Peter Black

Nation Cymru reports on a mega-opinion survey of 45,000 people that, they say, shatters the far-right’s “destructive portrayal” of a divided Britain, revealing instead a country that is tolerant, inclusive but crying out for real change.

They say that the poll, conducted by Hope not Hate and backed by the TUC,t was commissioned by green entrepreneur Dale Vince and questioned people on more than 80 social, political and economic issues:

Mr Vince said: “I wanted to know what Britain really thinks. That’s why I commissioned this Giga Poll.

“Our findings show we’re being told fairy tales by the right about the country we live in, about our fellow citizens, our neighbours and friends and what they care about.

“I hope the views and attitudes – expressed through this massive poll – will help shape the future of our country.

“It needs to start with government, they have the levers of power – and they need to start by listening.”

Two thirds of respondents said they live in peaceful, friendly communities and four in five enjoyed mixing with people of other ethnicities, religions and backgrounds.

The cost of living was the biggest concern of those surveyed, followed by the NHS, with immigration and asylum ranking only fourth at 25%.

Nick Lowles, chief executive of Hope not Hate, said: “The Giga Poll is the most important piece of polling that has been conducted for many years.

“The size of the poll gives us invaluable information about the state of Britain today and of the hopes and concerns of its citizens.

“The timing of the poll is also crucial.

“Against the backdrop of growing anti-immigrant rhetoric and the largest far-right demonstration in British history, this poll clearly shows that the bulk of British people are far more positive about the country than the media discourse states and are more progressive and nuanced on issues such as climate action and immigration.”

This is important poll, but it is unlikely to have the impact its backers hoped for it, evident by the fact that most mainstream media don't even mention it.

The Guardian has an excellent article on the dangers created by mandatory digital ID cards in which a cybersecurity expert warns that the plan risks creating “an enormous hacking target”.

The paper quotes Alan Woodward, a professor and cybersecurity expert at the University of Surrey, who says that if the data is also held on a vast database to allow for cross-referencing, “it’s painting a huge target on something to say ‘come and hack me’”:

The government has not yet provided detail on how it would make the system work, sparking calls for greater transparency. Woodward’s warning comes amid rising public concern about criminal data breaches, which this week hit a chain of children’s nurseries with photos of infants leaked on to the dark web, and continued to cripple Jaguar Land Rover. Data, including photographs, has previously been criminally exfiltrated from a government ID system in Estonia, according to reports.

...

Companies including Deloitte, BAE Systems, PA Consulting and Hinduja Global Solutions already have government contracts worth a combined £100m to support the scheme’s IT systems, but industry estimates of the total cost of a national digital ID range from £1.2bn to £2bn.

US tech companies have also been circling the UK government. In February, Starmer was a guest at the headquarters of Palantir, co-founded by the Trump donor Peter Thiel, which already has contracts with the NHS and the Ministry of Defence. OpenAI signed a memorandum of understanding with ministers earlier this year to explore the deployment of advanced AI models in public services. Last week Starmer was the special guest on stage at a corporate event in London for the $4tn chip-maker Nvidia.

Experts in government technology said most of the data needed is already held on government databases including in birth registers, e-visa records for migrants, on passports and driving licences. Data storage companies such as Amazon and Google could provide a vast database for all the data to be gathered, but this would bring a greater security risk, Woodward said.

Starmer’s announcement also sparked concerns that millions of people who lack credentials or suffer from digital poverty could be excluded from public services.

“When things don’t go well it could have serious consequences, especially for those on the margins of society who could be excluded,” said Peter Chamberlin, who developed part of the scheme’s digital architecture and is the senior director of technology at consultancy Public Digital. “In order for this to succeed, transparency is absolutely crucial.”

The campaign group Liberty warned that digital IDs could become “a nightmarish surveillance system”.

“Technological advancements mean that digital ID systems pose an even greater risk to privacy than they did when last proposed in the 2000s,” it said. “A single and unique ‘digital identity’ and centralising databases would remove much of the individual’s agency in managing their data. This information could be used to profile individuals across multiple datasets and would pose particular risks to marginalised communities.”

Keeping the data secure will be a major issue with thia proposal. It may not just be the government that is compromising our privacy.

