Peter Black

The Independent has another angle on the Labour government's welfare cuts, reporting on a warning by the domestic violence charity Refuge and the Women’s Budget Group (WBG), that thousands of disabled women could find themselves trapped with abusers as a result of these changes.

The paper says that the charities have issued a stark warning over the reforms, saying that in the long term, the cuts to vital funding for daily living costs for disabled people – which will impact all new claimants – will make it difficult for those at risk to flee abusive relationships:

Thousands of disabled women could find themselves trapped with abusers as a result of the government’s upcoming welfare cuts, campaigners have warned, despite Sir Keir Starmer offering significant concessions on the reforms late on Thursday.

In the face of a growing rebellion, the prime minister announced adjustments to his welfare bill, including protecting personal independence payments (PIP) for all existing claimants – a move that is expected to ensure the legislation passes its second reading on Tuesday.

But domestic violence charity Refuge and the Women’s Budget Group (WBG) have issued a stark warning over the reforms, saying that in the long term, the cuts to vital funding for daily living costs for disabled people – which will impact all new claimants – will make it difficult for those at risk to flee abusive relationships.

Even with the concessions, the welfare cuts will be “devastating for disabled women”, WBG said, noting that disabled women are twice as likely to be victims of domestic abuse.

For many, PIP is the only income they receive, WBG warned, so not having access to this source of individual support elevates the risk of coercive control and makes it harder to escape abusive situations.

As a result, Refuge argued, Sir Keir will struggle to reach his target of halving violence against women and girls (VAWG).

A scathing report, published jointly by WBG and disabled women’s collective Sisters of Frida, claims the cuts will deepen disabled women’s “economic insecurity, increase their vulnerability to violence and abuse, push them out of the labour market, and make parenting harder”.

Their analysis, seen by The Independent, shows that women who are future claimants will be disproportionately affected by stricter eligibility rules for PIP.

Currently, 52 per cent of female PIP claimants don’t score four points in any one activity compared to 39 per cent of male claimants. This is likely due to the higher prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions and arthritis among women, conditions which are less likely to score four points in one indicator.

Although current claimants will be protected, it indicates a broader gender imbalance that will leave women more significantly impacted by the cuts in the longer term.

The government estimates that under the current rules, around 1,000 new people are signing on for PIP every day.

Dr Sara Reis, WGB’s deputy director, warned it would make women more vulnerable to abuse, while Refuge said the cuts would have “devastating impacts on disabled survivors”.

Gemma Sherrington, CEO of Refuge, told The Independent that the cuts present a “truly terrifying prospect for disabled survivors”, warning that they would “severely undermine the government’s commitment to halve violence against women and girls”.

“At Refuge, nearly one in three [29 per cent] of the survivors we support have a disability or mental health condition. For PIP claimants, this support is vital for covering essential living costs – and can mean the difference between fleeing to safety or remaining with an abusive partner”, she said.

“Further restricting the financial resources of disabled survivors could leave thousands trapped with abusers – and that could have fatal consequences.

“If the government is serious about tackling VAWG, it cannot afford to neglect disabled survivors. We strongly echo the report’s recommendation to scrap these cruel reforms and provide disabled survivors with the protection and support they deserve.”

Dr Reis added: “The proposed changes will be devastating for disabled women, cutting away income that grants many of them independence.

“The government already knows that it will push more people into poverty, but it also needs to be aware that these changes will make disabled women more vulnerable to abuse, make it harder for them to parent, and shut them out of jobs.

“We are glad to see the government reconsidering the reforms and to consult on changes to PIP – disabled people should be at the centre of designing any changes to the disability benefit system.

“However, as reforms stand, they will bring more and more people into poverty as new claimants will not have access to the same support as exists now.”

Even with the concessions, the impact of these cuts will be horrendous. Let's hope that those Labour rebels who are now considering backing the government will look at this again and vote the bill down.

The Guardian reports on comments by a senior civil servant that Home Office staff are concerned about the “absurd” decision to ban Palestine Action under UK anti-terrorism laws:

On Monday the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, announced plans to ban the group, which would make membership of it, or inviting support for it, a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act, carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.

It would be the first time a direct action protest group has been classified as a terrorist organisation, joining the likes of Islamic State, al-Qaida and National Action. The move has been condemned as draconian by many other protest groups, civil society organisations and politicians of different stripes.

A senior Home Office official, who requested anonymity as they are not allowed to speak to the press, said concerns about proscribing Palestine Action extended into the home secretary’s own department.

“My colleagues and I were shocked by the announcement,” they said. “All week, the office has been a very tense atmosphere, charged with concern about treating a non-violent protest group the same as actual terrorist organisations like Isis, and the dangerous precedent this sets.

“From desk to desk, colleagues are exchanging concerned and bemused conversations about how absurd this is and how impossible it will be to enforce. Are they really going to prosecute as terrorists everyone who expresses support for Palestine Action’s work to disrupt the flow of arms to Israel as it commits war crimes?

“It’s ridiculous and it’s being widely condemned in anxious conversations internally as a blatant misuse of anti-terror laws for political purposes to clamp down on protests which are affecting the profits of arms companies.”

The paper reports the response of Palestine Action, who argue that “proscription is not about enabling prosecutions under terrorism laws – it’s about cracking down on non-violent protests which disrupt the flow of arms to Israel during its genocide in Palestine”.

They have a valid point about the government seeking to stifle non-violent protest. There are already laws in place that can punish those who destroy or damage government property. Instead, the Labour government has planted both feet onto a very slippery slope.

On the publicly available criteria for this action, they would also have proscribed the suffragettes, Greenpeace, the Greenham Common women and a host of other groups, including farmers protesting fuel prices and the Country Landowners Association, all intent on changing public policy through direct, non-violent action. That is not a democratic approach.

Spent a lovely day at the City of St David's yesterday and the magnificent cathedral. I haven't been there for about five years and, apart from some new housing estates on the outskirts. it hasn't changed one bit.
On display was the first Welsh translation of the bible from 1588.
I hadn't realised either that the tomb of Edmund Tudor was situated there either. The brass on top is a copy of that stripped off by Oliver Cromwell's men in the 1640s.



The renovation work inside the cathedral is very impressive. There are also a number of poems displayed by Sion Aled Owen. I particularly enjoyed this one called the Accidental Pilgrim:

I don’t know why you’ve arrived
Whether just because we’re there,
Or out of faith’s determination,
Like the myriads who came before
To earn celestial favour.
But no, it can’t have been always have that, a frigid spiritual transaction,
The miles, the blistered steps, from horizon to horizon
To pay for paradise
There had to be a frissioning of souls
In tired haste
The last mile to Glyn Rhosyn,
Surprised by the sudden sight
Of journey’s end almost at journey’s end.
At least the last mile was down hill.

