are not mutually exclusive.
A council can provide essential services while also supporting community initiatives and displaying symbols that have significance for local residents.
A clash over local democracy
The dispute also raises questions about the relationship between national political parties and local government.
Reform’s rapid expansion means that policies promoted nationally can quickly appear in individual councils.
This has prompted some opposition politicians to question whether councils controlled by Reform have sufficient independence from the party’s national leadership.
Reform insists that its councillors were elected to implement the political programme presented to voters.
That includes its approach to flags and council symbolism.
Opposition groups, however, argue that local councils should make decisions according to local circumstances rather than simply following national party policy.
The disagreement is particularly important because local government traditionally involves a mixture of party politics and practical administration.
Councillors have to balance national political principles with the views and needs of their individual communities.
Supporters say the policy is about unity
Those defending the flag changes argue that the policy is intended to promote unity rather than division.
Their argument is that the Union Flag and local flags provide symbols that everyone in the community can share.
They say public institutions should not be seen as endorsing individual political movements, campaigns or causes.
From this perspective, removing Pride and Ukrainian flags is not necessarily a rejection of the people represented by those symbols.
Instead, it is an attempt to establish a consistent rule for council buildings.
That distinction will remain central to Reform’s defence of the policy.
The party can argue that support for Ukraine can continue through practical assistance, humanitarian aid and national foreign policy without requiring every council building to display the Ukrainian flag.
Likewise, it can argue that councils can provide services to LGBT+ residents without necessarily flying the Pride flag.
Critics see a different message
Opposition politicians and campaigners interpret the changes differently.
They argue that symbols matter precisely because they communicate values.
For them, a Ukrainian flag outside a council building demonstrates solidarity with people facing war.
A Pride flag can communicate that LGBT+ residents are recognised and welcomed by their local authority.
Removing those symbols, they argue, can therefore create the impression that those communities are no longer receiving the same level of public recognition.
This is why the controversy has generated such strong reactions.
The disagreement is not really about pieces of fabric.
It is about what public institutions should communicate.
Reform’s wider cultural agenda
The flag controversy also reflects the broader cultural issues that have become increasingly important to Reform’s political identity.
The party has campaigned on immigration, national sovereignty, British identity, crime, taxation and opposition to what it considers excessive political correctness.
Its approach to public symbols fits naturally within that wider message.
Reform politicians frequently argue that British institutions should be more confident about national identity and less concerned about symbolic gestures associated with political causes.
Critics argue that this approach risks turning local government into another arena for national culture-war disputes.
Both interpretations are likely to remain part of the political debate.
The financial argument
There is also a practical argument behind some Reform council decisions.
The party has promised to reduce waste and cut unnecessary expenditure in local government.
Although individual flags themselves are relatively inexpensive, Reform argues that councils should concentrate their resources on essential services rather than symbolic initiatives.
This forms part of the party’s broader emphasis on efficiency.
Reform-controlled councils are increasingly being watched to see whether they can deliver promised savings while maintaining essential services.
That is ultimately a much larger test than the flag controversy.
Residents will judge their councils on roads, rubbish collection, social care, planning, housing, local taxation and public services.
The debate over flags may generate headlines, but local government performance will ultimately determine whether voters believe Reform has delivered on its promises.
A symbol of Britain’s changing politics
The removal of Pride and Ukrainian flags has nevertheless become politically significant because it illustrates how Britain’s political landscape has changed.
A party that was once largely associated with Brexit and national politics now controls or influences councils across different parts of England.
That means Reform’s ideological priorities are increasingly being translated into everyday local-government decisions.
The response has been equally political.
Supporters see the changes as evidence that Reform is delivering what voters elected it to do.
Opponents see them as unnecessary symbolic confrontations that risk alienating sections of the community.
The disagreement is unlikely to disappear soon.
What happens next?
The flag controversy could become a recurring issue as Reform gains greater influence in local government.
Other Reform-controlled councils may adopt similar policies, while councils with different political leadership may continue displaying Pride and Ukrainian flags.
That could create a visible contrast between different local authorities.
Residents may then judge those approaches according to their own priorities.
For Reform, the challenge will be to demonstrate that its focus on national identity is accompanied by improvements in the practical services councils are responsible for.
For its opponents, the challenge will be to explain why symbolic recognition remains important while also addressing concerns about council spending and priorities.
Ultimately, the dispute over Pride and Ukrainian flags is part of a much larger argument about the purpose of local government.
Should councils restrict themselves primarily to practical services?
Should they also express solidarity with international causes and minority communities?
How should public buildings represent the communities they serve?
And who should decide which symbols are appropriate?
