Cheshire West and Chester Liberal Democrats have criticised three motions due to be debated at the Council meeting on 9 February, accusing their proposers of misrepresenting the facts, stoking fear, and distracting from the real crises facing the borough.

Storyhouse targeted with misleading claims

One of the motions centres on a children’s event at Storyhouse which has been wrongly portrayed as inappropriate or sexualised. In reality, the event simply helps children understand that families come in different forms - a basic fact of modern life and something explicitly covered by the National Curriculum.

Children encounter classmates from a wide range of family backgrounds every day. Helping them understand that difference exists is about inclusion and safeguarding, not sex education.

Schools are already required to teach about different family structures, and Storyhouse is supporting that work at a time when schools are under severe financial pressure. Rather than attacking a valued cultural institution, councillors should be thanking it for stepping in where resources are stretched.

Had the Reform UK and Independent councillors proposing the motion spoken to the organisers, they would have known this. Instead, they have chosen to rely on dog-whistle politics to create the false impression that children are being taught about sexual relationships.

Scaremongering over changing rooms

The two further motions should not be debated at all. They are based on speculation rather than evidence, exploiting the absence of clear national guidance to whip up fear.

There is no evidence of offences occurring in public changing rooms in Cheshire West and Chester, nor are Liberal Democrats aware of any mixed-sex changing facilities on council-run premises. Raising alarmist claims without facts does nothing to improve safety - it simply targets a minority group for political gain.

Publicly elected representatives have a responsibility not to use their platform to vilify people or manufacture threats where none exist.

Call for a named vote

Given the seriousness of the claims being made and the potential harm they cause, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a named vote on all three motions.

Residents deserve to know which councillors are engaging in culture-war politics — and which are focused on holding the Labour administration to account for the real issues affecting people’s daily lives: deteriorating roads, unacceptable delays in EHCPs, and a deepening crisis in SEND provision.

Comment from the Liberal Democrats

Rob Herd, Chair of Cheshire West & Chester Liberal Democrats, said:

“This council should be focused on fixing potholes, supporting schools, and making sure children with SEND get the help they are legally entitled to - not attacking a children’s event at Storyhouse or spreading fear about problems that don’t exist.

Storyhouse is doing exactly what the National Curriculum expects, and doing it well. What we’re seeing instead is political theatre - using dog-whistle language to divide communities rather than solve problems.

We’re calling for a named vote so residents can see clearly who is serious about improving Cheshire West and Chester, and who would rather play culture-war games.”

Dear Andrew Cooper MP, 

We the undersigned, implore you to vote against this Labour Government's plans to tighten the eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payments, should they be brought to a parliamentary vote. 

According to the most recently available data from the Department of Work and Pensions, approximately 5,500 people recieve PIP here in Mid Cheshire. 3,000 claim the Enhanced rate and 2,500 claim the Standard rate. If you vote to increase the thresholds for points scored per daily living activity, almost 2,500 PIP claimants would lose their disability benefits altogether. 85% of those who claim the standard rate would see their disability benefits disappear.

For many people, the application process is a daunting mountain of paperwork, built on a perception of mistrust. Disabled people, many of whom either want to work but can't, or are in some form of work, are heavily dependent on PIP to help with the extra costs associated with their disability. If these benefits are taken away, it could lead millions of disabled people to destitution.

Without this support, disabled people could be forced into working more hours in their current job, or into occupations that are simply not suitable for their disability. In turn, employers may be hesitant to hire disabled people, due to the increased risk of absence associated with disabled workers.