And here you are
Diverted by curiosity from the Coastal Path,
Seeking some solace on a vacation rainy day
Or on a taster tour from your ship
Granted an hour to inherit centuries.
Or coming with heart already aflame
To claim the shrine’s promise.

No matter.
Here you will find croeso
And a whiff of heaven,
Not for sale,
Not to be auctioned for your deserving deeds,
But free
As in truth it ever was.
Welcome, pilgrim,
By intent or ‘just looking’ chance.

Watchers of parliamentary controversies will be suffering a severe case of déjà vu today, after Keir Starmer offered his rebellious backbenchers “massive concessions” on the controversial welfare bill in the hope of securing their vote at second reading on Tuesday. 

If any policy can pinpoint Nigel Farage's Reform party as Trump-lite then their proposal for a Britannia card is it.

The Spectator reports that the party's attempt towin over ‘non-doms’ allegedly by Labour and Conservative governments will let wealthy foreigners pay a £250,000 fee to move to the UK, and live here exempt from all tax on their foreign assets.

Reform says that the policy will raise between £1.5 and £2.5 billion annually, but the Spectator's anaysis of the data suggests it is more likely to cost around £34 billion over five years:

To understand why the policy will cost so much, it is important to look at the recent history of ‘non-doms’. For many years, anyone moving here paid tax on their UK income and assets but were exempt from tax on foreign income and assets (unless they brought them into the country). There were then a number of reforms which introduced a £30,000 fee to keep this benefit – a fee which increased over time. Finally, in 2024 the Tories scrapped the non-dom regime and replaced it with a four-year exemption from tax on foreign earnings. Labour slightly tightened that exemption this year.

Reform is proposing to go back to the pre-2017 position for the very wealthy, with a new fee structure. Non-doms will be able to pay a one-off £250,000 for a ‘Britannia card’ and become tax-exempt on foreign earnings and assets forever. There’s then a cute bit of populist politics: the £250,000 payments will be redistributed Robin-Hood style as a cash payment to the approximately 2.5 million workers earning a full-time salary of less than £23,000.

The party’s ‘low end’ estimate is that 6,000 people will buy a ‘Britannia card’ each year – and on that basis the policy will generate £1.6 billion, meaning a £600 payment to each low-paid worker. Farage went further when he introduced the policy, saying ‘tens of thousands’ would be tempted to move to the UK and the payment would be ‘just the tip of the iceberg of what these people will pay if they come back’ because of the likes of VAT and Stamp Duty.

There are several big problems with this.

First, whilst the proposal makes the UK more attractive to the very wealthy who can afford £250,000, it makes the UK much less attractive to the highly skilled and highly paid professionals we want to attract from abroad – such as doctors, coders, senior scientists and entrepreneurs.

Many other countries have special tax arrangements to attract these kinds of expats. Under Reform’s proposal, the UK would be very uncompetitive by comparison. Those unable or unwilling to pay the £250,000 upfront cost would suddenly have to pay full UK tax, and also any tax in their home country. Often these expats will have savings in their home country which benefit from a favoured tax treatment – much like an ISA. The prospect of those savings suddenly being subject to UK tax will not be appetising for them. Farage may think his policy will attract ‘talented people’ from around the world, in reality it is more likely to deter them. Farage forgot about the Laffer curve.

Second, Reform is planning to hand a windfall to a relatively small number of very wealthy people who were already planning to stay here and pay tax. They will now just have to pay a one-off £250,000, with the rest of their tax revenue disappearing.

The amounts involved are very large. The Office for Budget Responsibility suggests recent Conservative and Labour non-dom reforms will raise £33.9 billion from 2026-30, with most of this revenue coming from the Conservative’s 2024 reforms. When wealthy individuals stop paying tax after they buy a Britannia card, this money will be lost – and will have to be funded by tax cuts or spending rises, especially as any Britannia card revenue will be given directly to those on low incomes. The OBR figure takes ‘behavioural response’ into account, and the OBR’s record of tax projections is solid (their 2023 projection was just 4 per cent out).

Could this cost be overcome by attracting lots of very wealthy people to the UK?

That seems pretty unlikely. When the £30,000 annual non-dom fee was first introduced in 2008, only 5,000 people were willing to pay it. The idea that more than 6,000 people will pay £250,000 upfront is very optimistic. The idea that 6,000 will pay every year is almost inconceivable.

There’s another problem here for Reform. Because the rules around non-doms have changed so much in recent years, few billionaires will truly believe they will be forever exempt from tax if they purchase a Britannia card. After all, no parliament can bind its successors. Unless you think Reform are going to win two or more elections in a row, you’re unlikely to move here to benefit from the tax regime. That’s particular the case after other countries have rescinded their previously generous tax offers for expats. Spain lured highly paid foreigners with its ‘Beckham’s law’, but in the 2020s began to aggressively target people who’d used it. Portugal recently restricted its generous non-habitual residence regime.

High-net-worth individuals crave stability and predictability when making long-term decisions about where they are going to live. It’s unlikely many will be attracted by a ‘Britannia card’ that could be cancelled in a few years anyway.

So essentially, the proposal is to give huge tax breaks to the very rich, at the cost of tens of billions of pounds to public finances, leading to higher taxes for the rest of us and huge costs to services. It's almost as if Donald Trump and Elon Musk had concocted this policy for them.

Nation Cymru reports that a major new funding row has erupted after the Welsh Government accepted a decision of its UK counterpart to allow an English ministry to administer the latest post-Brexit aid round for Wales.

The site says that when the Conservatives were in power at Westminster, Welsh Labour Ministers were angry when they were excluded from the process of choosing projects and allocating funds to them, with local authorities receiving money directly from the UK Government’s Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, initially headed by Michael Gove.

This was directly contrary to the arrangements in place when the UK was an EU member state. In those days European aid money came directly to the Welsh European Funding Office (WEFO), a branch of the Welsh Government. WEFO decided which projects to take forward and how much money they would receive. 

Nation Cymru reports that this week, Members of Parliament will vote on a series of measures which will drastically cut the financial support given to disabled people and people with long-term health conditions across Great Britain.

However, it is becoming clear that Wales is going to suffer more than the rest of the UK, having a higher proportion of people receiving support for health conditions than in England. As a result, these cuts will be particularly harmful, with 91% of recipients of standard daily living and 16% of enhanced daily living rate recipients set to lose their Personal Independence Payment:

In Denbighshire, home to some of the most deprived wards in Wales, this means almost half the people currently in receipt of Personal Independence Payment will no longer be eligible for daily living support.

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is a non means-tested health benefit. This means that you’re entitled to financial support because of the way your health affects your daily life and mobility, regardless of your income or savings.