As I write this, Keir Starmer is poised to stand up in the Labour Conference and propose the introduction of compulsory digital ID cards by 2029, while the petition opposing that policy has shot past two million signatures in record time.

The Guardian tells us that the petition argues that “no one should be forced to register with a state-controlled ID system”, which it describes as a “step towards mass surveillance and digital control”.

They add that civil liberties groups have raised concerns over the proposals, with Silkie Carlo, the director of Big Brother Watch, warning the system would “make Britain less free” and create “a domestic mass surveillance infrastructure that will likely sprawl from citizenship to benefits, tax, health, possibly even internet data and more”.

She added: “Incredibly sensitive information about each and every one of us would be hoarded by the state and vulnerable to cyber-attacks.”

The Liberal Democrats have also come out against the proposal with Ed Davey vowing that his party will 'fight against it tooth and nail - just as we successfully did against Tony Blair’s ID card'.

A motion going to both the Scottish and Welsh Liberal Democrat conferences asserts that the cornerstone of a liberal society is that law-abiding citizens should be free to live their lives without unnecessary control or interference from the state. These freedoms are fundamental rights, not privileges to be constrained or granted at the government’s discretion.

It adds that access to public services is a basic right of living in the United Kingdom, not a conditional entitlement subject to government control. Unlike many other countries, including our European neighbours, the UK lacks a written constitution to enshrine rights and protect citizens from excessive state intrusion.

A digital identity system would disproportionately disadvantage older people, disabled residents, and those on low incomes, who are most affected by digital exclusion, while the Government’s repeated failures to safeguard sensitive data demonstrates why citizens should not be compelled to entrust further personal information to the state.

Sign the petition here.

This week's local history post takes us just outside Swansea to the lovely Margam Park, home of the Talbot family, after whom Port Talbot was named. Situated near the lovely Orangery is Margam Castle which, as can be seen in the photograph, is not so much a castle as mansion.

The Margam Park website tells us that the 19th Century Tudor Gothic Mansion was designed by the architect Thomas Hopper for Christopher Rice Mansel Talbot. 

The Guardian reports that Labour’s internal warfare broke into the open on Thursday as Keir Starmer and several cabinet ministers criticised Andy Burnham over his comments dismissing the bond markets.

The paper says that senior Labour figures compared the Greater Manchester mayor’s attitude to the cavalier approach taken by former Conservative prime minister Liz Truss in a sign of how low relations between No 10 and Burnham have plunged:

Starmer is understood to be furious at Burnham’s admission, in several interviews, that he would seek to challenge the prime minister for the leadership if there was a path to do so.

Cabinet ministers explicitly criticised comments from Burnham in a New Statesman interview published on Wednesday, in which he criticised the economic approach of the chancellor, Rachel Reeves. “We’ve got to get beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond markets,” he said.

The remarks have incensed those in government. “If you don’t want to be in hock to the bond markets, don’t announce plans that involve billions of borrowing,” one senior source said.

The deputy leadership candidate, Bridget Phillipson, said that working people had already suffered from a “reckless approach on the economy” from Truss.

Burnham has proposed a slew of policies, and told a Guardian documentary that the two-child benefit limit was the “worst of Westminster”. The line prompted disdain from within government because Burnham abstained on the legislation that introduced the cap.

He said he had fought hard at the time to find a way to oppose the bill through an amendment “but the nuances of that debate just got lost”.

Burnham has suggested in other interviews he would favour higher council tax on more expensive properties, investing more in building council housing and a 50% rate of income tax on higher earners, as well as nationalising water and utilities.

Starmer and Phillipson both criticised Burnham’s comments on Thursday and warned that to ignore market forces would put the UK at risk of a Truss-style economic meltdown.

In an interview with the Guardian, Phillipson said she had “a lot of respect for Andy” but added: “We have to tread with real care around casual language on the bond markets. Working people ended up paying more on their mortgages because of Liz Truss’s actions and what happened there.

“So let’s just pause and consider whether it’s really a responsible approach for a party of government to be talking in that kind of language, because working people have suffered once because of a reckless approach on the economy. And it’s through having credibility and a clear plan on the economy that we are able to invest more in public services.”