Those questions do not have universally accepted answers.
What is clear is that Reform’s arrival in local government has changed the nature of those debates.
The removal of the flags has become a highly visible demonstration of that change — one that supporters regard as a return to shared national symbols and critics regard as a significant political statement.
As Reform continues to establish itself across local government, residents will have the opportunity to judge not only its symbolic policies but also its record on the issues that directly affect everyday life.
The flags may be the most visible part of the argument.
But the larger political question is whether Reform can translate its promises of change, efficiency and national identity into effective local government.
That is the test that will ultimately matter most.
Fury as Reform Council Removes Pride and Ukrainian Flags After Takeover
A decision by a council controlled by Reform UK to remove Pride and Ukrainian flags has sparked a heated debate about local government, public representation and the role of political symbolism in Britain’s public spaces. The move has prompted questions about whether councils should display flags associated with particular communities and international causes, and whether a change in political leadership should lead to a change in those decisions.
For supporters of the removal, the issue is about council priorities, consistency and the use of public buildings. They argue that local authorities should concentrate on delivering essential services rather than making political statements through the flags displayed outside council offices.
Critics, however, see the decision differently. They argue that Pride flags can represent inclusion and the rights of LGBTQ+ residents, while Ukrainian flags have become a widely recognised expression of solidarity with a country facing Russia’s invasion. Removing them can therefore be interpreted as more than an administrative change, particularly by residents who regard the displays as symbols of support and belonging.
The controversy illustrates how a decision about flags can become a much larger political dispute.
A Change in Local Political Direction
Reform UK’s growing presence in local government has brought renewed attention to the policies councils adopt after elections. When a party takes control of a local authority, it gains the opportunity to review spending priorities, administrative practices and public displays that were established under previous administrations.
Supporters of Reform argue that voters should be able to expect a visible difference when they elect a new political leadership. They may see the removal of particular flags as part of a broader effort to establish a more politically neutral approach to council buildings.
Opponents question whether removing the flags is a meaningful priority at a time when councils face financial pressures, housing challenges and growing demand for local services. They argue that public symbols can carry important messages about the communities a council serves and the values it wishes to promote.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about fabric hanging from a flagpole. It concerns the relationship between electoral mandates, local identity and the responsibility of elected representatives to serve residents with different backgrounds and beliefs.
A council can change its policies after an election, but its decisions remain subject to scrutiny from councillors, residents and the wider public.
Why the Pride Flag Matters to Many Residents
The Pride flag is widely associated with LGBTQ+ visibility, equality and the right of people to live openly without discrimination. For many residents, its display outside a public building represents recognition that LGBTQ+ people are part of the local community.
Supporters of displaying the flag argue that local authorities have a responsibility to make public spaces welcoming to everyone. They see the flag as a visible expression of inclusion, particularly for people who have experienced prejudice or feel that their identities are not adequately represented.
For some residents, the removal of the flag may raise concerns about whether the council remains committed to equality initiatives. Those concerns can be especially strong when the decision follows a change in political control and forms part of a broader dispute over diversity policies.
Others argue that councils should avoid displaying flags connected with particular campaigns or causes unless there is a clear, consistent policy governing such decisions. They may contend that elected authorities should apply the same rules to different organisations and political viewpoints.
These positions reflect a wider debate about the meaning of neutrality. One interpretation holds that neutrality requires public bodies to avoid symbolic endorsements. Another argues that displaying a Pride flag can be a statement of equal treatment rather than support for a political party.
The precise implications of a council’s decision depend on its stated reasons and the policies it applies to public displays.
The Ukrainian Flag and Britain’s Support for Ukraine
The Ukrainian flag carries a different but equally significant set of associations. Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, blue-and-yellow flags have appeared on public buildings, in town centres and at community events across Britain.
For supporters, displaying the Ukrainian flag represents solidarity with Ukrainian civilians, recognition of the country’s sovereignty and support for people displaced by the war. Ukrainian communities living in Britain may also see the display as a sign that their experiences and concerns are recognised locally.
Removing the flag can consequently provoke a different reaction from removing a flag associated with a domestic campaign. Some residents may interpret the decision as a change in the council’s public expression of support for Ukraine, although the removal of a flag alone does not establish that the council has changed its position on humanitarian assistance or the war itself.
A local authority might argue that it does not intend to make foreign policy statements, which are primarily the responsibility of the national government. Critics may respond that displaying the flag is a humanitarian gesture rather than an attempt to direct international relations.
The debate highlights the difficulty councils face when symbols acquire meanings beyond the immediate administrative setting in which they are displayed.
What Does the Council Say?