The assessment for the daily living element of PIP asks questions such as “tell us about the difficulties you have with preparing food and how you manage them”.

Research by Scope UK suggests that, on average, disabled households need an extra £1,010 a month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households.

PIP – a standard daily living payment of £73.90 per week and an enhanced rate of £110.40 per week – is designed to go some way to help meet the cost of disability on day-to-day life.

Universal Credit health top-ups – worth an additional £423.27 each month – are based on your ability to do work-related activity, with a separate and more prescriptive assessment asking questions such as “can you safely get around a place that you have not been to before without help?”.

The reforms considered in the parliamentary vote will tie Universal Credit health top-ups to daily living PIP and change the eligibility criteria for this element of PIP, making it much more difficult to prove eligibility and, therefore, making it much harder to qualify for Universal Credit support.

Somebody entitled to both the highest rate of daily living PIP and the Universal Credit health top-up will be entitled to £1,324.10 per month.

Following an investigation by Citizens Advice Denbighshire, through Freedom of Information requests to the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP), the scale of the changes on which Members of Parliament are voting has been revealed.

16% of people receiving the highest rate of support in Denbighshire (compared to 13% in Great Britain as a whole) will lose their health-related benefits. For those receiving both daily living PIP and Universal Credit health top-ups, this will mean a 68% reduction in their monthly income from £1,324.10 per month to £421.14 per month.

91% of standard daily living claimants in Denbighshire as a whole are set to lose all their health-related benefits (compared to 87% in Great Britain as a whole).
These percentages – 16% for enhanced and 91% for daily living recipients – are the same for Wales as a whole, according to the DWP.

It is no surprise that there is so much pressure on Welsh MPs to vote against these changes. They should listen and vote accordingly.

The Mirror reports that the Tories have called for Nigel Farage's Reform to be probed over what they describe as a "cyber-security disaster waiting to happen".

They have called on the information watchdog to launch an investigation into their Reform, who have asked for a mountain of data from the councils they control,including information on whistleblowers and the names and addresses of people who receive meals on wheels:

The Tories also accuse Mr Farage's underlings of risking private data on the amount of cash foster carers receive. In a letter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake lashed out at "unauthorised data transfers".

He warned taxpayers could be landed with massive bills if Reform is fined for breaking the law. It comes after Mr Farage's party said it would use a "unit of software engineers, data analysts and forensic auditors" to trawl council finances to find waste.

Mr Hollinrake wrote: "I believe that the scale of such unauthorised data transfers across local government is a cyber-security disaster waiting to happen.

"There is a strong public interest in the Information Commissioner taking pro-active steps to investigate and, if necessary, issue enforcement notices against the public authorities and Reform UK Ltd.

"I also suspect that council staff would welcome the support of the Information Commissioner, given the clear threats to sack them if they sound the alarm on breaches of the law. It is also not in the financial interests of local taxpayers for their council to be exposed to the liability of fines for breaching the law."

The Tories went on to claim there is a "lack of legal basis" for Reform's data requests. Reform has launched its own Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) modelled on the chaotic department Elon Musk headed in the US.

In a letter to Kent County Council signed by Mr Farage, Reform's head of Doge Zia Yusuf and its new council leader Linden Kemkaran, the party said its team of analysts was "bound by data protection obligations and professional standards".

It also warned: "Should you resist this request, we are ready to pass a council motion to compel the same and will consider any obstruction to be gross misconduct. We trust this will not be required."

Reform need to understand that the law in the UK is very different to that in the USA. The relevant agencies must ensure that they cannot get away with the sort of abuses we are seeing on the other side of the Atlantic.

On International Women’s Day 2024, Friday 8th March, Swansea’s newest park was officially named Amy Dillwyn Park celebrating the lady's extraordinary life and her contribution to the economic wellbeing and civic life of city.

As Swansea Council's website explains, Amy Dillwyn was born in 1845, the daughter of industrialist Lewis Llewelyn Dillwyn. On her father's death in 1892 she inherited the Llansamlet Spelter Works, along with considerable debts. They say that in the male-dominated world of commerce and industry, she made the courageous decision to run the company herself, saving the jobs of 300 employees in the process. Despite everything, by 1899 she had paid off all the debts and Dillwyn and Co. was turning a profit:

Amy supported many local causes, including the seamstresses' strike at the Ben Evans Store and the building of the Ragged School in Swansea. She was also a staunch advocate for women's suffrage. Between 1880 and 1892 she published six novels. Feminist themes recur throughout them, as do social justice, unrequited love and criticism of the upper classes.

Amy Dillwyn Park was named in her honour on International Women's Day 2024 and the purple plaque was unveiled on 7 March 2025.

This plaque does not form part of Swansea Council's blue plaques scheme. It was nominated by Women's Archive Wales and commissioned by Swansea Council. The Purple Plaques campaign has been created to improve the recognition of remarkable women in Wales and award them with a Plaque to commemorate their achievements and cement their legacy in Welsh history.

Two further plaques to Amy Dillwyn were placed at West Cross by the Amy Dillwyn Society. One is on the wall at the entrance to Mumbles Nursing Home (formerly Ty Glyn, Amy Dillwyn's home) and the other is nearby on the verge beside the cycle track.

It is only fitting that she should be remembwered in this way.

It only took twenty-four hours after Chancellor, Rachel Reeves sat down in the House of Commons in the wake of delivering the outcome of her comprehensive spending review, for the UK economy to kick back with some serious questions as to how sustainable her plans really are.

The first sign of this was the news that the Office for National Statistics had reported gross domestic product fell by 0.3 per cent in April, compared with growth of 0.2 per cent the previous month, marking the biggest contraction since October 2023.

This has now led to a warning by the influential Institute for Fiscal Studies that any more bad economic news will “almost certainly” spark fresh tax rises. They have claimed that Council tax will already have to rise at its fastest rate in a generation, adding to concerns that the chancellor has left herself with little room for manoeuvre a day after she unveiled her spending plans for the rest of the parliament:

Paul Johnson, the outgoing director of the IFS, said council tax is set to rise at its fastest rate for 20 years as local government tries to close its funding gaps with annual increases of up to 5 per cent. More councils could also reach a “tipping point” unless demands on their resources fall, the think tank warned.

Rachel Reeves insisted she would not need to increase taxes on the same scale as in her first budget, but declined to rule out rises altogether (PA) Mr Johnson also raised the spectre of many more people being forced to pay higher rates of income tax, under so-called ‘fiscal drag’, where the threshold at which workers begin to pay more stays frozen even as wages rise with inflation.

Mr Johnson described this as "the most politically straightforward thing to do” and said it would bring in about £10bn a year by 2029.

