Saturday, August 23, 2025
Lucky Jim in Swansea
As the Swansea University Alumni site says, Amis published his first novel in 1954 while lecturing at the university:
It was called Lucky Jim and it was a comic satire on higher education, set in a provincial university. There are obvious parallels with Swansea, although Amis always said that he based the story more on Leicester where his friend Phillip Larkin had been working at the time. It is hard to imagine that working in Swansea did not impact the way Amis crafted Lucky Jim. Many of his subsequent novels, including That Uncertain Feeling were based on south Wales, as was The Old Devils, for which Amis won the Booker Prize in 1986.
When interviewed for the BBC’s Desert Island Discs programme in 1986, Amis repeated something he had often written, which was that the best work of his life had been conducted whilst at Swansea. Despite the reputation he had in some quarters, there is plenty of evidence to show that Amis was an engaged and likeable lecturer who connected with his students and gave his time generously. Classes were often held in the pub, students were invited to parties at his house, but he also gave a lot of time to activities such as judging student short story competitions.
At least one of his books was filmed in the city. In 1961, That Uncertain Feeling was made into a film starring Peter Sellers, with the title changed to Only Two Can Play, to avoid confusion with similar contemporary titles. It was also adapted by the BBC in 1986 as a television series, starring Denis Lawson and Sheila Gish, this time with the original title.
That was also filmed in Swansea, with some interesting use of locations. In one scene the leading characters are in Rhossili and get into a car to drive back to the city. However, the vehicle instead, heads out in the opposite direction towards Worms Head. It looked good on the screen though.
The book is a satire on life and culture in a Welsh seaside town, involving a married librarian who begins an affair with the bored wife of a local bigwig. Amis, who was of course, an English incomer to Swansea, mocks Wales's devotion to culture and learning as false and pretentious.
Amis's last novel, The Old Devils is also set in Swansea, with the television adaptation being filmed in Mumbles.
At the time I started at Swansea in 1978, Crefft, the student newspaper had just ceased to exist. I was involved a few years late in founding a replacement student newspaper called DoubleTake, that lasted a few years after I graduated before being replaced by the Waterfront newspaper. The illustration above is an interview with Kingsley Amis in Crefft in 1954
The book is a satire on life and culture in a Welsh seaside town, involving a married librarian who begins an affair with the bored wife of a local bigwig. Amis, who was of course, an English incomer to Swansea, mocks Wales's devotion to culture and learning as false and pretentious.
Amis's last novel, The Old Devils is also set in Swansea, with the television adaptation being filmed in Mumbles.
At the time I started at Swansea in 1978, Crefft, the student newspaper had just ceased to exist. I was involved a few years late in founding a replacement student newspaper called DoubleTake, that lasted a few years after I graduated before being replaced by the Waterfront newspaper. The illustration above is an interview with Kingsley Amis in Crefft in 1954
Friday, August 22, 2025
The debate we should be having on asylum
Completely absent in this debate – which apparently we are all too frightened to have, yet we have constantly – is any sense of a better idea. If the problem with refugees is that they arrive illegally, would it help to have more legal routes? If the hotels are the issue, could we not work towards dispersal in the first instance, and much faster processing of claims? Is there no world in which we could engage imaginatively with the violence and upheaval that people are fleeing, and pull together to support them until they’re legally able to support themselves? That seems to be the reasonable expectation with Ukrainian refugees: if we can’t extend the same empathy to those from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Bangladesh, can anyone at least explain why? Would a refresher in the political context of those countries help? If the problem is the numbers, can anyone explain how many asylum seekers they would like instead? We currently rank fifth when compared to European nations in the absolute number of asylum claims received, and 17th when numbers are adjusted for population – should we be 20th?
Does anyone want to resile from the 1951 UN refugee convention? That would seem to be implicit in Reform UK’s promise to leave the European convention on human rights, but would any party or organisation that doesn’t want that care to explain how it is executing its duty towards refugees, and plans to do so in the future? The problem with anger as a political instrument – well, one of the problems, alongside the violence – is that it’s never called upon to be articulate or constructive. It would undermine its own strength if it were.
There was another element of the campaign that led to this ruling, which is subtle but important: the erasure of the category of refugee and asylum seeker. When you make the focus of your argument a hotel and its planning status, on the surface this is a battle over place. But if you take away the refuge someone is seeking, are they a refugee? If you take away the protection granted to them by the state, there is no asylum to claim. How, then, do we define these people? Without a political definition, do they exist? Even though the issue is very different, it’s not tactically dissimilar to the legal campaign waged against trans people, resulting in April’s ruling that everyone has to use the toilets and other facilities of their biological sex. It doesn’t say you have no right to live as trans; it’s just unfortunately impractical for you to do so unless you stay at home. Do you still exist, do you still have rights?
The problem with anger in politics is that combustion is the only way to expend the built-up energy. It’s much easier to keep things humane and civilised in the first place. But it’s too late to wish we had done that – an injection of humanity is the only way to cool things down.
Somebody needs to start answering these questions.
Thursday, August 21, 2025
Police use of facial recognition could fall foul of law
The paper says that as the UK’s biggest force prepares to use instant face-matching cameras at this weekend’s Notting Hill carnival, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said its use was intrusive and could have a “chilling effect” on individuals’ rights:
The development will be a blow to Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan police commissioner, who has backed the use of the technology at mass events such as this weekend’s carnival, when 2 million people are expected to descend upon west London.
The EHRC has been given permission to intervene in a judicial review launched last month by the anti-knife campaigner Shaun Thompson. Thompson, a Black British man, was wrongly identified by live facial recognition (LFR) as a criminal, held by police, then faced demands from officers for his fingerprints.
Data seen by the EHRC shows that the number of black men triggering an “alert” by the technology is higher than would be expected proportionally when compared with the population of London, it said.
A letter last week from 11 anti-racist and civil liberty organisations, disclosed in the Guardian, urged the Met to scrap the use of the technology over concerns of racial bias and the impending legal challenge.
LFR technology captures and analyses the faces of individuals passing in front of real-time CCTV cameras. It extracts unique biometric data from each face and compares it against a “watchlist” of thousands of people sought by the police.
There is at present no specific domestic legislation regulating police use of LFR, with police using common law powers instead. The Met insists that the Equality Act 2010 places legal obligations upon them to eliminate discrimination.
The EHRC said that the claim brought forward by Thompson “raises issues of significant public importance” and will provide submissions “on the intrusive nature of LFR technology” which focus on the way in which the technology has been used by the police.
The Met’s policy on LFR technology was unlawful because it was incompatible with articles 8 (right to privacy), 10 (freedom of expression), and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European convention on human rights, the watchdog said.
Rebecca Vincent, the interim director of Big Brother Watch, said the EHRC’s intervention was “hugely welcome”.
She added: “The rapid proliferation of invasive live facial recognition technology without any legislation governing its use is one of the most pressing human rights concerns in the UK today. Live facial recognition surveillance turns our faces into barcodes and makes us a nation of suspects who, as we’ve seen in Shaun’s case, can be falsely accused, grossly mistreated and forced to prove our innocence to authorities.”
John Kirkpatrick, the chief executive of the EHRC, said: “There must be clear rules which guarantee that live facial recognition technology is used only where necessary, proportionate and constrained by appropriate safeguards. We believe that the Metropolitan police’s current policy falls short of this standard.”
If this technology is to be used then there needs to be a common standard regulatory regime across the UK that ensures that it is used fairly and is subject to scrutiny. Without that the system will not command public confidence and there will continue to be doubts as to how it is being used.