To assess the controversy fairly, it is important to distinguish the decision itself from the interpretations placed upon it.
A council may introduce a general policy governing which flags can be displayed, require formal approval for temporary displays or decide that council buildings should display only official flags. Such a policy could be presented as an attempt to establish consistency rather than as a direct statement against any particular community or country.
However, residents may reasonably ask whether the policy is genuinely applied consistently. If some flags are permitted while others are removed, the council should explain the criteria behind those decisions.
Transparency is particularly important when a decision concerns symbols that many people regard as expressions of identity, equality or international solidarity.
Without the council’s full explanation and the relevant policy documents, it would be premature to conclude that the removal was motivated by hostility towards LGBTQ+ people or Ukraine. Equally, it would be inaccurate to assume that the decision carries no wider significance for residents.
The council’s stated reasons, the timing of the decision and its treatment of comparable requests would help establish the context.
Reform UK’s Approach to Local Government
Reform UK has sought to distinguish itself from established parties through its positions on immigration, public spending, local administration and what it describes as the priorities of ordinary voters.
Its supporters often argue that councils should focus on essential services, reduce unnecessary expenditure and avoid policies they regard as ideological. Decisions about flags can fit into this broader political argument when they are presented as a rejection of symbolic gestures in favour of practical responsibilities.
Critics, however, question whether disputes over public displays risk diverting attention from more pressing problems. They argue that local government should be judged primarily on the quality of services it delivers, including road maintenance, waste collection, social care, housing and support for vulnerable residents.
Both arguments ultimately return to the question of priorities. Councils have limited resources and must decide how best to use them, but the administrative cost of displaying a flag is not necessarily the central issue. The symbolic message may matter more to both supporters and opponents than the financial implications.
A newly elected administration can seek to change established practices, but it must also recognise that local communities contain people with different political views and expectations.
Residents Have a Right to Question the Decision
The controversy provides an opportunity for residents to engage directly with their local authority.
People who support the removal may ask the council to explain its policy on neutrality and whether the same standards apply to all flags. Those who oppose it may request that the authority reconsider the decision or establish a clear procedure for community and commemorative displays.
Residents can raise questions at council meetings, contact their ward councillors, submit formal representations or organise peaceful campaigns. They can also examine the council’s published policies to determine whether the decision follows established procedures.
These forms of engagement are important because a council’s legitimacy does not depend solely on winning an election. Elected representatives are also responsible for explaining their decisions and listening to residents between elections.
Public disagreement is not necessarily evidence of institutional failure. It can be part of the democratic process, particularly when a decision touches on questions of identity and shared values.
The important issue is whether the disagreement is handled through transparent discussion and consistent rules.
The Wider Political Consequences
Flag controversies can attract attention well beyond the area in which they begin. National political parties may use them to illustrate competing visions of local government, while campaign groups may see them as examples of broader changes in public attitudes.
For Reform UK, the decision may be interpreted by supporters as evidence that the party is acting on its campaign commitments. Opponents may see it as a warning about how the party intends to approach questions of diversity and community representation.
However, a single council decision cannot establish the position of every Reform-controlled authority, nor does it automatically reveal the views of all the party’s voters.
Local councils operate in different circumstances and may adopt different policies according to their leadership, budgets and community priorities. The details of each decision therefore matter.
The controversy also demonstrates how political symbols can become focal points for deeper disagreements that would otherwise be difficult to express in a single headline.
A flag may be inexpensive to display, but its meaning can extend to questions of belonging, public recognition, neutrality and the responsibilities of elected institutions.
What Happens Next?
The debate over the removal of Pride and Ukrainian flags is likely to continue as residents, councillors and political groups discuss what should be displayed on public buildings.
The immediate questions are whether the council has adopted a formal policy, how that policy is justified and whether it will be applied consistently. Residents may also want clarification on whether the decision affects future commemorations, equality events or expressions of solidarity with Ukraine.
Ultimately, the council will need to balance its chosen approach to public displays with its responsibility to represent a diverse community. It can review the practices of its predecessors, but it should be prepared to explain its reasoning and respond to legitimate questions.
For supporters of the removal, the decision may represent a move towards a more consistent approach to council buildings. For critics, it may signal a loss of visible recognition for communities and causes they believe deserve support.
The wider lesson is that local government decisions can carry meanings far beyond their immediate administrative purpose. Whether the issue concerns Pride, Ukraine or other public symbols, clear rules and transparent explanations are essential.
The dispute is ultimately about what residents expect their council to represent: political neutrality, public solidarity, local priorities or some combination of these principles. How the council answers that question will shape the debate far more than the flags themselves.