In response, government sources did not deny they could extend a freeze on thresholds, saying only that future tax and spend decisions are taken at the Budget.

In a scathing assessment, he suggested that the Treasury was at times “making up the numbers” and described Ms Reeves’ speech to the Commons on Wednesday as “baffling”.

There are also doubts whether the review will deliver what it promises. Most of the uplift in expenditure has gone to health and defence, with other departments getting little or nothing. The failure to address the growing crisis in higher education is particularly concerning. The capital investment is welcome, but the story on revenue expenditure is different.

The increases in health spending well make very little difference without a significant investment in social care to relieve the pressure on hospitals, while here in Wales Ministers are going to have to make some difficult choices just before the next Senedd elections, that could see imflation-busting council tax increases.

As for the investment in rail, the capital money for Welsh railways is spread over ten years and comes nowhere near what we are owed in Barnett consequentials from HS2 and other English projects.

The Mirror reports that the UK Government will finally tear up the "shameful" 200 year old laws criminalising rough sleepers.

They say that deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has announced she will abolish the Vagrancy Act, which makes rough sleeping illegal in England and Wales:

The 1824 legislation has long been criticised by homelessness charities, and the move has been branded a " landmark moment that will change lives".

It will be included as an amendment to the flagship Crime and Policing Bill - with new laws instead targeting organised begging by gangs and trespassing. The Act will be scrapped by next spring, ministers say. Ms Rayner said: “We are drawing a line under nearly two centuries of injustice towards some of the most vulnerable in society, who deserve dignity and support.

“For 200 years the Vagrancy Act has meant that people who are homeless are treated as criminals and second class citizens. It has punished people for trying to stay safe and done nothing to address why people become homeless in the first place.

“Ending the use of the Vagrancy Act recognises a shameful history of persecuting people for poverty and destitution, something that figures like William Wilberforce and Winston Churchill warned against in their opposition to the Act.

“It is of great credit to the UK Government that they have shown such principled leadership in scrapping this pernicious Act."

And St Mungo’s CEO Emma Haddad said:"The repeal of the Vagrancy Act, which criminalises rough sleeping, cannot come soon enough.

"Right now, we are supporting thousands of people who are rough sleeping; everyone facing this issue has their own heartbreaking story to tell of how they ended up on the streets - from complex mental and physical health issues to an increasingly unaffordable housing market."

This is a matter that Liberal Democrats MP, Layla Moran has been campaigning on for some time, as have many homeless charities, so it is very welcome. As she said five years ago:

“Even one person sleeping rough in this country in 2020 is a disgrace. We need to be taking a more compassionate approach to tackling this crisis. The Vagrancy Act, a Dickensian law from 1824 that criminalises rough sleeping, represents the first hurdle on that journey."

It's abolition is long overdue.

The Guardian reports that more than 300 Foreign Office staff have been told to consider resigning after they wrote a letter over fears the government had become complicit in Israel’s alleged war crimes in Gaza.

The paper says that this is the fourth internal letter from staff about the offensive in Gaza, which started in October 2023 in response to Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel:

In their letter of 16 May the staff, from embassies around the world and at various levels of seniority, questioned the UK’s continued arms sales and what they called Israel’s “stark … disregard for international law”.

The Foreign Office said it had systems for staff to raise concerns and added the government had “rigorously applied international law” in relation to the war in Gaza.

The reply to the letter was sent by the permanent under-secretary, Oliver Robbins, and Nick Dyer, the second most senior civil servant in the Foreign Office. They told the signatories: “If your disagreement with any aspect of government policy or action is profound, your ultimate recourse is to resign from the civil service. This is an honourable course.”

The reply did not address the substantive complaints by staff.

The letter, first reported by Novara Media, said: “In July 2024, staff expressed concern about Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law and potential UK government complicity. In the intervening period, the reality of Israel’s disregard for international law has become more stark.”

It also cited the killing by Israeli forces of 15 humanitarian workers in March and Israel’s suspension of all aid to Gaza in the same month, “leading many experts and humanitarian organisations to accuse Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war”.

It said the UK government’s position had contributed to the “erosion of global norms”, citing continued weapons exports and the visit to London in April by Israel’s foreign minister, Gideon Sa’ar, “despite concerns about violations of international law”. The Foreign Office described Sa’ar’s visit as private, even though he met the foreign secretary, David Lammy.

The staff letter added: “Supported by the Trump administration, the Israeli government has made explicit plans for the forcible transfer of Gaza’s population. Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, recently stated that he envisions Gaza being completely destroyed. The Israeli security cabinet has approved plans to expand its military offensive to include the capture of Gaza. Any such transfer would be in clear breach of the fourth Geneva convention.”

The letter called on the UK government to uphold international law by promoting accountability at the international criminal court and implementing the judgments of the international court of justice. It also called for a suspension of the free trade deal, a complete suspension of arms sales, the publication of legal advice to ministers, an evidence-based review of the UK government’s response to the conflict, and encouragement of a Foreign Office speak-up culture by establishing an internal challenge mechanism.

The staff said there would be an impact on the UK’s reputation if it maintained its existing relationship with Israel.

Being civil servants of course, foreign office staff are there to do the bidding of their political masters, but their concerns about the direction of UK policy are legitimate and need to be listened to.

The Mirror reports on warnings by a major food bank charity that tens of thousands more people will be pushed into poverty by the Government's welfare cuts than previously feared.

The paper says that the Trussell Trust has claimed that 340,000 people in disabled households will be forced into severe hardship by the end of the decade:

Keir Starmer faces a rebellion from his own party over a string of measures, including cutting access to the personal independence payment (PIP) and sickness-related elements of Universal Credit.

The Government's assessment found 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, will fall into relative poverty in England, Scotland and Wales after housing costs are taken into account. But Trussell's analysis said the true picture is even worse, with 440,000 likely to need a food bank - although an increase in the basic rate of Universal Credit will move around 95,000 people out of severe hardship.

Helen Barnard, director of policy at Trussell, said: “This UK government was elected on a promise of change, and with a commitment to end the need for food banks. If the government goes ahead with these ill-considered and cruel cuts to social security, this promise will not be kept – and instead, they will risk leaving behind a legacy of rising poverty and hunger.

"Tackling fiscal challenges should not be done at the expense of people already facing hunger and hardship. These cuts will force 440,000 people in disabled households into severe hardship and leave them at risk of needing a food bank.

"We urge the government not to continue down this damaging path." The PM faces fierce opposition from Labour backbenchers, dozens of who say the proposals - expected to save £5billion a year - are "impossible to support".

Charity the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has backed Trussell's calls for the Government to rethink the disability benefit cuts. It said: "This analysis shows they are likely to create more deep poverty and hardship than even the bleak forecast from the Government's own limited assessments."