Wednesday, August 20, 2025
Labour walking away from a green agenda
The paper says that experts have said ministers are choosing to use Brexit to “actively go backwards” in some cases, though there are also areas where the UK has improved nature laws such as by banning sand eel fishing:
Analysis by the Guardian and the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) has found the UK is falling behind the EU in terms of protecting rare creatures such as red squirrels, cleaning up the air and water, removing dangerous chemicals from products, and making consumer products more recyclable and energy efficient.
Since Brexit, the analysis has found the EU has brought forward 28 new, revised or upgraded pieces of environmental legislation that the UK has not adopted, and the UK has actively chosen to regress by changing four different pieces of legislation including on protected habitats, pesticides and fisheries.
Areas of concern include:
* The planning and infrastructure bill, which overrides the EU’s habitats directive and allows developers to pay into a general nature fund rather than keeping or creating new habitat nearby to make up for what is destroyed.
* The UK falling behind on water policy, with the EU implementing stronger legislation to clean rivers of chemicals and microplastics and making polluters pay to clean up.
* Air pollution, as the EU is legislating to clean up the air while the UK has removed EU air pollution laws from the statute book.
Recycling and the circular economy, as the EU enforces strict new standards for designer goods that could leave the UK as a “dumping ground” for substandard, hard-to-recycle products.
Last year, the Guardian and IEEP found 17 environmental areas in which the UK was falling behind the EU. As the government fails to keep up with EU environmental legislation, the chasm has widened to 28.
There are a couple of “bright spots” identified by IEEP in which the UK has begun to improve its environmental protections compared with the EU, including the ban on sand eel fishing that could stop puffins from starving. The UK has also designated more marine protected areas than the EU, and is making farming payments contingent on protecting areas for nature.
However, these are outweighed by the lack of regulation around some of the most important environmental areas, experts said.
Of most concern is the decision of the UK government to overrule the EU-derived habitats regulations that protect the habitats of rare creatures including dormice, red squirrels and nightingales. The Office for Environmental Protection has warned that the planning and infrastructure bill, which contains the legislation that would overrule the habitats regulations, is a “regression” of environmental law. The OEP is the watchdog set up after Brexit to replace EU oversight of the implementation of environmental regulations in the UK. However, although Labour promised in its 2024 manifesto to “unlock the building of homes … without weakening environmental protections”, the government has ignored its recommendations.
Michael Nicholson, the head of UK environmental policy at IEEP, said: “It is one thing deciding not to keep pace with the EU in actively strengthening our environmental laws but quite another to actively go backwards and remove environmental protections that we inherited from our EU membership.”
The EU has also been rolling back some of its planned environmental legislation, as politicians globally deprioritise environment and climate action. In the first six months of the new European Commission mandate, the EU delayed a law to stop deforestation in supply chains by one year, gave carmakers two extra years to meet pollution targets and downgraded the protection status of wolves. Environmental NGOs have found themselves in the crosshairs of a funding freeze they argue undermines democracy. After farmers’ protests swept across Europe last year, lawmakers and member states nearly killed off a nature restoration law that EU institutions had already negotiated.
Nicholson added: “Five years on from Brexit, we can now see that the UK has chosen not to keep pace with the EU in strengthening its environmental laws and policies.
“The EU is no nirvana for environmental protection, but the UK is falling behind and should be looking to use its post-Brexit independent policymaking powers to go above and beyond what the EU is doing. Sadly, it is losing this race to the top and has ceded leadership to the EU.”
All the evidence is that Labour no longer value the environment, are abandoning nature for so-called growth policies and are lukewarm about climate change. Brexit has put us in a worse position environmentally than before, and Labour are facilitating that regression.
Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Are Labour abandoning the environment to developers?
The paper says that the chancellor is considering major reforms that would make it more difficult for wildlife concerns to hold up developments as part of a planning reform bill being drafted by treasury officials:
The move reportedly involves tearing up parts of European environmental rules, which developers have argued slow down crucial projects.
While Labour ministers have previously insisted their current planning overhaul would balance growth with nature, Ms Reeves is understood to believe that the government must go further.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill going through Parliament overrides existing habitat and nature protections, which, if passed, would allow developers to make general environmental improvements and pay into a nature restoration fund that improves habitats on other sites.
But Ms Reeves is considering more contentious reforms that are likely to trigger further backlash from environmental groups, according to The Times.
Among the changes under discussion are plans for a smaller, UK-only list of protected species, which would give less weight to wildlife considered rare across Europe but relatively common in Britain, The Times said.
Ms Reeves is also reportedly considering abolishing the EU “precautionary principle” that forces developers to prove projects will have no impact on protected natural sites. Instead, a new test would assess the risks and benefits of building.
The chancellor is also exploring limits on legal challenges from environmental campaigners. She has repeatedly criticised bats and newts as obstacles to economic growth, and is now said to believe the government must go further and faster in removing protections.
Speaking to the House of Lords economic affairs committee last month, Ms Reeves said: “The reason that HS2 is not coming to my city of Leeds anymore anytime soon, is because I’m afraid, as a country, we’ve cared more about the bats than we have about the commuter times for people in Leeds and West Yorkshire, and we’ve got to change that.
“Because I care more about a young family getting on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails, and I care more about my energy bills and my constituents than I do about the views of people from their windows.”
High-profile examples of costly protections include the £100m Buckinghamshire “bat tunnel” built to protect wildlife from HS2 trains and the so-called “fish disco” at Hinkley Point C nuclear plant, which uses sound to deter fish from cooling system intakes.
The existing Planning and Infrastructure Bill already proposes a “nature restoration fund” under which developers could offset environmental damage by paying for conservation schemes elsewhere.
But the bill has faced criticism from both environmental groups and developers, who fear it will fail to speed up construction.
Paul Miner of the countryside charity CPRE told The Times that targeting habitats regulations would “take us backwards rather than forwards on nature recovery”.
I'm sure that this gungho approach to nature will go down well with many but it is significant in that it moves the government even further away from its climate change and nature recovery agenda. We do need new homes, but I'm not convinced that we have to compromise our natural environment to get them.
Monday, August 18, 2025
Tractor Tax will hit working farmers worse
The paper says that the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which has been broadly supportive of the idea of a so called ‘tractor tax’, warned that landowners were “less likely to be impacted by the reform than working farmers”. The changes mean that farms valued at £1m or more will be liable for 20 per cent inheritance tax:
CenTax found just 20 per cent of landowner estates would be hit by the tax, compared to 25 per cent of tenant farmer estates, 45 per cent of owner-farmer estates, and 67 per cent mixed tenure estates.
CenTax said: “Landowners are less likely to be impacted by the reform than working farmers, representing 64 per cent of all farm estates but 42 per cent of impacted farm estates. Owner-farmers represent 17 per cent of all farm estates but 37 per cent of impacted farm estates.”
Mo Metcalf-Fisher, from the Countryside Alliance, said: “Labour ministers repeatedly say they want to protect genuine family farming businesses, while tackling tax avoidance, through inheritance tax changes.
“The evidence, however, points to it being these very families and their farms that will be badly impacted by the policy, as it stands.
“There is still time to listen to experts from the farming sector and rethink the policy before it’s too late.”
Ministers said that the change was brought in to prevent tax avoidance, but it seems that those who said it will hit farmers worse were correct. Yet another misstep by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Sunday, August 17, 2025
Heavy-handed policing of Palestine protests under attack
The paper says that in the letter to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, and Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan police, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said the perception that peaceful protest could attract disproportionate police attention “undermines confidence in our human rights protections”:
Kishwer Falkner, the EHRC chair, wrote that it was vital that any policing of protests was both proportionate and based on clear legal tests.
The letter raised concerns about “reports of police engagement with individuals participating in forms of protest that are not linked to any proscribed organisation”.
It cited as an example the case of Laura Murton, first revealed by the Guardian. Kent police threatened her with arrest under the Terrorism Act for holding a Palestinian flag and having signs saying “Free Gaza” and “Israel is committing genocide”.