Starmer told broadcasters he would not be drawn on the mayor’s “personal ambition” but said he would take a tough line on the challenge to the fiscal rules. The prime minister said: “It was three years ago this week that Liz Truss showed what happens if you abandon fiscal rules. Now, in her case, she did that for tax cuts, but the same would happen if it was spending.

“I’m not prepared to let a Labour government ever inflict that harm on working people … And there’s nothing progressive about borrowing more than we need to. It’s nothing progressive about abandoning fiscal rules.

Burnham is clearly positioning himself for something, but seeing as how he is not eligible to challenge for the leadership as he is not an MP, it is difficult to know what. The odds of him winning a by-election to position himself for a challenge are slim in light of the current poll ratings for Labour and Reform, so the only conclusion one can draw is that he is stirring the pot in the hope of getting some changes in policy.

Either way it is not a good look for Labour just before their conference.

Ed Davey went full on in his criticism of Nigel Farage and Reform in his conference speech on Tuesday. He asked representatives what kind of country we want, and was very clear where the Liberal Democrats stand on this question and on the Labour government.

He told us that Labour are not nearly ambitious enough to make the big changes our country needs, that they have no vision for our country’s future, no plan to really change things:

Conference, don’t just take it from me. That’s what Labour MPs and Labour members are saying about their own government. After being failed and neglected for so long, the country needed leadership. Clarity. Vision. It needed the Government to succeed. To turn things around. To just be better. Instead, they’ve lurched from mistake to mistake. From U-turn to U-turn. Crisis to crisis.

And look at who Labour have hurt along the way: Pensioners. Farmers. Carers. Disabled people. Small businesses.

Every day, Labour is looking more and more like Continuity Sunak. And our country is still crying out for change. And as every day goes by it gets clearer – the two old parties can’t deliver that change. Neither of those old parties can win back people’s trust. Neither of them will win the battle of ideas for the future of our country.

So it comes down to us. Or Nigel Farage.

Liberal Democrat change – true to British values. Transforming our economy, our public services and our politics. The real change people crave. Or Farage’s change. Change away from the country we love. Change towards Trump’s America.

Just imagine – if you can bear it…

Imagine living in the Trump-inspired country Farage wants us to become. Where there’s no NHS, so patients are hit with crippling insurance bills. Or denied healthcare altogether. That is Trump’s America. Don’t let it become Farage’s Britain.

Where we pay Putin for expensive fossil fuels and destroy our beautiful countryside with fracking – while climate change rages on. That is Trump’s America. Don’t let it become Farage’s Britain.

Where gun laws are rolled back, so schools have to teach our children what to do in case of a mass shooting. Trump’s America. Don’t let it become Farage’s Britain.

Where social media barons are free to poison young minds with impunity. Trump’s America. Don’t let it become Farage’s Britain.

Where the government tramples on our basic rights and freedoms, unconstrained by the European Convention on Human Rights. Where Andrew Tate – Andrew Tate – is held up as an example to young men. Where racism and misogyny get the tacit support of people in power. Where everything is in a constant state of chaos.

That is Trump’s America. Don’t let it become Farage’s Britain.

Instead of the real change Liberal Democrats have always championed – the change our country desperately needs – Farage is picking off groups of people, one by one. If you’ve got a mental health problem, Farage says you’re probably making it up. Even as suicides have risen to a 25-year high. If your child is disabled or has special needs, Farage says it’s been wrongly diagnosed. Even as parents struggle against the crisis in SEND. But of course, it’s on immigration where he claims to offer the change people want.

So let’s look at Farage’s record on immigration.

Who was it who campaigned to rip up twenty-seven return agreements, where in the EU, the United Kingdom could legally and fairly return people who had no right to be here? Yes it was Boris and the Conservatives – but it was also Nigel Farage.

He caused this crisis, and he should apologise.

And look at this hypocrite’s big announcement on deportation last month. Look at what his plan really means… Sending men, women and children who have fled the Taliban back to Afghanistan to be murdered by them. And even paying the Taliban to do it. That isn’t patriotic. That isn’t British. That isn’t who we are.

And that’s why it’s so frustrating – so infuriating – that Farage gets such an easy ride from the media. As he lies and divides, the BBC and others give Farage so much time and attention. But they never hold him to account for all the damage he has already done. The damage of Brexit. Farage was Brexit’s champion. The damage of Donald Trump. Farage campaigned for him. All the damage of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. Farage backed them both.