Trussell has also demanded the Government brings forward the planned increase to the basic rate of Universal Credit to April 2026, instead of waiting until April 2029.

Labour may have fixed their mistake over the winter fuel allowance but these changes could have a far more damaging impact on poverty levels.

The Guardian reports that Ministers have asked the British Council to draw up spending plans that would force it to close in as many as 60 countries in the latest sign of the impact of Keir Starmer’s decision to cut the aid budget.

The paper adds that the scenarios are the same as those that have been demanded of the BBC World Service, and would mean the council having to shut completely in large parts of the world:

The plans are likely to add to warnings that the government’s cuts to overseas aid are at risk of damaging its soft power just as Russia and China are putting more resources into strengthening theirs.

Scott McDonald, the council’s chief executive, would not comment on the Treasury’s demands but said: “The British Council plays a vital role in delivering UK soft power around the globe. Investment in soft power is imperative to any nation that wishes to be instrumental on the world stage. Over the last three years we have taken £180m of costs out of the organisation through a substantial transformation plan, but the amount of funding we receive from the UK government will have an impact on country closures.”

McDonald has previously warned that financial pressures on the council could make it “disappear” within a decade.

The council receives £1bn in revenue each year, but 85% of that comes from selling its English-language services around the world. In 2024-25 it received £163m in a government grant, most of which came from the international aid budget.

Earlier this year, the prime minister announced he would reduce the aid budget from 0.5% of gross domestic product to 0.3%, freeing up about £6bn in extra spending for defence.

The reductions to the aid budget are now being felt in Whitehall, with the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, having imposed what insiders say are swingeing cuts on the Foreign Office. As a result, institutions such as the British Council and BBC World Service are being asked to model major spending reductions.

Those close to the negotiations with the government say the council had asked for an additional £20m a year in funding, not least to help repay a £197m loan to keep it running during the pandemic.

That loan, which was made on commercial terms, has now been rolled over for another 18 months, but insiders say the repayments are costing it £14m a year.

If it receives no extra cash in the next few years, those close to the talks say, it will have to close in 40 countries. Cuts of 2% in cash terms would require 60 closures. Both of these would be on top of the 20 office closures that it announced in 2021, when it was told to reduce its budget by £185m over five years.

Unsurprisingly, the council’s financial crisis is causing alarm among politicians and military chiefs, who say its activities boost Britain’s national security:

Dozens of high-profile figures recently wrote to the prime minister urging him not to cut the council’s funding. They included the former home secretary James Cleverly, the former defence secretaries Grant Shapps, Ben Wallace and Michael Fallon, the former foreign secretary David Miliband and the former military chiefs Richard Dannatt and David Richards.

The letter warned: “As we compete harder for global influence, the need for the British Council’s unique contribution to our security is greater than ever. We call upon you to invest in this great national asset and force-multiplier, before it is too late.”

Peter Ricketts, the former national security adviser, who organised the letter, told the Guardian: “A lot of defence people will tell you that a small investment in soft power such as the British Council is worth a lot of money on the military side.”

These cuts may be easy to make and possibly popular in a superficial way, but the ramifications of this approach, at a time when the USA is pulling back from its overseas commitments, could have serious consequences for UK foreign policy.

All the government is doing is offering opportunities for the likes of China and Russia to extend their influence around the world.

This is my latest article for Liberator magazine.  The magazine can be downloaded here.

Whisper it softly but are the Welsh Liberal Democrats on the verge of a revival? We are taking small steps, but so far it has all been forward momentum and there is growing optimism within the party that we can exceed expectations in next year’s Senedd elections.

The first buds of this political spring came in a council by-election in Penllergaer, a suburb of Swansea that has been an independent stronghold for some time. Realistically, nobody was going to beat the former councillor’s widower, but this was an area being targeted strongly by Reform, and there were signs that they had some pockets of strength there.

Despite this, a very active community-based campaign enabled Liberal Democrat Howard Evans to secure second-place, ahead of Farage’s self-described ‘pugilist,’ in a ward we have never fought before.

And then a week later, Welsh Lib Dem Susan Grounds took a council seat in Ystalyfera and Cwmllynfell on Neath Port Talbot Council (I challenge Ed Davey to say that on live television), a ward held previously by one Labour and one Plaid Cymru Councillor and one in which we have never stood before. This ward is now part of the redrawn Brecon, Radnor and Cwmtawe seat, which in accordance with the boundary commission’s wishes stretches all the way down the Swansea Valley as far as Pontardawe.

The fourth of July was the 40th anniversary of the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election that saw Richard Livesey come through the middle in a Conservative-Labour marginal to win by just 559 votes. In all that time the local party has neglected to target the local government wards in the south of the constituency.

Fortunately, David Chadwick has taken a different stance and is now properly organising in the Swansea Valley part of his constituency. As a result, an effort was made to find a candidate for Ystalyfera and Cwmllynfell, following the resignation of the Labour councillor for the area, and a full-scale campaign launched.

The result was a dramatic win, 34 votes ahead of Plaid Cymru, who threw the proverbial kitchen sink at the contest, with Labour coming fourth behind Reform. On the same night we won two seats on Mold Town Council in North Wales, while a week later we won a by-election for Ystradgynlais Town Council in Cwmtwrch, also in the Swansea valley.

We have now selected lead candidates for our five leading Senedd constituency seats and are in the process of selecting for the other eleven. Each of these seats will elect six members of the Senedd by a closed d’hondt list system.

At the time of writing, opinion polls for the Senedd have us on just 5%, but we don’t believe that this reflects what is possible next May. As I have set out above, actual votes in real ballot boxes place us in a much stronger position. There is evidence to show that where we campaign hard, we can pick up disaffected Labour and Tory votes, and outpoll Reform, who the media seem to be believes are best placed to attract disaffected voters.

We won’t do this everywhere of course, but in our target seats, where we are working hard, we think that we have an excellent chance of success, aided by differential turnouts and the policy positions we are now developing.

And it is this policy platform that underlines our relevance to people all around Wales, in contrast to the view expressed by one former member and naysayer on the Nation Cymru website.

As a party we have taken the lead in campaigning on water quality issues. The figures show that that over 937,000 hours of sewage dumping took place in Wales last year. It is estimated that Wales is the worst-affected part of the UK for sewage discharges in rivers, seas and beauty spots. On this side of Offa’s Dyke, it is the Welsh Labour Government who are responsible for the sewage crisis, and it is getting worse.

But we are not just talking about and campaigning for change, we are delivering it on all our key priorities.

The budget deal that was struck by our sole MS, Jane Dodds with the Labour government earlier this year saw over £100m being devoted to several important policy areas. The two biggest allocations were an additional £30m for social care, targeting hospital discharge delays and supporting community-based care, and £30m to extend childcare for all two-year-olds in flying start areas and to provide an increase in hourly rates for providers to £6.40.