Murton filmed police telling her that even such general statements “all come under proscribed groups, which are terror groups that have been dictated by the government”.
During the exchange, one officer said the phrase “Free Gaza” was “supportive of Palestine Action”, that it was illegal “to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation”, and that she had committed that offence with her signs.
Falkner wrote: “Whilst we acknowledge police expertise in assessing security risks, we want to emphasise that any interference with protest rights must be lawful and assessed case by case.
“Heavy-handed policing or blanket approaches risk creating a chilling effect, deterring citizens from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly through fear of possible consequences.
“This concern extends beyond those directly affected by police engagement to the broader health of our democracy, because the perception that peaceful protest may attract disproportionate police attention undermines confidence in our human rights protections.”
Falkner urged ministers and police to make sure all officers were given “clear and consistent guidance on their human rights obligations in relation to protest”, which should “ensure that the appropriate balance is maintained between public safety and the protection of essential human rights”.
Murton told the Guardian last week that her solicitors had issued a letter of claim on her behalf to the chief constable of Kent police, in what was also said to be a move to remind other police forces of their responsibilities towards peaceful protests.
Falkner said in a statement: “The right to peaceful protest is fundamental to our democracy and must be protected even when dealing with complex and sensitive issues.
“We recognise the genuine challenges the police face in maintaining public safety, but we are concerned that some recent responses may not strike the right balance between security and fundamental rights.
“Our role as the national human rights institution is to uphold the laws that safeguard everyone’s right to fairness, dignity and respect. When we see reports of people being questioned or prevented from peaceful protests that don’t support proscribed organisations, we have a duty to speak out.”
This suppression of legitimate protest and the undermining of democratic rights is the responsibiity of Labour ministers and their unjustified proscription of Palestine Action. Labour have always had an authoritarian streak and it is becoming more evident in their actions since coming to power.
Saturday, August 16, 2025
A fortified home in a stunning location
The only problem was that whoever had put together the itinerary had obviously never been to Gower, because there is no way that a 52-seater coach can get anywhere near the castle on the narrow roads in that part of peninsular.
The castle is located in a dramatic location on the windswept coast of the Gower peninsula,` overlooking marshes and mudflats with the wild Llwchwr estuary beyond.
This fortified manor house was raised in stages by the wealthy de la Bere family, stewards to the lords of Gower, 700 years ago.
As the Cadw site says, mostly the de La Beres wanted to create an elegant family home in which to entertain high society guests:
The grand hall, guest chambers with indoor latrines and the lord’s solar, or private withdrawing room, all suggest considerable splendour.
But the watchtower, military-style crenellated wall-tops and a south-west tower raised to battlement height show that these were still dangerous times. Luxury and defence had to go hand in hand.
Nevertheless it was a century later before Weobley suffered serious damage during the uprising of Owain Glyndŵr in the early 15th century.
Welsh soldier Rhys ap Thomas picked the right side at the Battle of Bosworth when he placed his army of 2,000 men at the disposal of Henry Tudor, soon to become Henry VII.
His reward was a knighthood and a reputation as one of the up-and-coming men in the Tudor court. Weobley passed to the powerful Sir Rhys at the end of the 15th century. Although his main seat was at nearby Carew Castle, he still found the time to upgrade his manor house beside the mudflats.
In particular he added the two-storey porch block to provide a more stately entrance to the hall and private quarters. His lofty position in society demanded no less.
But the family’s influence was short-lived. His grandson Rhys ap Gruffudd was executed for treason in the reign of Henry VIII and the castle reverted to the Crown.
Nowadays, the castle is a visitor attraction, open all year round, even boasting a gift shop. It is also the home of the Gower Folk Festival in the second weekend of June. And the nearby beaches and pubs are well worth visiting as well.
Friday, August 15, 2025
Claims of an exodus not substantiated
That was certainly suggested when the current government scrapped the non-domiciled tax status, which allowed wealthy individuals with connections abroad to avoid paying full UK tax on their overseas earnings. In fact, there were predictions that so many would leave that the Treasury would actually be worse off.
The Guardian reports that claims of an exodus of wealthy “non-doms” in response to tax rises may be overblown, according to a report that suggests the number leaving the country is in line with official forecasts.
The paper says that early monthly payroll data from HM Revenue and Customs appears to indicate that the number of non-dom departures is in line with official predictions, according to sources cited by the Financial Times:
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast in January that 25% of non-doms with trusts would leave the UK in response to the abolition of the tax status, while 10% of those without trusts would leave. Official data suggests this prediction was broadly correct, people briefed on the findings told the FT.
Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor’s Conservative predecessor, first announced moves to phase out the 225-year-old non-dom status that protected overseas earnings from being taxed in exchange for a flat annual fee. However, Labour took the proposals a step further by replacing them with a regime that will include overseas assets in the UK’s 40% inheritance tax rate.
Many non-doms earn income from work or their pensions in the UK, which means they appear in the PAYE (pay as you earn) figures in the payroll data that businesses send to the tax office each month. If they fall off PAYE figures, that suggests they have left the country.
The FT reported that some of those briefed on early HMRC data said payroll figures suggested that fewer people were leaving than projected by the OBR, while others said the departures were in line with forecasts.
The numbers do not capture the movements of those non-doms who do not work in the UK, which could include some of the richest, but with a shortage of reliable data they will provide some relief to Reeves amid a debate about whether the policy could backfire.
Payroll data is now a more helpful indicator of potential non-dom movement as more than 120 days have passed since the start of the tax year, which started on 6 April. It is likely that anyone who did not want to be considered as a UK tax resident would have left the country.
HMRC has said previously that it will not have official data on how many non-doms who earn UK income have left until January 2027, when people submit self-assessment tax returns for the year 2025-26.
So now that those predictions have been debunked, how about that wealth tax?
The Guardian reports that claims of an exodus of wealthy “non-doms” in response to tax rises may be overblown, according to a report that suggests the number leaving the country is in line with official forecasts.
The paper says that early monthly payroll data from HM Revenue and Customs appears to indicate that the number of non-dom departures is in line with official predictions, according to sources cited by the Financial Times:
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast in January that 25% of non-doms with trusts would leave the UK in response to the abolition of the tax status, while 10% of those without trusts would leave. Official data suggests this prediction was broadly correct, people briefed on the findings told the FT.
Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor’s Conservative predecessor, first announced moves to phase out the 225-year-old non-dom status that protected overseas earnings from being taxed in exchange for a flat annual fee. However, Labour took the proposals a step further by replacing them with a regime that will include overseas assets in the UK’s 40% inheritance tax rate.
Many non-doms earn income from work or their pensions in the UK, which means they appear in the PAYE (pay as you earn) figures in the payroll data that businesses send to the tax office each month. If they fall off PAYE figures, that suggests they have left the country.
The FT reported that some of those briefed on early HMRC data said payroll figures suggested that fewer people were leaving than projected by the OBR, while others said the departures were in line with forecasts.
The numbers do not capture the movements of those non-doms who do not work in the UK, which could include some of the richest, but with a shortage of reliable data they will provide some relief to Reeves amid a debate about whether the policy could backfire.
Payroll data is now a more helpful indicator of potential non-dom movement as more than 120 days have passed since the start of the tax year, which started on 6 April. It is likely that anyone who did not want to be considered as a UK tax resident would have left the country.
HMRC has said previously that it will not have official data on how many non-doms who earn UK income have left until January 2027, when people submit self-assessment tax returns for the year 2025-26.
So now that those predictions have been debunked, how about that wealth tax?
Thursday, August 14, 2025
Are the Labour government in a hole on Palestine Action?
