It was my Dad’s idea to launch the #SaveRutland pub petition campaign, to support the county we all adore. My Dad, Dave is a long-time local at The George & Dragon in Seaton and owner Ralph is a family friend. It started as a conversation in the pub—“They’re doing what?” “We’re merging where?”—and turned into a movement. We just knew we had to try and do something. ✍🏻📄
With the support of our MP, @aliciakearns, the #SaveRutlandpub petition was born.📍Alicia will present the petition in Parliament at the end of March.
But why? Because, Rutland isn’t just where we live; it’s who we are. My late Nana was a passionate advocate for our county and now, I find myself doing the same—because Rutland matters. 🫶🏻
The last time we fought to regain our independence I was too young (4 years old) to stand up for our county, I feel a duty to do as my family did 30 years ago. It’s my turn, in the hope that we don’t lose our ceremonial status. #SaveRutland ✍🏻📄
This is about more than a petition. It’s about protecting our independence and our sense of community, our ‘much in little’. Multum in Parvo. ✨
Every signature counts. ✍🏻 You can sign in pubs across Rutland, print it at home or drop it at Alicia’s office. We haven’t got a huge amount of time, so please don’t delay in popping into the pubs to sign the petition.
Please sign the petition before the end of March 2025.
👉🏻 List of participating pubs:
• The Green Dragon, Ryhall, Rutland, PE9 4HJ
• The Marquess of Exeter, Lyddington, Rutland, LE15 9LT
• The White Lion Inn, Whissendine, Rutland, LE15 7ET
• The Plough Inn, Caldecott
Let’s make sure #Rutland’s voice is heard.
Please sign and share. ✍🏻📄🖤 #SaveRutland
BREAKING NEWS: Update from Alicia Kearns via Facebook (11.03.2025):
"This evening’s meeting of Rutland County Council on Local Government Re-Organisation demonstrated a blatant disregard for democratic process and the voice of the people of Rutland.
In February the Council agreed a motion requiring a vote of all Councillors before Rutland County Council submits initial proposals to Government on 21st March. It also required public engagement events to be held before any proposals go to Government.
Tonight, a debate was held, but a vote was refused to Rutland Councillors.
No public engagement events have been held.
That means Rutland County Council’s Leader intends to put proposals to Government on 21st March for what Council configuration we could join, without the endorsement of Rutland Councillors, let alone Rutlanders ourselves.
This means the public of Rutland have still had no meaningful dialogue with the Council four months into negotiations on Rutland’s future. There’s a two-question survey on their website, and one meeting with Parish Councils, but that’s it.
Councillors were told this evening by the Leader of the Council that “The Council has no power to take any vote.”
However, this is contrary to an amended motion agreed by the Council including the Council Leader at the previous meeting. The Council could, and should, have been given the opportunity to hold a vote on whether to endorse, and give its support to, the report itself, or for a North Leicestershire and Rutland model to be put forward to Government, even if it had no legal standing.
Councillors from multiple political backgrounds highlighted the lack of information provided to Councillors in this process compared to other Councils, and that it felt this was a done deal as only one option is being put to the Council. The one option presented to Councillors this evening in the Leader's report was a North Leicestershire and Rutland model.
Would it have been that difficult to ask for the Council to endorse this proposal going to Government on March 21st?
The vote would not have been binding (the motion in February didn't call for it to be), but it would have demonstrated either solid support for the proposal, or concerns or rejection of the proposal. Most of all it would have demonstrated that democracy is alive and well in Rutland – but it demonstrated the opposite, a democratic deficit.
This feels like a re-run of the 10th January, when the Leader of the Council wrote to Government asking Government to scrap Rutland County Council by pursuing local government re-organisation, asked for the imposition of a Mayor, and asked for the two to be fast-tracked, without any local consent from Councillors or engagement with the public.
To breach its own Council motion really is quite extraordinary.
It could have required something as little as one word different from the Council, asking members to endorse the report, not just note it. That would have permitted a vote.
To deny the Councillors of Rutland a vote, and refuse to engage in-person with the people of Rutland before submitting proposals to Government on March 21st for how we should be governed in future, is flabbergasting."
Comments