Crucially, we insisted that the money for social care should not be a one-off but be mainstreamed into council budgets in future years.

We also agreed a local authority funding floor so that no council in Wales would receive a revenue support grant increase of less than 3.8% and doubled the amount set aside for a supported borrowing initiative that will now make an additional £120m available over a two-year period to fix the nation’s deteriorating road network. That will be a very popular FOCUS success story.

The budget deal also enables us to deliver on a long-standing Welsh Liberal Democrats policy of cheaper bus fares for those under-21 years old. This pilot will run from September 2025 to August 2026 and will deliver a flat-rate £1 single fare (£3 day ticket for unlimited travel) for all passengers aged five to 21 anywhere in Wales at a cost of £15m.

Nor did we forget to use the negotiations to help with local community facilities. The deal included £5m to help make local leisure centres more energy efficient and £5m to improve playgrounds. We also asked for and got, an additional £5m for Natural Resources Wales to enforce better water quality in our rivers and on our coasts, tackling some of the pollution and sewage that is blighting our environment.

Finally, we ensured that extra money was also directed to help areas where we have elected representatives. This included over £2m to be shared between four projects: scoping/technical work for the Wyeside Arts Centre in Builth Wells, for the North Powys Wellbeing Campus, for Pont y Bat road junction and for the Brynamman Lido. There was £1.25m to restore a fifth train service on the Heart of Wales line, an issue the Welsh Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for in Knighton, and £10m for rural investment schemes.

This budget deal was an example of the party using its political leverage to improve the lives of everybody across Wales, as well as showing how with just one MS we can make a difference. We could do so much more with a full team of MSs after the next set of elections.

The Welsh Liberal Democrats are the only party in Wales who want to empower individuals and communities, who are opposed to the over-centralisation of power in the hands of the Welsh and UK Governments that is being promoted by the Labour, Tory and Plaid Cymru parties, and who have demonstrated by actions and words our commitment to tackling climate change and improving our environment.

We recognise the need to reform the health service at a local level by investing in social care, and to improve education provision for all children through the curriculum reforms and changes to additional needs provision introduced by Welsh Liberal Democrat Minister, Kirsty Williams, as well as the pupil development grant that is paid to all schools to assist with the education of our poorest children, introduced in a previous budget deal by the Liberal Democrats.

And we have also shown our commitment to improving poor housing, tackling homelessness, building up rural communities and improving our economy. David Chadwick’s championing of Tata Steel in particular, has shown that we will not stand for Labour or the Tories treating Wales as second best.

It is for all these reasons that we believe that we have grounds for optimism as we approach the Senedd elections in 2026. We believe that we may be taking small steps now, but in a year’s time they will amount to a giant leap forward for the Welsh Liberal Democrats.

Back to Mumbles and a little known corner of All Saints Church, which contains the grave of Thomas Bowdler, a man I first came across while studying for my English Literature A Level.

As this website recounts Thomas Bowdler received notoriety as a 19th century English author of "The Family Shakespeare," volumes of William Shakespeare's work rewritten in a more polite language for the Victorian English public.

Effectively he expurgated all the rude words of Shakespeare saying: "My object is to offer these plays to the public in such a state that they may be read with pleasure in all companies, and placed without danger in the hands of every person who is capable of understanding them."

The word "Bowdlerised" was coined in 1836, after his death.

His last work was an expurgation of Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published posthumously in 1826 under the supervision of his nephew and biographer, Thomas Bowdler the Younger.

My encounter with the man came when our English teacher instructed us to restore the deleted parts of Hamlet in the school textbooks, dictating the passages we were to write as he did so. 

I was astonished therefore, after settling in Swansea, to discover Bowdler's grave while researching a walking tour of Mumbles. The inscription is faded but the find-a-grave website renders it as follows:

Sacred
To the memory of
Thomas Bowdler, Esqr.
Youngest son of Thomas Bowdler, Esqr.
of Ashley Near Bath
Born at Ashley July 11, 1754
and died at Rhyddings Near Swansea
Febry 24, 1825
He was a sincere member of
the established Church of England
Putting away lying, speak every
man truth with his neighbour for
we are members one of another
Ephes. Chap IV, Verse 25

It seems that the more we see of Reform the more chaotic they become. The Mirror reports that the party's chairman has hit out at a "dumb" PMQs question asked by the party's newly elected MP.

They say that Sarah Pochin, who was elected in last month's Runcorn by-election, yesterday demanded the government ban the burka face covering, the problem is that this is not actually party policy:

During Prime Minister's Questions, she asked Keir Starmer whether he would be joining countries including France, Denmark and Belgium in banning the face and body covering worn by some Muslim women.

Reform UK distanced itself from the question, confirming that a burqa ban is "not party policy". They added there needs to be a "national debate" about it.

Zia Yusuf, Reform's chairman, today said it was "dumb" for Ms Pochin to ask the question if it was not something Reform was behind. His comment came after controversial commentator Katie Hopkins asked him on social media if he had been the one to say it was "not party policy". The far-right TV personality added: "Burka ban MUST be party policy."

Mr Yusuf replied: "Nothing to do with me. Had no idea about the question nor that it wasn’t policy. Busy with other stuff. I do think it’s dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn’t do."

This row escalated during the day with the Guardian reporting that Zia Yusuf has now resigned as the chair of Reform UK. Yusuf, who is a donor and businessman, said he was resigning after less than a year in the job because he did not believe working to get a Reform government elected was a good use of his time.

The paper says that his departure is a blow to Nigel Farage as he tries to professionalise his rapidly growing party, with political rivals saying it shows the Reform leader cannot work with other senior figures without falling out:

In a statement on X, Yusuf said: “Eleven months ago I became chairman of Reform.

“I’ve worked full-time as a volunteer to take the party from 14 to 30%, quadrupled its membership and delivered historic electoral results. I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office.”

Yusuf has been working on Reform’s new Elon Musk-style “department of government efficiency” (Doge) unit looking at cutting spending in councils where the party is in control.

The tech entrepreneur Nathaniel Fried, who was brought in this week with great fanfare to lead the unit, will also be departing alongside Yusuf, leaving the party’s plans to slash “waste” in local government in disarray.

Given that Yusuf and Fried have been leading the so-called efficiency drive in Reform-led councils this is a major blow to their agenda. It isn't helped by the Reform deputy leader, Richard Tice announcing that new employees in the ten councils now controlled by Reform will not be allowed to join the Local Government Pension Scheme and that existing staff already in the scheme will get lower pay rises to compensate for their pensions.

As such a move is likely to be illegal and lead to widespread strike action, one has to conclude that it isn't just the call for a burka ban that is dumb.