The paper says that the warning by Peter Hain, who opposed proscription, came as a Labour backbencher who supported it said the issue would arise again when parliament returned in September:
Lord Hain, who was a leader of the anti-apartheid movement and the Anti-Nazi League in Britain during the 1970s and 1980s, was lacerating about the response to recent protests in support of Palestine Action.
“It will end in tears for the government,” he said. “We are seeing retired magistrates, retired and serving doctors and all sorts of people being arrested and now effectively being equated with terrorists such as al-Qaida, which is absolutely wrong.”
He said if a legal challenge to the proscription was successful, it “would be a mercy to all concerned, including the government”.
The peer was one of three Labour members of the Lords to vote against banning the group in July. Lord John Hendy, the barrister and employment law expert, and Frances O’Grady, the former TUC general secretary, also opposed the move, as did 10 Labour MPs.
“It’s going to get worse [for the government] because I don’t see people from that ‘middle Britain’ background who have joined these protests in such large numbers to suddenly decide that all is OK,” he said.
“In fact, I think more are going to come out and face arrest because the approach to Palestine Action is contrary to every form of peaceful protest in British history, whether that’s the chartists and suffragettes or anti-apartheid and anti-fascist protesters.”
The government has come under pressure to justify the detention of 532 people arrested over the weekend under the Terrorism Act – half of whom were 60 or older – on suspicion of showing support for Palestine Action.
He cited his experience as a secretary of state for Northern Ireland and cabinet minister to challenge the equation of the group with terrorists.
“There is a battery of other crimes that could be applied to Palestine Action but terrorism is not one of them, while you also devalue the charge of terrorism by equating it with the protests we have seen,” Hain said.
“I … worked with the intelligence services and others to stop dissident IRA groups from killing. I have signed warrants to stop other real terrorists, Islamist terrorists, bombing London. So I am not soft on terrorism. But I am a strong believer that you have to know what it looks like.”
Hain said that a lot of Labour MPs and peers were now having “second thoughts” about proscribing Palestine Action.
With more demonstrations planned against this proscription, in addition to the legal challenge, and with heavyweights like Peter Hain speaking out against the government's action, it is clear that Ministers are coming under increasing pressure over this ban. They are in a hole and digging. Surely, it is time for a rethink.
Wednesday, August 13, 2025
UK Government digs its heels in
They say that the Crown Estate is a collection of marine and land assets and holdings that belong to the monarch. It includes the seabed out to 12 nautical miles, which is around 65% of the Welsh foreshore and riverbed, and a number of ports and marinas. On land the Crown Estates owns 50,000 acres of common land in Wales. The value of the estate in Wales is more than £603m of land.
Since 2019 responsibility for management of the Crown Estate’s assets in Scotland has been devolved but that is not the case in Wales. The Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, the Welsh Government and all twenty-two Welsh councils want the estate devolved to Wales. However, the UK Government has ruled it out:
In response to a letter sent by campaigners Yes Cymru to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Welsh secretary Jo Stevens has said that is not the position of her party colleagues in London.
In it, she writes: "It is this government's view that devolving the Crown Estate and introducing a new entity would risk market fragmentation, complicate existing processes, and delay further development offshore.
"Furthermore, devolution would mean Wales losing access to Crown Estate investment that comes from its revenues in England. It would also risk undermining investment in floating offshore wind, which is needed to provide lower bills, cleaner energy, and better jobs. This government is focussed on delivering these objectives and so does not support the devolution of the Crown Estate in Wales," the Cardiff East MP says.
"Even if devolution could be done without risking the revenues the Crown Estate generates, this would not automatically lead to an increase in the funding available to the Welsh Government. This is because any revenues retained by the Welsh Government in a devolved system would likely be offset through reductions to their block grant as is currently the case in Scotland.
"Creating an artificial border through the Celtic Sea would also complicate crucially important work to develop the floating offshore wind industry, particularly as floating offshore wind lease areas straddle the Wales/England border."
YesCymru has pledged to intensify the campaign in response to Westminster’s refusal, which started with a protest at the Eisteddfod.
Chair Phyl Griffiths said: "The Crown Estate proves that the practice of extraction is still alive in 21st century Wales and has resulted in all 22 authorities speaking with one voice, underlining the fact we're a nation.
"The London government's response to our call to transfer control of the Crown Estate to Wales, however, only proves that they see us as nothing more than a region of the UK."
So much for two Labour governments working together for the common good.
Tuesday, August 12, 2025
Labour reaps consequences of NI rise
The paper says that the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has said that just 57 per cent of private sector employers plan to recruit staff in the next three months, down from 65 per cent last autumn, as they battle rising costs:
The influential monthly report by accountants KPMG and the Recruitment and Employment Federation (REC) also showed a "further steep decline" in permanent worker appointments last month, with recruiters blaming weak confidence in the economy and higher payroll costs.
Anna Leach, the chief economist at the Institute of Directors, warned the trend “could undermine the UK’s weak growth outlook further, hitting both living standards and tax revenues”.
The CIPD survey of 2000 employers found 84 per cent of UK businesses said their employment costs had risen since changes to NICs took effect in April 2025, while half of care and hospitality employers said those costs had risen to a large extent.
Ben Caswell, senior economist at leading think tank the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), said the findings suggest firms are dealing with the NI hike by cutting staff rather than raising prices, but warned these were now being driven upwards by the chancellor’s minimum wage rise, which came in in April.
The news will come as a blow to Ms Reeves just days after the Bank of England warned the public of months of sharp price increases ahead, driven by higher food costs.
The central bank also blamed Ms Reeves’s NI raid and the rise in the minimum wage for helping to push up the cost of the supermarket shop, as it slashed interest rates to 4 per cent in a bid to boost the UK’s sluggish economy.
Ms Reeves has also been warned of a £50bn black hole in the government’s finances, which leading economists say means she may have to raise taxes, cut public spending, or tear up her fiscal rules in order to fill.
Labour are asking us to be patient, but that is not going to put food on the table. This is not a something they inherited, it is situation they created with their first budget.
Monday, August 11, 2025
Proposed change to court guidance risks fuelling “reactionary politics”
The Trust has claimed that “hostile language” from politicians and the media towards immigration is fuelling “reactionary politics”, and say that the proposals risk framing violence against women and girls as an issue of ethnicity instead of misogyny:
The debate was reignited after George Finch, the Reform UK leader of Warwickshire county council, accused police of a “cover-up” over the migration status of two suspects charged after the alleged rape of the child, claiming they were asylum seekers. The force strongly denies a cover-up, saying it merely acted in line with national guidance.
The details of suspects before trials are routinely limited to ensure the fairness and legal safety of proceedings. But Downing Street has called for “transparency” to rebuild public trust after false rumours spread after 2024’s Southport murders.
However, campaigners warn that politicians and media are emboldening the far right by linking migration to crime.
This month, the Runnymede Trust released a report that – after analysing more than 63m words from 52,990 news articles and 317 House of Commons debates on immigration between 2019 and July 2024 – found the word most strongly associated with migrants was “illegal”.
After Cooper’s remarks that “more information should be provided … including on some of those asylum issues”, Dr Shabna Begum, the chief executive of the Runnymede Trust, said: “These proposals do nothing to address the urgent issues of male sexual violence, divert attention away from women and girls and fixate on nationality and asylum status – as part of an increasingly aggressive far-right agenda.
“Instead of recycling age-old tropes about men of colour as inherently threatening to white British women, we should be centring victims and survivors of all backgrounds.
“We all deserve better than this pantomime politics that offers us easy villains but deals with none of the wider conditions where misogyny has increased.”
Runnymede’s recent report said there were “many” examples of media “stories about distressing crimes that emphasise the immigration status of the perpetrator”, claiming they were used to frame asylum seekers as a potential threat to women and “the British way of life”.
