4 published verifications about Leicestershire Leicestershire ×
“Reform UK in Leicestershire has invested £270 million into roads.”
The £270 million figure relates to Leicestershire County Council’s planned transport/roads investment funded through public money (council capital budgets and central-government grants), not money put in by Reform UK. Official council announcements and budget documents describe the funding sources and decision-making as governmental, with no evidence that Reform UK provided or controlled these funds. Political advocacy on roads is not the same as financially investing £270 million.
“After Reform UK took control of Leicestershire County Council, the council terminated fraudulent contracts.”
Official Leicestershire County Council records do not support the claim. They say no fraudulent procurement contracts were identified in 2025/26, and the only cited fraudulent contracts were from a historical case already terminated before Reform UK took control, during a police-led investigation. The claim wrongly attributes an earlier action to the later administration.
“After Reform UK was elected to run Leicestershire County Council, Leicestershire County Council invested £127 million into services.”
The claim is not supported by the available evidence. Official Leicestershire County Council documents do not show Reform UK being elected to run the council, and they do not record a £127 million investment into services in the form claimed. The statement appears to misstate both the council’s political control and the spending figure by conflating other budget or capital-plan numbers.
“Leicestershire County Council has made zero cuts to services.”
Official council documents do not support the claim that no services were cut. Budget papers and meeting records describe major savings plans and explicitly warn that balancing the budget would require stopping or reducing some frontline services. Some of the evidence is forward-looking, and not every saving is a direct cut, but an absolute claim of "zero cuts" is contradicted by the council’s own record.