Why do newspapers have to couch everything in militaristic terms? The Independent reports that Rachel Reeves is facing a cabinet revolt over her spending review amid fears departmental cuts will lead to key manifesto spending promises being ditched.

The paper says that this is being described as a “proxy war”, one in which the chancellor is facing a push to consider taxes on the wealthy instead of cuts before she outlines her government spending plans next week

They add that room for manoeuvre is further restricted by an expectation that the government will U-turn on cancelling winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners, as well as ending the two-child benefit cap, which could cost Ms Reeves as much as £5bn:

Rachel Reeves is facing a cabinet revolt over her spending review amid fears departmental cuts will lead to key manifesto spending promises being ditched.

In what is being described as a “proxy war”, the chancellor is facing a push to consider taxes on the wealthy instead of cuts before she outlines her government spending plans next week.

Room for manoeuvre is further restricted by an expectation that the government will U-turn on cancelling winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners, as well as ending the two-child benefit cap, which could cost Ms Reeves as much as £5bn.

The row follows reports that major departments, including Yvette Cooper’s Home Office and Angela Rayner’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, have still not settled on an agreement for the spending review due to be unveiled on Wednesday 11 June.

There was some good news with reports that education secretary Bridget Phillipson had agreed her department’s spending envelope with a week to go. But the holdouts come despite the Treasury setting an unofficial deadline of last weekend to agree.

The mounting pressure on the chancellor comes as former Treasury adviser Jim O’Neill told Ms Reeves that she needs to borrow more for major projects to kickstart growth, as the latest forecasts have seen another downgrade for the UK economy, leaving the chancellor with less wiggle room.

And there are fears that a further squeeze on public finances will open the door for Nigel Farage’s populist Reform party to seize power. On Tuesday night, The Times reported on a letter sent by police chiefs to Sir Keir, warning of “far-reaching consequences” of cuts to forces.

The OECD on Tuesday downgraded its estimate for the UK’s economic growth this year to 1.3 per cent, from 1.4 per cent, and to 1 per cent, from 1.2 per cent, in 2026.

Meanwhile, the government’s pledge to increase defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP has been complicated by Nato’s decision to tell member states, including the UK, to hike it even further to 3.5 per cent.

A senior Labour source told The Independent that the chancellor's decisions over the next week will “see the ending of a number of manifesto pledges as actually being deliverable”.

With Ms Reeves already being accused by critics of trying to bring in “austerity 2.0”, it is understood that a growing number of Labour MPs and trade unions are now pushing for her to introduce wealth taxes instead.

The idea featured in a leaked memo from Ms Rayner, in which the deputy prime minister proposed eight different wealth taxes, including increasing dividend tax rates for higher earners and targeting property traders who use corporate structures to avoid stamp duty.

A senior Labour source told The Independent: “I think the spending review is becoming a proxy war to desperately try and stop Labour facing an existential crisis – the breathtaking collapse in support continues, and [the plan for the party is to] just try and deliver some of its manifesto so that ordinary voters can see and feel that they have.”

They added: “I cannot see how Rachel Reeves lasts.”

However, it is described I think I'm going to get some popcorn in.

The Guardian reports that legal analysis of the government's new planning bill has found that more than 5,000 of England’s most sensitive, rare and protected natural habitats are at high risk of being destroyed by development as a result of the legislation.

The paper says that it has examined the threat the bill poses to 5,251 areas known as nature’s “jewels in the crown”, leading to some of the country’s most respected wildlife charities calling for a key part of the bill to be scrapped:

The areas at risk from Labour’s planning changes include cherished landscapes such as the New Forest, the Surrey heaths, the Peak District moors, and the Forest of Bowland.

Rivers such as the Itchen in Hampshire and the Wensum in Norfolk are also threatened by the bill. The thousands of protected habitats are locations for threatened British wildlife such as nightingales, badgers, dormice, otters, butterflies, dragonflies, kingfishers, tufted ducks and egrets.

The bill is the product of the government’s promise to build 1.5m homes to help address the UK’s housing affordability crisis, and approve 150 major infrastructure projects, in this parliament. The pledge is key to Labour’s plan to boost economic growth; however, a recent study suggests the government is likely to miss its new homes target. The government says the bill does not weaken environmental protections.

But according to three separate legal opinions on the planning and infrastructure bill currently going through parliament, legal protections will be rolled back by the legislation, making it easier for developers to build on areas that have historically been protected under UK and international law.

The Guardian has identified 10 protected sites that are under particular threat from development under the new legislation amid growing criticism of Labour’s bill.

They include one of the last strongholds for nightingales in England at Lodge Hill in Kent; a wetland dating back 2,600 years in south Devon; an internationally important tidal wetland at Tipner west in Portsmouth; and woods dating back as far as the 17th century at Sittingbourne, Kent, part of the 2.5% of the UK’s ancient woodland that still remains.

These areas represent just a handful of the most protected environmental gems across England which include 4,100 sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), all currently protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; 71 wetlands protected under the internationally-binding Ramsar convention; 256 special areas of conservation (SACs) and 824 special protection areas, (SPAs) all protected under UK and international law in the habitats directive.

Though numerous, these protected areas in total only cover just under 8% of land in England. Critics of the bill say ensuring they continue to be protected does not amount to a block on building new houses.

In a legal opinion, Alex Goodman KC said the consequences of the planning and infrastructure bill as drafted were that any adverse impacts a development inflicted on the most protected natural areas in England, including SSSIs, SACs and Ramsar sites, must be “disregarded”.

“[The bill] thereby withdraws the principal legal safeguard for protected sites,” he said. “This amounts to a very significant change.”

Goodman has provided one of three separate legal opinions on the bill since it was presented by Angela Rayner, secretary of state for housing, communities and local government.

All, including that of the government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), challenge Rayner’s assertion to parliament that the bill is not a rollback of environmental law. Rayner has been threatened with a judicial review brought by nature groups if she does not “correct” her comments.

We need new homes, but not at any cost, and in this case the cost of developing these sites is too high. The government can meet its targets without them.

Nation Cymru reports that the UK Government has comfirmed that the multi-billion pound rail project between Oxford and Cambridge will be classed as an England and Wales scheme even though the line goes nowhere near the Welsh border.

As a result there will be no barnett funding consequential for Wales, though Northern Ireland and Scotland will get a cut of the cash:

The designation was uncovered in response to questions put forward by Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe MP, David Chadwick.

The Liberal Democrat MP asked the Secretary of State for Transport, Heidi Alexander whether the £6.6 billion project – which will launch later this year – will be marked as an England and Wales scheme.

The rail link between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge is set to be one of Britain’s largest transport projects.