The report also cited comments made by the former home secretary Suella Braverman, in the context of 2023’s illegal migration bill, which linked people arriving on boats to “heightened levels of criminality” and Robert Jenrick’s X post this year that spoke of “importing hundreds of thousands of people from alien cultures, who possess medieval attitudes towards women”.
Runnymede’s report said the “long-term effects” of such claims would be to “normalise” violence against women and girls by making it seem as if it is “determined by ethnicity rather than the perpetuation of misogynist practices in society”.
In my view, releasing this sort of information would just add to the hysterical anti-immigrant rhetoric that is pervading public debate in this country. It would also undermine the fairness of the justice system. There is no legal reason for such information to be made public.
This effort by Labour ministers to try and assuage the far right is only going to make things worse.
Sunday, August 10, 2025
MPs under fire over rental properties
Their warning comes after Guardian analysis revealed four cabinet ministers – including the chancellor, Rachel Reeves – have declared rental income from property in the MPs’ register of interests:
The disclosure, which comes after the resignation of the homelessness minister Rushanara Ali over the eviction of tenants from her London property, has drawn strong criticism from campaigners and backbenchers.
One senior MP said the fact that frontbenchers made money from private property ownership undermined the government’s credibility when it comes to reforming the rental sector.
One said: “The perception that MPs are profiting from the same system we’re supposed to reform isn’t helping … there’s a real risk voters will see this as hypocrisy and question our credibility on renters’ rights.”
Alongside Reeves, the foreign secretary, David Lammy, and the Scotland secretary, Ian Murray, have declared rental income exceeding £10,000 in the most recent register of members’ interests.
Lucy Powell, the leader of the House of Commons, is also included but is understood to have a single lodger and receives less than £10,000 in rent.
Reeves’s disclosure relates to a London house jointly owned with her partner, meaning at least some of the rent is paid to another person. Hers is one of 31 properties listed by MPs where at least some portion of the rent was paid to another person.
The Guardian’s analysis found one in eight Westminster MPs – including 10 with government posts – declared a rental income from property in the last year.
This includes almost a quarter of the Conservative parliamentary party (27 MPs), just 11% of Labour MPs (43 MPs) and 10% of Liberal Democrats (7 MPs).
The two MPs with the largest declared property incomes are both from Labour. Jas Athwal, MP for Ilford South, rents out 15 residential and three commercial properties in London. Last year, he was criticised by Keir Starmer after he was accused of renting out flats with black mould and ant infestations.
Athwal was followed by the former chancellor Jeremy Hunt, who rents out seven flats in Southampton, and has half a share in a holiday home in Italy and an office building in London.
Most of the 169 properties rented out by MPs were residential, but some MPs also let out business and commercial premises. More than two in five (43%) of the properties rented out by MPs were in London.
The figures have intensified scrutiny of Ali’s case, which has cast new light on the debate over landlord interests in parliament. Ali resigned on Thursday night after it was revealed she had ended her tenants’ fixed-term contract in order to sell the property, but re-listed it for rent at a higher price within six months.
The practice is one the Labour government is seeking to ban under its flagship renters’ rights bill. The bill will end “no fault” evictions under section 21, which allows landlords to throw out tenants without reason.
Since the policy was first proposed in April 2019 under Theresa May, 123,889 section 21 claims have progressed to court, and 124,360 households in England have been threatened with homelessness as a result of being served a notice.
The paper quotes one senior figure on the left of the Labour party as saying: “We can’t claim to fight for renters while half the PLP are landlords collecting rent from people struggling through the housing crisis. Rushanara’s case is only the tip of the iceberg. Voters see the hypocrisy and it’s killing our credibility on housing.”
Exactly.
Saturday, August 09, 2025
Badfinger
He will probably be best remembered for writing "Without You" which enjoyed world-wide success when recorded by Harry Nilsson in 1972.
The plaque was attached to the exterior of High Street Train Station because of its proximity to the adjacent Ivey Place where the band would meet to practice. Before they became Badfinger the band took the name The Iveys after this place name.
Wikipedia records that Ham grew up in Gwent Gardens, at the foot of the Townhill estate:
He attended Gors Junior School, and showed early signs of musical talent. He frequently played harmonica on the school playground. His older brother John was a jazz trumpeter, and encouraged young Ham to enter the Swansea music scene. One of Pete's first jobs was as an apprentice television and radio engineer.
He formed a local rock group called The Panthers circa 1961. This group would undergo several name and line-up changes before it became The Iveys in 1965. In 1968, The Iveys came to the attention of Mal Evans (The Beatles' personal assistant) and were eventually signed to the Beatles' Apple Records label after approval from all four Beatles, who were reportedly impressed by the band's songwriting abilities.
The Iveys changed their name to Badfinger with the single release of "Come and Get It", a composition written by Paul McCartney that became a worldwide top-ten hit.
Ham had initially protested against using a non-original to promote the band, as he had gained confidence in the group's compositions, but he was quickly convinced of the springboard effect of having a likely hit single. His own creative perseverance paid off eventually, as his "No Matter What" became another top-ten worldwide hit in late 1970. He followed up with two more worldwide hits in "Day After Day" and "Baby Blue".
Ham's greatest songwriting success came with his co-written composition with bandmate Tom Evans called "Without You" – a worldwide number-one when it was later covered by Harry Nilsson and released in 1971. The song has since become a standard and has been covered by hundreds of singers, most notably Mariah Carey who made it a worldwide hit again in 1994. An Ivor Novello award for Song of the Year was issued in 1973 along with Grammy nominations.
George Harrison used Ham's talents for a number of album sessions, including on the All Things Must Pass album and for other Apple Records artist's recordings. This friendship culminated with Ham's acoustic guitar duet on "Here Comes the Sun" with Harrison at The Concert for Bangladesh in 1971, documented in the theatrical film of the concert.
I met Pete Ham's brother John once, I believe in Pentrehafod Comprehensive School, which serves my community. For years, the Ham name lived on in Swansea through the John Ham Music Shop on Mansel Street, which sold musical instruments.
Friday, August 08, 2025
UK Homelessness minister resigns after embarrassing claims
An earlier report said that Rushanara Ali, who has previously criticised "unreasonable rent increases" reportedly gave the renters four months notice that their lease would not be renewed. They say that it has been subsequently claimed that the East London home was subsequently re-listed for rent within weeks of them moving out at a massively increased price:
The four were sent an email saying they would have to leave in November last year, the i newspaper reports. But it is understood they were offered the opportunity to stay on a rolling basis while the house was on the market. When it failed to sell, it was re-listed for rent, it is believed. Ms Ali, MP for Bethnal Green and Stepney, faces calls to step down.
One of the tenants, Laura Jackson, told the newspaper that she saw the four-bedroom townhouse had been put up for rent at nearly £4,000 a month shortly after moving out. Previously Ms Ali charged £3,300 a month for the home close to London's Olympic Park, it is claimed.
Ms Jackson said: “It’s an absolute joke. Trying to get that much money from renters is extortion”. Shadow Housing Secretary James Cleverly said the allegations "would be an example of the most extreme hypocrisy and she should not have the job as homelessness minister”.
However sources close to the minister say it was a fixed-term contract, and the house was put on the market for sale while the tenants were there. The people living there were told they could stay on a rolling basis, but opted to leave, the BBC reports. It was only re-listed for rent because it did not sell, according to the i.
A spokesperson for Ms Ali said: “Rushanara takes her responsibilities seriously and complied with all relevant legal requirements.”
The house, one of two rental properties Ms Ali has declared in her register of interests, is currently listed for sale at £894,995. It had originally gone up for £914,995 last November - but the price was reduced in February.