So much that is broken in our country today is broken thanks to Nigel Farage.

And now he wants to break it even more. Unless we stop him.

And as if to prove Ed Davey right, the Guardian reports that Nigel Farage has refused to criticise Donald Trump’s dangerous claims that paracetamol, sold in the US as Tylenol, could cause autism, saying “science is never settled” and he would never “side with” medical experts.

This is despite scientists and global health agencies including the World Health Organization strongly dismissing Trump’s false claims, calling them misguided and saying the evidence linking paracetamol use in pregnancy and autism is “inconsistent”.

Farage is being as irresponsible as Trump in not making it clear that these vaccines are safe.

The Guardian reports that Gatwick airport’s £2.2bn second runway plan has been given the go-ahead by the transport secretary, Heidi Alexander.

The paper says that with the privately financed project, the West Sussex hub is aiming to increase its capacity by 100,000 flights a year:

Alexander backed the scheme as a “no-brainer” for economic growth, a government source said on Sunday, suggesting flights could take off from the new full runway by 2029.

The cabinet minister is satisfied with adjustments made, covering issues such as noise mitigation and the proportion of passengers who would travel to and from the airport by public transport.

The Planning Inspectorate initially rejected the airport’s application and earlier this year recommended Alexander should approve the project if the changes were made.

The government has tried to head off complaints previously raised by opponents and has set targets for more passengers to use public transport to travel to and from the airport, known as “mode share”, although these are not likely to be legally binding, the Guardian understands.

A government source said Gatwick and its funders would also offer local residents affected by the extra noise financial support that could range from paying for triple-glazing, to paying estate agent fees and stamp duty for people who want to move away.

Officials believe the plans will be sufficiently legally robust to withstand challenges from environmental groups. The government is planning to set out its belief that the expansion will be possible without breaching the UK’s carbon budget.

A government source said: “The transport secretary has cleared Gatwick expansion for take-off. With capacity constraints holding back business, trade and tourism, this is a no-brainer for growth.

“This government has taken unprecedented steps to get this done, navigating a needlessly complex planning system, which our reforms will simplify in future.

“It is possible that planes could be taking off from a new full runway at Gatwick before the next general election.

“Any airport expansion must be delivered in line with our legally binding climate change commitments and meet strict environmental requirements.”

However, there are doubts as to whether this expansion does fit in with the government's climate change agenda with campaigners predicting that it will generate more pollution and more noise for local communities:

Local campaigners opposed to expansion are concerned about the impact on surface transport, noise, housing provision and wastewater treatment, but the airport insists it has conducted “full and thorough assessments” of those issues.

Cagne, an umbrella aviation community and environment group for Sussex, Surrey and Kent, said it stood ready to serve a judicial review funded by residents and environmental bodies.

The group said: “We know this government cares little for the environmental impact aviation is having on our planet and Gatwick’s neighbours, but not to demand that Gatwick pays for the infrastructure, the onsite wastewater treatment plant, and noise impact is unlawful in our book.”

The Stay Grounded campaign said the approval “prioritises the profit of a few at the expense of us all”.

Friends of the Earth’s head of campaigns, Rosie Downes, said: “With emissions from aviation rising as climate extremes increasingly batter the planet with more intense floods, droughts and wildfires, it’s a struggle to see how the government can conclude expansion at Gatwick is a wise move.”

The Labour government's drive for growth is being pursued in defiance of their own climate change agenda. That is their prerogative of course, but they can't have it both ways. They can't argue that they are committed to reducing global warming when at the same time they are taking decisions that undermine that objective.

We have been here before of course, when Tony Blair tried to introduce ID cards back in 2004 or thereabouts, arguing that they would assist in the war on terror, an assertion that was subsequently debunked by, amongst others, the government's own anti terror law reviewer, a Home Office Minister and the former head of MI5, Dame Stella Rimington. All these are referenced in blogs I wrote at the time that can be read here.

Liberal Democrats were, of course, at the forefront of opposition to Tony Blair's plans, but has there been a change of heart at the top of the party? The BBC certainly seems to think so and judging by Ed Davey's remarks at his Q and A session, it does look as if his visit to Estonia has caused him to consider supporting a digital version.

