Friday, October 31, 2025
Will Labour's planning bill put EU trade deal at risk?
The Guardian reports that EU ambassador Pedro Serrano is said by the Guardian’s sources to have visited the environment secretary, Emma Reynolds this week and warned her that the planning and infrastructure bill going through the House of Lords could jeopardise the trade deal currently being negotiated between the UK and the European Commission:
Access to the EU’s energy markets is also imperilled by the bill, representatives of the EU warned the government. This would be very difficult for the UK, which imports 16% of its electricity from Europe. The UK government estimates the deal will add £9bn to the UK economy by 2040.
The bill, which the government hopes will boost economic growth, removes EU-derived nature protections and instead allows developers to build on wildlife areas if they pay money into a “nature recovery fund” and commit to improve the environment within 10 years.
The EU believes its protections, which the UK used to follow, are stronger as they involve not harming habitats in the first place, and quickly replacing what is lost rather than making a vague long-term commitment.
EU negotiators have also noticed there are provisions in the bill for the Treasury to claw back the money from the nature recovery fund in some instances, meaning it is not fully ringfenced to protect wildlife.
The ambassador is understood to have warned Reynolds that the bill as it stands could flout the “level playing field” rules that underpin the free trade agreement. These rules state that the UK cannot regress on its environmental rules in a way that would give it a competitive advantage over the EU. The bloc believes this bill does exactly that.
EU representatives also raised this concern at a meeting with government officials earlier this month.
It has been noted by the EU that all the ministerial speeches about the bill have been about removing red tape to boost economic growth. EU officials say it will be hard for the government to argue the bill does not give it a competitive advantage in light of this.
When contacted for comment, the EU Delegation said that it does not comment on ongoing discussions with the UK. The European Union remains fully committed to strengthening its close partnership with the United Kingdom, in accordance with the agreements reached at the EU-UK Summit of 19 May.
The issue for the government is whether they want to get some economic growth by compromising their commitment to tackling climate change and protecting nature, or whether they want to do a deal with the EU and get some real growth, something that has been missing in our economy as a result of Brexit.
Thursday, October 30, 2025
Are Labour's housebuilding targets in ruins?
Back then, I said 'If Labour are serious about providing homes where they are most needed then they will need to provide significant amounts of public subsidy and ensure that local councils and housing associations are sufficiently resourced to build the social housing that is required. They will also need to invest in infrastructure. This target cannot be met on the cheap.'
I repeated that view in October 2024, and in December, I suggested that there a feeling is developing that the government has bitten off more than it can chew with an overly ambitious target.
The Independent reports that the warning by housebuilders was conveyed in a letter to the budget watchdog and is a fresh blow to Rachel Reeves ahead of what is expected to be a difficult budget in November. The HBF say that the government's forecasts for economic growth from house building are too optimistic:
The organisation’s chief executive, Neil Jefferson, said the OBR’s numbers would only be achievable if ministers gave more help to first-time buyers to stimulate demand and slashed planned taxes on new homes, which he said were making many sites “unviable”.
The private warning, seen by The Times, is likely to harm prospects for the watchdog upgrading its forecast for economic growth from construction. In a worst case scenario, it could even result in a downgrade.
In its manifesto, Labour pledged to begin work on 1.5 million new homes over the course of the Parliament, to expand homeownership to more Britons. But house builders have repeatedly sounded the alarm over the pledge, arguing it is too ambitious.
MP Chris Curtis, chair of the Labour Growth Group, said his party is “at risk of not hitting our targets because reform has been too slow”.
“The House of Lords has been holding up legislation, and the government hasn’t been strong enough in standing up to opposition,” he told The Times.
“That’s why we now need to go further, by reforming the building safety regulator, fixing the broken approach to nature regulation, and swiftly getting on with the New Towns programme.”
My hunch is that they will make significant progress, but the target is too high. We won't know of course until the end of the decade.