It will provide easier and faster connectivity across the region, opening up better access to jobs and education opportunities, as well as regenerating town centres and supporting tens of thousands of new homes.

The proposals include an upgrade between Oxford and Bicester, the reintroduction of a section of railway between Bicester and Bletchley, line refurbishment between Bletchley and Bedford and brand new railway infrastructure between Bedford and Cambridge.

In a written response to Chadwick, the UK Government said: “East West Rail is set to cover the route from Oxford to Cambridge and is therefore part of the Rail network enhancements pipeline (RNEP) portfolio which covers funding for projects in England and Wales.

“The RNEP portfolio can be distributed to any scheme across England and Wales.”

The Welsh Liberal Democrats have branded the decision as “yet another example of Labour short-changing Wales on vital infrastructure funding.”

The party says that were Wales to be treated like Scotland, it could have received around £360 million in consequential funding to spend on transport projects in Wales.

It comes following the UK Government’s controversial handling of HS2 funding, where the £100 billion high-speed rail link was classified as an “England and Wales” scheme despite none of the track crossing the Welsh border.

The classification meant no consequential cash was released to Wales by the Treasury using the barnett formula.

This is usually determined based on whether the UK Government increases or decreases funding for departments that cover devolved areas.

In contrast, Scotland and Northern Ireland both received full funding uplifts.

The cash amount thought to be owed to Wales from HS2 spending has changed drastically over the last two years with Welsh Government estimates of billions dropping to millions – a fluctuation that has appeared to correlate with a new Labour government coming to power.

Independent experts, including the Senedd’s Finance Committee and academics at Cardiff University say Wales lost out on over £4 billion as a result of HS2 alone.

Until the General Election, Labour had publicly backed Wales receiving the HS2 money it should have been paid if the project had been correctly classified.

David Chadwick is absolutely right that this a failure that can be attributed directly to Labour, but not the current UK Labour government. Treasury rules state that funding under the Barnett formula is allocated when the UK government spends money in England on a policy area devolved to the respective nations.

A previous Welsh Government was given the opportunity to take charge of railways in Wales. It was the same time as Scotland took that respsonsibility on for their nation. However, the then Welsh First Minister declined the offer. 

The Independent reports that record high levels of child poverty has led to demand for help from baby banks from parents struggling to feed their children surging by more than one-third in a year.

The paper says that as the cost of living continues to rise, a growing number of families are having to turn to baby banks, with new data showing that more than 3.5 million essential items were handed out in 2024, including nappies, clothes and cots – an increase of 143 per cent on the previous year:

Describing the rising need as “absolutely shocking”, actor and podcast host Giovanna Fletcher questioned how this is happening in the UK as she joined forces with MPs and children’s charities to urge the government to take action.

The new figures come after Labour delayed until autumn its flagship plan to cut child poverty, although it insists its strategy is “ambitious”. Meanwhile, ministers are debating whether or not to scrap the two-child benefit cap as the cost of living crisis continues to bite, and statutory maternity pay remains equivalent to less than half of the 2025 national living wage.

Single father Adam Coggins said the pressures of parenthood took a toll on his mental health and forced him to reach out to a baby bank for the first time, as he feared that without help he would be unable to feed his daughters, aged two and three.

The 34-year-old told The Independent: “I was so uncomfortable going there, because I’ve never had to ask for help before. I felt like a failure; that was hard. [But] without these people, we would be in trouble. They’ve saved a lot of people – [and] especially when you’ve got two young kids, you need that help. That could be the difference between getting a couple of meals for them. Getting two packs of nappies saves you money to get food for them.”

Mr Coggins and his daughters are among the 219,637 families supported by UK baby banks in 2024 alone – an increase of 35 per cent on the previous year, according to data from the Baby Bank Alliance (BBA), an organisation that supports the more than 400 baby banks nationwide. Stark government figures show that the number of children in poverty in Britain soared by 200,000, from 4.3 million to 4.5 million, between 2023 and 2024.

The BBA’s analysis of its latest annual survey of members found that baby banks are stretched to the limit. Almost two-thirds (65 per cent) reported receiving more requests for help than they could meet, with referrals rising by 30 per cent last year, while over two-thirds (69 per cent) said they have waiting lists for key items. This marks a crisis given that baby banks are a lifeline for families, providing essential items such as clothing, nappies, toys, prams and food, as well as a safe space. They are often run by volunteers, operating out of community halls, warehouses and even front rooms.

This situation is a direct result of Tory inaction and neglect but the fact that a Labour government has not taken immediate action to alleviate the problem by abolishing the two-child benefit cap and are still umming and arrhing over how to tackle child poverty is a disgrace. This cannot be allowed to continue, measures have to be put in place now to deal with child poverty.

The Independent reports that Nigel Farage’s claim that Reform UK is the “party of workers” has been called into question as figures show his plans to slash taxes would benefit the richest most.

The paper says that the Reform leader has sought to entice Labour voters to his cause by outlining up to £80bn of welfare and tax handouts without saying how he would fund them, however economists have warned that these pledges are unfunded, would cause economic chaos, and would benefit top earners far more than those on the lowest incomes:

The centrepiece of Mr Farage’s tax plans was a pledge to lift the tax-free income allowance from £12,570 to £20,000, which would cost between £50bn and £80bn per year.

Stuart Adam, a senior economist at the influential Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said that the “biggest beneficiaries [would be] the top 10 per cent”. “It mainly benefits the better off,” he told The Independent.

He added: “We are talking about the upper middle [class] being the biggest beneficiaries as a percentage of income, and the best-off being the biggest beneficiaries in cash terms.”

Mr Adam said that around a third of adults already earn too little to pay income tax, while the changes would also penalise those on universal credit, as any uplift in their take-home pay would be clawed back in lower welfare payments.

He said a better way of targeting specifically “working people” with the tax cut would be to target employee national insurance, which is only paid by those in work.

Calculations for The Independent by the research institute Policy Engine reveal that Mr Farage’s plans to hike the tax-free income allowance would boost the incomes of the bottom tenth of earners by 1.3 per cent.

By contrast, the calculations show that the top 10 per cent of earners would see their incomes boosted by 4.2 per cent under Reform’s plans.

Max Mosley, senior economist at the New Economics Foundation, told The Independent that Reform’s attempts to appear progressive on issues such as winter fuel payments and the removal of the two-child benefit cap are “a distraction”.

He said: “It comes as part of a wider set of reforms, which include regressive tax changes and cuts to public services working people rely on. When we put all [of Reform UK’s] policies together, it is the wealthiest households that benefit the most, and the poorest who will see the smallest difference in their standard of living.

“Being a ‘party of workers’ does not mean giving pennies to the poorest and pounds to the richest.”

So very much like Donald Trump, then.