The BBC quotes Davey as saying that "times have changed" and the party should look at the issue again and not be "knee-jerk" in its opposition:

He said he had been impressed by a visit to Estonia, where a liberal government had brought in digital ID that he said was "very different" to the scheme proposed by Tony Blair when he was prime minister.

If a UK system was about "giving individuals power to access public services" Sir Ed said he could be in favour because "that could increase people's freedom and rights", but he warned against a model that could be abused by an "authoritarian" government.

Fortunately, he does not have the full Parliamentary party behind him or the Party's Home Affairs Spokesperson, Lisa Smart:

On Sunday morning, Smart chaired a packed fringe meeting to test the party's mood on the issue.

The majority of those present argued against digital ID cards, over civil liberties and data security concerns, among other things.

Veteran MP Alistair Carmichael told the meeting: "It seems to me if we are going to go along with the Labour Party on this then we are saying 'we are quite happy to trust the government on this'.

"And I think the day we start saying we trust the government is the day that we stop being a liberal party."

He added: "I think it is ocean-going nonsense to change our mind at that this stage."

Bridget Fox, from Islington in North London, who like many of those present is a veteran of the No2ID campaign 20 years ago, said: "I shouldn't have to prove who I am, going about my own business in the place where I live."

She warned about the impact on "digitally excluded" people, such as the elderly and disabled - and voiced concern about digital ID being abused to intimidate vulnerable and marginalised people.

"I can only too easily see some vigilante patriots stopping people and demanding to see their ID and saying 'I am not carrying it or I don't have it' would no longer be an excuse."

Like others at the meeting, she expressed concern about the "massive" government database that would be needed and the potential impact on the environment.

"This stuff is coming but we should be the constructive critics, we should be the guardians of freedom in this," she told the meeting.

"Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should."

In the Q and A session, Davey appeared to be arguing that ID cards would be acceptable if they empowered people and presumably if they were voluntary. However, just because they may be digital does not make them better than a piece of plastic, in fact, as Bridget Fox argued, that would exclude people from participating in the scheme. And we all know that ID cards would only work if they were compulsory, anathema to Liberals.

And as for the argument that digital ID cards would enable people to better access public services, well, in whose world? Aren't people accessing them perfectly well now? More importantly the reverse is also true. Somebody who does not have an ID card for one reason or another, could be denied access to services they are entitled to.

Our MPs should not sign up to anything unless the party has had a chance to debate the issue and take a position. But if they do want to consider it, here are 24 questions posed by Stand.org.uk back in 2004 that they should answer first, most of which are still relevant to the present proposals:

1. the actual reason for the introduction of ID cards;
2. what ID cards can and cannot do;
3. who will be able to demand an ID card and under what circumstances;
4. if ownership of ID cards will be compulsory;
5. if the carrying of ID cards will be compulsory;
6. whether all parties asking for ID cards will be able to see all of the information held on the card;
7. the security of the ID cards and the centralised database;
8. the form of any biometric data to be held on ID cards;
9. how any biometric data might be collected and how much time and effort would be required of that process;
10. the ability of the cardholding citizen to view personal data held on ID cards;
11. the accessibility of such information to people using minority computer systems, to those without computers and those requiring assistive technologies;
12. the ability of the citizen to demand the correction of misleading data held on the ID card;
13. the supervision of the centralised database necessary to operate the ID card system;
14. whether there will be data on the ID card to which the citizen does not have access;
15. the ability of a citizen to track the usage of their ID card and by whom;
16. the ability of the government to track ID card usage;
17. if centralised data will be shared between government departments, researchers or commercial organisations;
18. if personal data will be exported from the country and hence out of the remit of the Data Protection Acts;
19. what protections will be put in place to prevent "function creep";
20. what protections will be put in place to prevent abuse of the ID card system by future administrations;
21. what protections will be put in place to prevent official abuse of the ID card system;
22. how the ID card system will not discriminate against ethnic minorities;
23. if the ID card scheme violates the Data Protection Acts;
24. if the ID card scheme violates the European Convention on Human Rights (as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998), especially as legal opinions suggest it will

I look forward to Ed Davey and Lisa Smart posing these questions to government ministers.