Wednesday, October 29, 2025
Major tells Tories they are on the wrong side of history
The paper says that Major warned that despite the existential threat posed by Reform’s surge in popularity, far more than the future of the Tory party was at stake with autocracies on the march across the world:
“Frustration with democracy should not blind us to the toxic nature of nationalism, or any and every form of populist or authoritarian government,” he said.
Addressing a Conservative party lunch on Tuesday, he urged the party not to reject the centre ground of British politics, saying they were “seriously alienating” voters by coming down on the wrong side of public opinion on Europe, climate change and overseas aid.
The Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, supported Brexit, and has committed to scrapping the UK’s net zero by 2050 target and cutting the overseas aid budget by another £7bn, while moderates fear the direction the party is taking under the influence of rightwingers such as Robert Jenrick sounds the death knell for one-nation Conservatism.
In a wide-ranging criticism of the current direction, Major accused the Tories of a loss of pragmatism, tolerance and nuance, and of ignoring the 43% of the nation’s voters in the political centre. The party must “change or cease to be relevant”, he said.
“To embrace such a narrow philosophy shrinks the party from being a broad-based national movement to resembling a petty and mean-minded cult.
“The party needs its right wing, its centre, and centre-left Conservatives back together in the fold. If that can be done, then we may once again widen our appeal and be a power in the land. The alternative is bleak.”
Major also urged scepticism over the archetypal “strongman leader” who promised voters a shiny new world. “For such figures lead no one to utopia. Instead, to gain and keep power they sweep away the compromises and decencies of democracy.”
He said Reform was trying to be “all things to all people” and as a result was making promises that could never be kept, such as nationalising the water industry. “This is amateur populism let loose. Such foolish promises illustrate their unsuitability for power,” he said.
He acknowledged, however, that “we, as a party, are ourselves in part to blame” after a tumultuous few years in power for “anxious people … turning to populist politicians”.
Meanwhile, Theresa May has also got into the act, in a speech to peers on Monday, she took issue with her party’s approach to net zero, the judiciary and human rights as she urged the Tories to show leadership instead. It's just that nobody in the Conservative Party leadership is listening.
Tuesday, October 28, 2025
Farage's half-apology is not good enough
The Reform leader was responding to an appearance on TalkTV over the weekend, when Sarah Pochin, the MP for Runcorn and Helsby, responded to a viewer who complained about the demographics of advertising, saying she thought the viewer was “absolutely right”, adding that “It drives me mad when I see adverts full of Black people, full of Asian people."
Farage told a press conference in London on Monday: “I understand the basic point, but the way she put it, the way she worded it, was wrong and was ugly, and if I thought that the intention behind it was racist, I would have taken a lot more action than I have."
Mr Farage said he was “unhappy” with what his MP had said, but that her remarks had been made in the context of “DEI madness” – a reference to measures taken by governments to ensure diversity, equity and inclusion.
It came as Sir Keir Starmer described Ms Pochin’s comments as amounting to “shocking racism”.
Asked whether the comments made by the MP were racist, the prime minister said: “It’s shocking racism, and it’s the sort of thing that will tear our country apart – and it tells you everything about Reform.”
He said that Mr Farage has to face questions about it “because either he doesn’t consider it racist, which in my view is shocking in itself, or he does think it’s racist and he’s shown absolutely no leadership”.
Meanwhile, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the way Ms Pochin had expressed herself was “racist”.
Speaking to LBC, he said: “She should absolutely not have said that. It was completely wrong. She has apologised. I think the way she put it was racist, she shouldn’t have said it, and it’s right she’s apologised.”
Earlier on Monday, Labour wrote to Mr Farage asking him to “urgently clarify” whether he endorsed her comments and whether they were welcome in Reform, while the Liberal Democrats have sought a censure motion in parliament to formally condemn Ms Pochin’s words.
These remarks were clearly racist, the fact that Farage is effectively making excuses for Pochin and is happy for her to continue to serve as a Reform MP, says a great deal about him and his party.
