In a move that has sparked fierce debate over press freedom and political accountability, Nottinghamshire County Council—now under the control of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party—has imposed a controversial ban on local journalists, drawing national and international scrutiny. The ban, spearheaded by council leader Mick Barton, prevents reporters from Nottinghamshire Live and its print partner, the Nottingham Post, from directly engaging with council officials, sending shockwaves through both the journalism community and the political landscape.
This unprecedented decision followed May’s local elections, in which Reform UK achieved a dramatic surge, winning 677 seats and seizing control of ten councils, including Nottinghamshire in the East Midlands. The party’s rapid ascent, led by Farage, has been closely watched, with many hailing it as a shake-up of British politics. Yet, the events in Nottinghamshire have raised troubling questions about the party’s commitment to the free speech principles it claims to champion.
The immediate catalyst for the ban was a dispute over local government reorganisation—specifically, whether the districts of Gedling or Rushcliffe should be included in a redrawn Nottingham city council. According to Nottinghamshire Live, this issue exposed divisions within the newly elected Reform council contingent. Council leader Mick Barton responded by labeling the outlet’s reporting as “misinformation” and, in early September 2025, announced that all Reform councillors were barred from speaking to its journalists. Press releases, event invitations, and interview requests would be withheld, though reporters could still attend public council meetings.
Barton defended his decision, stating, “We also have a duty to protect the credibility of our governance and the voices that we represent. For this reason, we will not be engaging with Nottinghamshire Live or with any other media outlet we consider to be consistently misrepresenting our policies, actions or intentions.” He later clarified that the ban applied only to himself, not his fellow councillors, but insisted it would remain until Nottingham Post apologized. “The ban still stands until they come and apologise. They need to pick the phone up and speak to me,” Barton said, maintaining, “I’ve not got a problem, I’m being professional and I hope the Notts Post become professional.”
The reaction from the media and political establishment was swift and critical. Nottinghamshire Live editor Natalie Fahy condemned the move as fundamentally anti-democratic, warning, “When the press is not welcome, you know democracy itself is in danger.” She attempted to hand Barton a copy of the Nottingham Post at a council meeting, which he refused, and underscored the vital role of local journalism: “I want to get back to basics. I want to resolve this amicably so we can get on with our jobs—which includes finding out how council tax money is spent. Mick has to be reasonable and understand the role of the local press in holding councils to account.”
The dispute has drawn attention far beyond Nottinghamshire. The Guardian called Barton’s decision “petty and alarming,” while spokespeople from other major UK parties voiced concerns, with the Liberal Democrats likening the episode to “Donald Trump-style politics.” Even Reform UK’s national leadership distanced itself from the ban, with a spokesperson affirming the party’s support for free speech and leaving the local branch to justify its actions.
Adding fuel to the fire, Nigel Farage himself weighed in from Washington, D.C., where he was addressing the US Congress on free speech issues in the UK. Asked by the BBC about Barton’s actions, Farage replied, “I don’t know. I’m going to see him [Barton] at the [Reform UK] conference this Friday and have a chat with him.” He described himself as “a very good peacemaker,” citing his 30 years of political experience and expressing a desire to “find a solution.” Yet, he stopped short of committing to lifting the ban.
The controversy has not been confined to Nottinghamshire. In a revealing editorial, The Independent’s political editor described receiving threatening calls from Reform UK leadership and Farage’s aides, warning that unfavorable coverage could result in the outlet being barred from party events. “You don’t want to ruin relations with a party leading the polls over a story like this,” a senior official reportedly said, suggesting that journalists should tread carefully with a party poised for electoral success. The editor recounted instances where journalists were accused of being “activist journalists,” blocked from press conferences, or verbally attacked by party staffers—tactics reminiscent of the “divide-and-rule” approach employed by Donald Trump’s MAGA movement in the United States.
Deputy leader Richard Tice further defended Barton’s actions, telling Sky News that Nottinghamshire Live “distorts and completely acts in an irresponsible way,” and that councillors were “entitled to say, ‘we’re going to talk to other parts of the media, not yourselves.’” This stance has alarmed many who see it as a harbinger of more restrictive media relations should Reform UK gain further power.
The stakes of this dispute extend well beyond a single council or media outlet. Local journalism, already under severe financial strain, plays a crucial role in democratic accountability. As The Conversation reported, the number of local journalists in the UK has plummeted from about 9,000 in 2007 to below 3,000 in 2022, with revenues dropping from £2.4 billion to just £600 million. In the United States, the rise of “news deserts”—areas without professional local news—has correlated with increased support for nationalist politics and diminished local accountability. In last year’s US presidential election, Donald Trump won 91% of counties lacking local news sources, a trend some fear could repeat in the UK if local journalism continues to erode.
Public support for press freedom in Nottinghamshire has been robust. A petition launched by Nottinghamshire Live entitled “Reform: Stop hiding from press scrutiny” quickly gained more than 26,000 signatures. The outcry highlights how deeply residents value the role of journalists in shining a light on council decisions that affect over 800,000 people in the region.
Despite the heated rhetoric and political maneuvering, some observers see reason for cautious optimism. Farage’s personal history of engaging with journalists and his stated willingness to mediate may yet lead to a resolution. Still, the episode has exposed troubling fault lines in the relationship between an ascendant political movement and the press—a relationship that is fundamental to the health of British democracy.
As the dust settles, the events in Nottinghamshire serve as a stark reminder that a free and independent press is not merely a privilege, but a necessity for transparent, accountable government. Whether Reform UK’s leaders will heed this lesson remains to be seen, but for now, the eyes of the nation—and the world—are watching closely.