Under the Renters Rights Bill, which is making its way through Parliament, landlords who end a tenancy to sell a home will be banned from re-listing it for six months. The Bill will also end fixed-term tenancies. Landlords will also be required to give four months' notice if they plan to move tenants out in order to sell it.
In September last year Ms Ali said renters would be given more powers to challenge "unreasonable" increases. In a written answer she said: "More widely, we are taking action to tackle the root causes of homelessness.
Ali has now resigned saying in a letter to the Prime Minister that remaining in the role would be “a distraction from the ambitious work of this Government”.
Thursday, August 07, 2025
A growing black hole?
Judging from yesterday's news reports the same process is taking place around the predicted deficit being faced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this year's budget.
The Independent reports that top economists have warned that Rachel Reeves faces an “impossible trilemma” ahead of the autumn budget and must raise taxes or tear up her flagship borrowing rules to fill a £50bn black hole left by Labour U-turns, higher borrowing and sluggish economic growth.
The paper quotes the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), a leading economic think tank, who believe that the chancellor could also look at spending cuts in the autumn Budget as a way to raise the money needed by 2029-30 to remedy a £41.2bn shortfall on her borrowing targets, set out by her self-imposed “stability rule”.
They add that in order to restore the £9.9bn buffer the government has maintained since last year’s Budget, the chancellor must therefore raise a total of £51.1bn:
The NIESR’s report said the chancellor has been left with the difficult task of trying to meet her fiscal rules while fulfilling spending commitments and upholding a manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on working people.
But after a swathe of spending cuts squeezing departmental budgets at the last spending review, tax rises are the more likely option.
On Wednesday Keir Starmer refused to rule out tax rises in the Budget, amid growing pressure on the government.
Declining to explicitly rule out raising VAT, income tax and corporation tax, he said: "In the autumn, we'll get the full forecast and obviously set out our Budget."
The chancellor is under increasing pressure to raise income tax or consider a wealth tax on the rich.
The think tank’s forecast warned that the poorest 10 per cent of people – amounting to 2.8 million households – have seen their living standards fall 1.3 per cent under Labour, some 10 per cent lower than pre-Covid levels.
Professor Stephen Millard, NIESR’s deputy director for macroeconomics, said a “credible, sustained increase in taxes” would be required due to the “worsening fiscal outlook”, not helped by Labour’s U-turns on welfare cuts.
He warned that a large part of this would need to happen in the first year to signal to the markets that the Treasury is committed to further increases down the line.
Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, Prof Millard warned that the £9.9bn buffer the chancellor has set out for herself is “really way too thin”, and a “slight change in fiscal circumstances” would wipe it out entirely.
“With growth at only 1.3 per cent and inflation above target, things are not looking good for the chancellor who will need to either raise taxes or reduce spending or both in the October Budget if she is to meet her fiscal rules,” he added.
It comes despite the think tank nudging up its economic outlook for the UK, with growth of 1.3 per cent expected for 2025, up from 1.2 per cent forecast in May. But it cut its prediction for next year – to 1.2 per cent, down from 1.5 per cent.
Prof Millard also suggested the chancellor could rewrite her fiscal rules with a new framework that looks at the long-term direction of travel of debt, rather than judging debt based on a point five years in the future, as the current rules dictate.
He told The Independent the government should base its financial projections on current levels of taxation and spending, rather than planned increases or decreases.
Whatever the outcome, it is difficult to see how Starmer's promise to improve our living standards is going to be delivered in these circumstances.
The NIESR’s report said the chancellor has been left with the difficult task of trying to meet her fiscal rules while fulfilling spending commitments and upholding a manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on working people.
But after a swathe of spending cuts squeezing departmental budgets at the last spending review, tax rises are the more likely option.
On Wednesday Keir Starmer refused to rule out tax rises in the Budget, amid growing pressure on the government.
Declining to explicitly rule out raising VAT, income tax and corporation tax, he said: "In the autumn, we'll get the full forecast and obviously set out our Budget."
The chancellor is under increasing pressure to raise income tax or consider a wealth tax on the rich.
The think tank’s forecast warned that the poorest 10 per cent of people – amounting to 2.8 million households – have seen their living standards fall 1.3 per cent under Labour, some 10 per cent lower than pre-Covid levels.
Professor Stephen Millard, NIESR’s deputy director for macroeconomics, said a “credible, sustained increase in taxes” would be required due to the “worsening fiscal outlook”, not helped by Labour’s U-turns on welfare cuts.
He warned that a large part of this would need to happen in the first year to signal to the markets that the Treasury is committed to further increases down the line.
Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, Prof Millard warned that the £9.9bn buffer the chancellor has set out for herself is “really way too thin”, and a “slight change in fiscal circumstances” would wipe it out entirely.
“With growth at only 1.3 per cent and inflation above target, things are not looking good for the chancellor who will need to either raise taxes or reduce spending or both in the October Budget if she is to meet her fiscal rules,” he added.
It comes despite the think tank nudging up its economic outlook for the UK, with growth of 1.3 per cent expected for 2025, up from 1.2 per cent forecast in May. But it cut its prediction for next year – to 1.2 per cent, down from 1.5 per cent.
Prof Millard also suggested the chancellor could rewrite her fiscal rules with a new framework that looks at the long-term direction of travel of debt, rather than judging debt based on a point five years in the future, as the current rules dictate.
He told The Independent the government should base its financial projections on current levels of taxation and spending, rather than planned increases or decreases.
Whatever the outcome, it is difficult to see how Starmer's promise to improve our living standards is going to be delivered in these circumstances.
Wednesday, August 06, 2025
More Welsh Labour control-freakery?
Rhodri Morgan pushed back against this tendency to micro-manage the Welsh Government with his clear red water statement, but throughout his term and those of his successors, Labour Ministers in Westminster continued to put obstacles in the way of the Senedd securing more powers, something that continues to this day.
It took the Liberal Democrats in government to change that approach with reforms to the Barnett formula, the release of key council housing assets and a new Government of Wales bill that better empowered Welsh Ministers. However, there was, and remains plenty more to do, including devolution of railways, justice and the crown estate.
It has come as no surprise therefore that the UK Labour Party continues to try and exercise control by influencing who will sit in the Labour group in the Senedd after next year's elections.
Nation Cymru reports that a senior Labour party figure has alleged that the decision to exclude a highly regarded activist from a shortlist of candidates is part of a strategy aimed at ensuring that the group of Welsh Labour Senedd Members elected in 2026 offers as little challenge as possible to Keir Starmer.
This is a reference to business consultant Owain Williams, who was left off a shortlist of eight would-be MSs on Labour’s “closed list” in the newly created super-constituency of Caerdydd Ffynon Taf, which comprises the two Westminster seats of Cardiff North and Cardiff East:
David Llewellyn Davies, who for a time was former First Minister Mark Drakeford’s senior special adviser, said in a social media post about Mr Williams’ exclusion from the list: “I am speechless. How can @WelshLabour have decided that one of its most gifted and talented members cannot make the top 8 in a shortlist for his own constituency? Wales denied an MS of Cabinet quality who would have made a positive difference to the lives of Welsh people.”
Others praised Mr Williams in similarly glowing terms, and First Minister Eluned Morgan, who appeared with him in an “in conversation” event at the National Eisteddfod in Wrexham on Monday August 4 described herself as a big fan of his.
She said: “Owain is a very talented guy and I’d like to see him as a candidate for the Senedd. I am a big fan of Owain Williams. Let’s see what happens. This is the beginning of a process.
“There are lots of other people in the same position. It’s important that the process is done fairly and I do hope that he will consider putting his name in for perhaps another seat.”