I have never been one to embrace flags, the nation state or easy patriotism, so the display of flags at Saturday's Lib Dem conference rally was unsettling, not least as the Welsh, Scottish and Cornish flags were absent, while the claim by Tim Farron that the union flag represents all four nations was clearly mistaken. Wales is not represented on the union flag. Nevertheless, the message that patriotism is about embracing our country while nationalism is about hating our neighbours struck home.

During Sunday's Q and A session, Ed Davey, who had inexplicably arrived the day before at the head of a marching band, told us that he was going to continue with the stunts that have divided both the country and the party. Are we a serious party of government, or are we a circus? So I was pleased to read this article in the Independent that suggested a new approach is needed.

The paper says that the sight of Ed Davey with a red sash twirling a mace does not so much suggest “pride in one’s liberal country” to most viewers, but instead, the combination of Lib Dem orange and a marching band conjured up associations with the more aggressive end of the unionist marching season in Northern Ireland.

They add that during the 2024 campaign, Ed fell off paddle boards and bungee-jumped off a high platform, coming across as a good-natured bloke who was enjoying himself:

The water-based stunts were usually intended to make a point about the politics of sewage, but the main effect was probably to remind some voters that they had seen him give a moving interview about caring for his son, who has severe disabilities.

The results seemed a vindication of Sir Ed’s refusal to advocate an early attempt to rejoin the European Union, which many of his activists wanted him to do. Social care, sewage and a bland alternative to the two main parties was enough to sweep up Tory seats across the south and east of England.

There are advisers around the leader who urge a repeat of that strategy at the next election. Social care is still a big issue. The water companies have not been fixed. Do not suggest that the Lib Dems want to reopen the whole Brexit negotiation deadlock circus, they say – just present an image of niceness and wait this time for disillusioned Labour voters to fall into the Lib Dem lap.

Others urge a more targeted approach to Labour defectors, and Sir Ed seems to be following their advice. He has adopted a notable tone of opposition to Donald Trump, refusing the King’s invitation to the banquet at Windsor Castle for the US president’s state visit. And he has taken a sharper pro-Palestinian line, in recent days even using the word “genocide” to describe the Israeli government’s policy.

Those positions are rather too transparently aimed at wooing disaffected Labour voters. While The Independent disagrees as strongly with President Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu as Sir Ed purports to do, these are not necessarily the positions that a responsible party of government should adopt – not least because neither Mr Trump nor Mr Netanyahu is likely to be in power by the time of the next UK election.

We agree that the Liberal Democrats do need a harder edge to their policies, but they should focus on issues on which they could influence a government in a hung parliament, which ought to be the only point of people voting for them. Social care and sewage are important, but they should not be the limit of Lib Dem ambition.

A more forward policy on integration with the EU, a more compassionate approach to immigration and a more genuinely liberal attitude to the cause of equal rights could all be issues on which a large Lib Dem parliamentary party could hope to bring about change after the next election. Let us hear more about them from the party over the next few days in Bournemouth.

I agree. It is time to move on and start talking about our liberalism, our internationalism and our approach to the economy, health and the environment. Getting heard is hard and maybe the stunts have a place, but if the next election is really going to be between the Liberal Democrats and Reform, we need more.

Ed Davey's attacks on Trump and Elon Musk, his condemnation of the genocide in Gaza and his steady and constructive questioning of Starmer at PMQs is a start, so let's kick on and show that we really mean business as a serious party of government.

As the chair of a charity mysef, I am very conscious of the impact that recent government measures have had on the sector. Costs have increased due to rises in the minimum wage and the employers' national insurance levy, while the financial pressures felt by families have reduced contributions and even hit turnover in charity shops.

The Independent reports that the upshot of all this is that the number of UK charities that have been forced to shut their doors for good has jumped by 74 per cent this year.

The paper adds that the sector has raised fears that people in need will be left without vital support, with Oxfam warning that charities are being “asked to do more with less, at the very moment people need us most”:

There are also concerns that the government’s Employment Rights Bill, which would require charities to guarantee hours for zero-hours staff and pay compensation for cancelled shifts, could further strain charities’ budgets, driving more insolvencies.

