For years, Durham’s annual Pride event has been a vibrant highlight in the city’s calendar, drawing thousands from across the UK to celebrate the LGBT+ community. But next year’s festivities are facing a major shake-up after Durham County Council, now controlled by the Reform party, announced it would axe all council funding for the event, igniting fierce debate and dividing opinion across the region.
The decision was made public by Darren Grimes, the council’s deputy leader and a prominent figure within Reform. Grimes took to the social media platform X to declare that "Durham Pride won't be getting a single penny from this council next year," as reported by BBC and Daily Mail. He argued that the event, which in May 2025 received up to £12,500 in council support, had "stopped being a celebration of gay rights a long time ago" and had "morphed into a travelling billboard for gender ideology and political activism that many in the gay community – myself included – want no part of."
Grimes was unambiguous in his stance: "Taxpayers shouldn't be bankrolling it. The event can and will go ahead safely, but Durham County Council isn't an ATM for contested causes. Our residents deserve bins emptied, roads fixed and services funded – not more council-sponsored politics in fancy dress." He further stated, "If Labour or the Lib Dems want to raid their members' budgets to fund political street theatre, that's on them – Reform will spend ours on the services everyone relies on, not on flying the latest alphabet flag for the professional offence industry."
This dramatic move comes against the backdrop of a larger cultural and political clash within the council and the community. Earlier in May, Reform leaders drew criticism for removing both the LGBT+ Pride flag and a Ukrainian flag from outside Durham County Hall, actions that sparked outrage among supporters and were widely condemned by opposition councillors. Liberal Democrat councillor Ellie Hopgood called the removal of the Pride flag a "petty and mean-spirited act" especially as it occurred just ahead of a Pride in Armed Forces event. She added, "We know from their social media posts that Reform councillors are keener on Russia's flag than Ukraine's or Pride's."
Grimes, however, defended the council’s approach to flag-flying, emphasizing unity over what he termed "toxic identity politics." He explained, "Flying our national and local flags is an act of unity. Swapping them out for niche political symbols is just more toxic identity politics." The council clarified that, under Reform’s control, only the Union Jack, St George’s flag, and County Durham flag would be flown from council buildings, though they later allowed county flags after public outcry.
The annual Durham Pride event, held over two days each May in the city centre, has long been a magnet for visitors, boosting tourism and local businesses. According to Daily Mail, organisers and supporters argue the event is inclusive, attracts thousands from all over the UK, and helps to strengthen the local economy. Despite the council’s funding cut, they are determined to keep the celebration alive.
To fill the gap left by the council’s withdrawal, Durham Pride has teamed up with the Durham Miners’ Association (DMA) and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) to fundraise for future events. A major fundraising event is already scheduled for September 5, 2025, at Redhill’s, Durham Miners’ Hall. DMA chairman Stephen Guy called for the trade union movement "to ramp up support for Durham Pride, which has been a target for closure since Reform was elected in County Durham." He added, "Reform councillors across County Durham have underestimated the resolve of the LGBT+ community and the support of allies across the trade union movement."
Dave Pike, regional secretary for the TUC North East, Yorkshire & Humber, echoed these sentiments, accusing Reform of "promoting division." He stated, "I’m proud to stand alongside the LGBT+ community in Durham, and the Miners’ Association, for unity and for a society that respects people regardless of our differences." The sense of solidarity among event supporters is palpable, with both the DMA and TUC pledging to bolster their backing in the wake of Reform’s decision.
Historically, Durham County councillors have supported Pride through their individual budgets, but this year’s local elections disrupted the usual process, making such allocations impossible. The timing has added another layer of complexity to an already contentious issue, as reported by the Local Democracy Reporting Service and BBC.
The debate over council funding for Pride reflects a wider national conversation about the role of local government in supporting community events that some see as political. Reform’s argument, as articulated by Grimes, is that council resources should be focused on essential services like waste collection and road maintenance, rather than what he calls "contested causes." He insists, "Our residents deserve bins emptied, roads fixed, and services funded – not more council-sponsored politics in fancy dress."
On the other hand, Pride’s defenders argue that the event is far more than "political street theatre." They point to its positive impact on the city’s image, its economic benefits, and its importance in fostering inclusivity and acceptance. The event’s supporters have vowed to keep it going, with or without council funding, and have rallied significant backing from trade unions and community groups.
The funding row also highlights deeper divisions about identity, symbolism, and the meaning of public celebrations. Reform’s insistence on flying only national and county flags, and its rejection of what it calls "niche political symbols," has become a flashpoint for criticism from those who view such gestures as exclusionary. Yet for supporters of the policy, it’s about reinforcing a sense of shared identity and focusing public resources on what they see as core responsibilities.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: Durham’s Pride event will go ahead, but it will do so in a new political and financial landscape. The coming months will test the resolve of organisers and supporters, as well as the ability of the community to adapt and find new sources of support. The September fundraiser at the Miners’ Hall is likely to be a bellwether for the future of Pride in Durham.
In the end, the controversy has put Durham at the centre of a national debate about who decides what gets funded, whose voices are heard, and what kind of community the city wants to be. For now, the conversation continues—on the streets, in council chambers, and, soon enough, back at the heart of Pride itself.