However, a senior Welsh Labour source told Nation.Cymru: “The decision about who was included on the shortlist, and more especially who was excluded, was made by a panel of the party’s Welsh Executive Committee (WEC). In practice, however, the decision was made by David Costa, a former long-serving deputy general secretary of Welsh Labour who has retired as a party employee, but now sits as a member of the WEC.”
Mr Costa acted as Vaughan Gething’s agent during the Welsh Labour leadership campaign last year and was responsible for signing off the donations totalling £200,000 given to the campaign by convicted criminal David Neal, who received two suspended prison sentences after illegally dumping toxic sludge in the Gwent Levels, a protected wetland landscape near Cardiff. The donations, together with other scandals, led to Mr Gething’s resignation as party leader and First Minister after a few months.
The Welsh Labour source told us: “David Costa, together with Welsh Labour’s current general secretary Joe Lock and deputy general secretary Bridie Sedgebeer, the wife of Bridgend MP Chris Elmore, are Starmer loyalists.
“Their aim is to have a weakened Labour Senedd group that will not push for Wales’ interests over matters like the failure to devolve Crown Estate revenues to Wales, the unjust designation of HS2 as an England and Wales project and over other issues like the post-Brexit regional aid programme and welfare cuts.
“Their priority is not next year’s Senedd election, but the general election in 2029, and they want the new Senedd Labour group elected in 2026 to be docile and loyal to Starmer. That’s the reason why Owain Williams was excluded from the shortlist.
“In fact, the ideal outcome for the Starmer loyalists who run the party machine would be to have Labour out of control of the Welsh Government – a scenario that would give Jo Stevens as Welsh Secretary the opportunity to roll back devolution even further and take back control for the UK Labour government.
“They don’t care about devolution or the Welsh language and they certainly don’t want someone of Owain Williams’ calibre coming into the group and shaking things up.”
Anybody else getting a feeling of deja vu?
Tuesday, August 05, 2025
A poor investment of public cash
The broadcaster says that Gilestone Farm in Powys was originally bought for £4.75m but plans to help Green Man festival's owners were abandoned when ospreys started nesting there. Now, a Senedd committee report has raised "serious concerns" over how the site was acquired, and demanded a review:
Then-economy minister Vaughan Gething said the government was "delighted" in early 2024 by the arrival of two nesting ospreys at Gilestone Farm.
But the discovery brought an end to a scheme which could have seen the businesswoman behind Green Man expand to a new site.
Gething, who later had a short stint as first minister during the same year, denied wasting money.
Under the proposals the main music and arts festival would have remained at Crickhowell, but a company set up by Green Man's director Fiona Stewart wanted to use the farm for other events.
Opposition politicians had criticised the purchase of the farm - with officials entering negotiations to lease it to Ms Stewart - without an initial business plan.
After the discovery of the ospreys, a 750m (2,460ft) restricted zone was advised around the nest itself, which can be viewed live on the internet, external.
An audit report previously found that using up unspent money by the end of the financial year was the "most significant" factor in why the site was bought.
The property is currently leased to a farm on "commercial terms".
In a critical report, the Senedd's public accounts and administration committee said the decision was taken with a "lack of thorough due diligence".
Plans were "not sufficiently robust and had not been communicated effectively to the community", it said.
It added a failure to keep an adequate record of meetings with Green Man officials meant the Senedd was "unable to fully scrutinise and evaluate decisions taken by the Welsh government".
Decision-makers in the Welsh government were also not provided information about the purchase in a "timely manner", the report said.
The committee said the "haste" that the government bought the site in may have also inhibited its ability to identify risks around the presence of wildlife "that would affect its proposals for the site, and potentially, its value".
"This is particularly notable as the site has now been valued at £3.75m, meaning that the Welsh government's asset has lost half a million pounds in value," the report said.
It is difficult to disagee with the comments of Adam Price that this saga is proof of Labour's mismanagement of the public purse.
Monday, August 04, 2025
Looking for balance in broadcasting
The Mirror reports that thousands of people have complained to Sky News about “excessive” coverage of Nigel Farage ’s Reform UK after the party set up its own broadcast studio to pump out slick, TV-style videos online.
The paper says that twice last week, Sky News broadcast the live feed from Reform’s studio, prompting campaigners to accuse them of “outsourcing editorial control” to Farage’s far right party:
Cal Roscow, director of campaigns at Best for Britain, said: “To outsource editorial control wholesale like this is unprecedented, misleading for viewers, and probably doesn’t meet Ofcom’s impartiality rules. It should never happen again, and over 5,000 Best for Britain supporters have written to say just that.”
In one case Sky News broadcast a feed of Mr Farage “interviewing” party chairman Zia Yusuf about the Online Safety act.
In the same broadcast, Reform played Sky News’ interview of Tech Secretary Peter Kyle on their feed - meaning Sky was broadcasting its own interview, but through Reform’s live feed.
Now more than 5,000 supporters of campaign group Best for Britain have complained to Sky about the coverage.
Mr Roscow added: “Reform UK have built a TV studio of their own - which is fine in principle - but resulted in a bizarre situation where Sky News’s own footage of a Minister was being broadcast back to the TV channel - independently of the producers - and overlaid with commentary from a political party’s Chair interviewing that same party’s Leader. “
And it isn't just Sky that needs to answer for this bias. Politics Home reports that Ed Davey has met with BBC boss Tim Davie to complain about the broadcaster’s coverage, which the Liberal Democrats claim is weighted too heavily in Reform UK’s favour.
They say that the Liberal Democrat leader met Davie in Parliament in June to convey the party’s “frustration” over its allotted coverage:
With 72 MPs in Westminster, the party has now been given 13 slots on the BBC’s political debate programme Question Time, where it used to get four. As Westminster's third party, Davey and his deputy Daisy Cooper are given slots on the six o’clock news on significant days in Parliament – when budgets are announced, for instance.
However, the party feels the coverage is out of proportion with that given to Reform UK, who have just four MPs – 18 times fewer than the Liberal Democrats.
“Previously, the BBC had always said: ‘We will cover you more if you get more MPs, but right now, you’ve only got 11,” a Liberal Democrat source told PoliticsHome.
“Now it really feels like they've moved the goal posts and they're just giving Reform massive amounts of coverage based on their poll rating, whereas we were always told it’s number of MPs, not poll rating.”
Davey also spoke to Davie about the BBC’s use of breaking news alerts – which the party is now tracking to understand how much coverage it is receiving.
“That's another area where it feels like Reform are getting a lot of mentions,” the source said. “Something else we're picking up the BBC is: how do they ensure political balance when it comes to things like breaking news alerts – that we know are really, really influential – in the same way that they would be really careful about balance when it comes to news criticism?”
The meeting preempted an outburst by Davey live on the BBC last month, in which he berated the broadcaster for its coverage of Reform UK.
“You cover the tittle tattle around Reform – you don’t look at their policies,” said the Lib Dem leader. “When I look at the broad BBC coverage, he gets such an easy ride, and he gets covered when he says horrible things that aren’t producing solutions for people’s problems.”
“I have to say the BBC has got to raise its game to expose Nigel Farage,” he added.
With major elections, including the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament, next year, it is important that balance in political coverage is restored. Reform have no members in the Scottish Parliament and only one in the Senedd. Surely, that needs to be taken account in the coverage.
I would certainly not expect them to get greater coverage than the Liberal Demcrats in either country, who are better represented than them.
Sunday, August 03, 2025
Is government legislation threatening public debate?
The paper says that Open Rights Group, Index on Censorship and others have written to Ofcom calling on it to provide clear guidance to platforms on distinguishing lawful expression from content deemed to be in support of terrorism.