Oxfam, which in April said it took the “difficult decision” to put 265 of its 2,100 staff at risk of redundancy, has now warned that charities are being “asked to do more with less, at the very moment people need us most”.

The number of major UK charities, defined as those that recorded revenues of over £50k, shutting down jumped to 151 in 2024/25, up from 87 in 2023/24, according to charity commission data analysed by chartered accountants and business advisers Lubbock Fine.

The firm said the increase in insolvencies reflects a “triple hit” of rising employment costs, stalling donations and reduced government funding.

The surge in closures comes as demand for services such as food banks and counselling programmes is rising, leaving more vulnerable people without essential support.

Earlier this year, Macmillan Cancer Support announced it had axed a quarter of its staff, downgraded its helpline and scrapped its flagship
Data from the Charities Aid Foundation indicated that there are four million fewer individual donors since 2019, while cash donations from British businesses have fallen by around £300m this year compared to last, equating to around 5,455 small charities going unfunded.

This is a very serious trend that needs to be addressed. So much of the work carried out by charities would have to be done by government if they didn't exist. We cannnot afford to lose them.

Because of its location, perched above Gower's Three Cliffs Bay, Pennard Castle is by far the most spectacular of Swansea's fortifications, as illustrated by the painting above. It is perhaps, because of that location, that so many stories have grown up about its fate.

The history points website records that the ruins of castle have attracted more than their fair share of myths over the centuries:

The castle itself was ill-fated. It soon became unusable because exceptionally stormy weather in the 13th and 14th centuries blew large amounts of sand into and around it. See our page about the castle for more of its history.

According to some legends, the castle magically took shape on the clifftop in a single night.

It’s said that the castle was wrecked in one night too, because the lord of castle had reacted nastily to fair folk (fairies) making merry within the walls. The fairies cursed the castle, and it was quickly assailed by sand.

That same night, Ireland’s beaches were stripped of their sand.

My photo shows the castle from the valley leading down to Three Cliffs Bay. It is possible to walk up to the ruins from the valley, though if you would prefer a gentler stroll then drive to Southgate and walk across the golf course which abuts the castle. Pennard Golf Club actually own the site.

The castle was built in the early 12th century as a timber ringwork following the Norman invasion of Wales. The walls were rebuilt in stone by the Braose family at the turn of the 13th and 14th centuries, including a stone gatehouse.

Soon afterwards, however, encroaching sand dunes caused the site to be abandoned and it fell into ruin. Restoration work was carried out during the course of the 20th century and the remains of the castle are now protected under UK law as a Grade II listed building.

The history points website concludes with a warning:

If you’re of a superstitious nature, you probably won’t want to spend a night at the castle. The hag is said to jump on anyone who dares to sleep near the structure at night, although some versions of the story say the gwrach only takes offence if the person sleeping is from one of Gower’s old families.

Another old belief was that anyone who dared to sleep within the ruins would die that night, go mad or wake up as a poet.

The sound of a weeping woman is sometimes heard at the castle, it’s said. Some myths say the castle is haunted by the spirit of a tragic bride, others that the weeping maiden is the hag in another guise.

Well worth a visit, if only for the views.

The BBC report that the Welsh government has been accused of "manipulation" and "electioneering" by rival parties over changes to how NHS waiting times statistics are published.

The broadcaster says that the Welsh government has started to publish provisional data a month sooner than "official data", which has a seven-week lag. 

Thursday, September 18, 2025

The politics of UK policing

Wednesday, September 17, 2025

A gamble too far

Tuesday, September 16, 2025

Cap on donations needed after Gething row

Monday, September 15, 2025

Gen Z may never be able to afford a home

Sunday, September 14, 2025

Farage accused of Hypocrisy over house purchase

Saturday, September 13, 2025

Ann of Swansea

Friday, September 12, 2025

Mandelson sacked, but why was he appointed in the first place?

Thursday, September 11, 2025

Tory donations under question

Tuesday, September 09, 2025

Boris Johnson raking in the money

Brexit to hit tourists from next month

Monday, September 08, 2025

Is Starmer listening?

Sunday, September 07, 2025

Farage plays system to minimise his tax burden

Saturday, September 06, 2025

Captain Robert Falcon Scott's link to Swansea