They signatories say that failure to act by the regulator act risks misidentification – including through algorithms – of support for Palestine as support for Palestine Action, which on 5 July became the first direct action protest group to be banned under UK anti-terrorism laws, and that it also runs the risk of misidentifying objections to Palestine Action’s proscription as unlawful support for the group:
Sara Chitseko, a pre-crime programme manager at Open Rights Group, said: “Crucial public debate about Gaza is being threatened by vague, overly broad laws that could lead to content about Palestine being removed or hidden online. There’s also a real danger that people will start self-censoring, worried they might be breaking the law just by sharing or liking posts related to Palestine and non-violent direct action.
“This is a serious attack on freedom of expression and the right to protest in the UK. We need to ensure that people can share content about Palestine online with being afraid that they will be characterised as supportive of terrorism.”
The organisations’ concerns are exacerbated by Ofcom’s advice that platforms can avoid worrying about their duties under the Online Safety Act (OSA) if they ensure they are more censorious than the act requires. “This approach risks encouraging automated moderation that disproportionately affects political speech, particularly from marginalised communities, including Palestinian voices,” the letter says.
Unlike in the EU, there is no independent mechanism for people in the UK to challenge content they feel has been wrongly taken down. The signatories want platforms – the letter has also been sent to Meta, Alphabet, X and ByteDance – to commit to an independent dispute mechanism, if evidence emerges of lawful speech being suppressed.
The letter, also signed by Electronic Frontier Foundation in the US and organisations from eight European countries, as well as experts and academics, says: “We are concerned that the proscription of Palestine Action may result in an escalation of platforms removing content, using algorithms to hide Palestine solidarity posts and leave individuals and those reporting on events vulnerable to surveillance or even criminalisation for simply sharing or liking content that references non-violent direct action.
“We are also concerned about what platforms understand by their legal duties regarding expressions of ‘support’ for Palestine Action.”
The letter comes a week after the OSA’s age-gating for “adult” material came into effect, prompting fears about access to Palestine-related content. For example, Reddit users in the UK have to verify their age to access the Reddit sub r/israelexposed.
Ella Jakubowska, the head of policy at EDRi in Brussels, said there would inevitably be suppression of “critical voices, journalism and social movements around the world. The problem is worsened by automated content moderation systems, well known for over-removing content from Palestinian creators, in support of Black Lives Matter, about LGBTQI+ issues and more.
“It is very likely that in trying to comply with these requirements, platforms would unjustly remove content from people in the EU and other regions.”
She said that would contravene laws such as the EU Digital Services Act, designed to strike a balance between keeping people safe online and freedom of expression.
This mess is typical of Labour governments who already have a poor record with civil liberties and freedomw of expression, a failure that stretches back over several of their administrations.
Saturday, August 02, 2025
The wonderboys of Alice Street
As the BBC reports, over a 13-year period in the middle of the 20th Century, Alice Street in the Cwmbwrla district of Swansea produced five Welsh international footballers, including the Charles brothers, John and Mel. The mural is a tribute to these men:
It is one of the few examples in world football of such a small area rearing so many internationals. Over a century and a half of international football, Newcastle has produced 15 players, Bristol and Stoke 12 each, Southampton nine, but this one road in Swansea gave us five on their own.
A film has been made about these men called Wonderland, which can be viewed here:
"As Professor Martin Johnes says in the film, it was the poverty and work ethic of an industrial area, the fact that the whole community had to rely on and support each other to get by, the move to half-day working on a Saturday, and then chuck in some truly dedicated teachers and coaches who showed complete faith in these lads."
The story began with full-back Jackie Roberts and winger Ernie Jones.
Roberts lived at 9 Alice Street, while Jones was at number 10.
Roberts earned one cap for Wales, and played for the likes of Bolton Wanderers and Swansea - who were then Town, rather than City.
Jones earned four caps for his country, and played for Tottenham Hotspur, Southampton and Swansea, among others.
Ms Abu-Shahba said: "Jackie and Ernie didn't reach quite the same heights as some of the Alice Street gang, but they were trailblazers.
"Not only were they an inspiration to John and Mel Charles, and Mel Nurse, they remained firmly rooted in the Cwmbwrla area all their lives, and offered real practical support.
The Charles brothers from 6 Alice Street: Mel (left) and John both played for Wales at the 1958 World Cup
"As the saying goes, 'if you can't see it, you can't be it'," she added.
Mr Brayley cautioned against reading too much into Jackie and Ernie's seemingly more modest records.
"They may not look impressive on paper, but you have to remember that their careers were blown apart by World War Two, both served in the Army during what should have been their best years in the game.
"Jackie was injured in Italy, so when he finally earnt his only cap, he was actually blind in one eye."
The younger three of the Alice Street gang perhaps require less introduction.
Mel Nurse at the front in a World Cup qualifier against Spain in Madrid in 1961
Mel Nurse at the front in a World Cup qualifier against Spain in Madrid in 1961
The Charles brothers, John and Mel, who lived at 6 Alice Street, both played in the 1958 World Cup in Sweden, which was then the only time Wales had qualified for a major tournament.
John earned 38 caps, scoring 15 goals, and played for the likes of Juventus, Leeds United and Roma. Mel earned 31 caps, scored six goals, and played for Arsenal, Swansea and Cardiff City.
John scored a vital goal against Hungary in the World Cup to help his team out of their group, but he was kicked about so badly in that game that he missed the quarter-final against Brazil.
Mel played centre-half in the match, and although a 17-year-old Pele scored the eventual winner, he described him as the best defender at the competition.
Neither brother was ever booked or sent off throughout their careers.
Mr Brayley said: "What can you say about John? He was the best player Swansea Town never had.
"They had him there as a schoolboy, but they didn't want to take a risk on youngsters, so Leeds nipped in and stole him from under Swansea's nose."
He said initially John was reluctant to leave Alice Street.
"I've read that Mrs Charles poured cold water on the move at first, saying 'he can't go to Leeds, he hasn't got a passport'," he added.
"But boy, did he flourish once he left - 370 career goals at a ratio of better than one in two matches, and was voted Juventus's best ever foreigner by their notoriously hard-to-please fans."
Mr Brayley believes if it had not been for John, Mel would have gone down in history as Wales' greatest player of the era.
Ernie Jones on the left of this family photo, with Mark Baker, who also played for Swansea, on the right
He said: "People forget that after John, Mel was the most expensive transfer at the time he moved to Arsenal.
"He had it all - pace, power, vision, finishing, but as anyone with a big brother will tell you, it's a tough act to live up to."
The final member of the Alice Street quintet is Mel Nurse, known affectionately around the city as Mr Swansea.
He won 12 caps for his country, and played for the likes of Swansea and Middlesbrough.
Mr Brayley said he was equally as famous for what he did after football.
"Don't get me wrong, Mel Nurse was an outstanding player, and was a little bit unlucky to be just a tiny bit young to have gone to the World Cup," he added.
"But the reason he is so loved here is because he not only once, but twice stepped up to save the Swans when they were on the brink of bankruptcy.
"In 2001, he re-mortgaged all his businesses to underwrite the club's debts, and look where that led to a decade later."
Friday, August 01, 2025
'Manbaby' Farage
The paper says that a heated confrontation took place in London between US Representative Jamie Raskin and Reform Party leader Nigel Farage during a US congressional delegation visit:
The dispute began when Raskin, a Democrat, made remarks critical of the Trump administration's approach to the First Amendment.
Farage, a vocal supporter of Trump, reportedly became furious, telling Raskin they were "not here to talk about Donald Trump" and calling him "pig-headed."
Raskin responded to Farage by referencing the American Revolution, stating, "This is why we had a revolution against you guys."
Other Democratic representatives, including Jasmine Crockett and Eric Swalwell, later described Farage as a "manbaby" and "unhinged" following the exchange.
Given Trump's unpopularity in the UK, even amongst Reform voters, his defence of Trump should get much wider pubicity.