Monday, October 27, 2025
Concern about political donors getting government contracts
The paper says that a report by the thinktank Autonomy Institute has identified more than 100 companies that have given money to political parties and then won government contracts, under both Conservative and Labour administrations:
The study follows a previous investigation by the Guardian that revealed how companies linked to Tory donors had been given billions in public funds since 2016.
The new analysis shows the pattern has continued under Labour, with eight companies that donated more than £580,000 to the party receiving government contracts worth nearly £138m within two years of their donation (between July 2024 and June 2025).
Looking beyond a two-year window, the thinktank found 25 Labour-linked companies had won contracts worth £796.43m since 2001.
Dr Susan Hawley, the executive director of Spotlight on Corruption said: “There is nothing more damaging to public trust than the perception that those with privileged access to those in power get privileged access to taxpayer-funded contracts.
“These findings show a systemic problem with the UK’s absurdly weak handling of conflicts of interest. It must lead to systemic solutions which include screening out political donors and their companies from the procurement process, and real consideration of a ban on company directors or their companies that receive public contracts from making political donations.”
The Autonomy Institute identified a total of 125 companies that were awarded central government contracts worth £28.8bn after previously making £30.15m of donations to a political party. About £2.5bn worth of those contracts were awarded within two years of the donation.
They include the consultancy firm Baringa Partners, which donated £30,061.50 to Labour in January 2024 and received £35,196,719 worth of government contracts between July 2024 and March this year. Grant Thornton donated £81,658.37 between March 2023 and July 2024 and has since been awarded £6,541,819 in contracts.
However, the vast bulk of the contracts – £25.4bn – were awarded under previous Conservative governments to Conservative donors. They include Randox Laboratories and Globus Shetland, both of which were offered contracts during the Covid pandemic.
A Conservative spokesperson said the party was funded by membership, fundraising and donations declared to the Electoral Commission and fully compliant with the law. They said the alternative “would be more taxpayer funding or being in the pocket of union barons like the current government”.
They added: “As the National Audit Office and Cabinet Office internal audit made clear, ministers properly declared their interest and had no involvement in procurement decisions. Donations have never had any bearing on government contracts.”
A government spokesperson said: “All government contracts are awarded fairly and transparently, in line with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. All decisions on contracts are rigorously scrutinised to deliver the best value for the taxpayer.”
There is no suggestion of anything untoward here, but appearances are important and if we are not going to replace political donationsw with public funding then the proposals being put forward by Dr Susan Hawley should at least be given serious consideration.
Sunday, October 26, 2025
Flagging Reform waste
The Independent reports that Reform UK-led Nottinghamshire County Council is splurging £75,000 on new flag installations, prompting criticism the money could be better spent on services for local people.
The paper says that the 164 flags are set to be displayed across 82 locations, costing the council £475 each, which will include brackets, traffic management and utilising cherry pickers:
The decision has been criticised by others in the council, who feel it contradicts Reform UK’s promise that it would slash wasteful spending if elected.
Labour councillor Helen Faccio, who represents Toton, Chilwell and Attenborough, told the BBC she was “shocked but not surprised” by the announcement.
She said: “We heard when Reform came to power, that they would make council services more efficient and cut wasteful spending.
“Then we hear about huge spending on flags. My residents would say we should spend money filling potholes or investing in youth clubs.”
Meanwhile, all the Reform-led councils are planning large council tax increases next year, completely contrary to their election promises. So much for claims that they are any different to other parties.
Saturday, October 25, 2025
A lone refuge from the rat race
During World War II, it served as a base for radar workers. More recently, it gained fame as a filming location for the TV shows Torchwood and BBC's The Guest. Today, the National Trust manages the site as a popular holiday cottage, blending its historical character with modern comforts.
The current rectory was built around 1850 on the site of an earlier, less substantial rectory. It was home to Reverend John Ponsonby Lucas and his family from 1855 to 1898. During this time, it was a family home for the rector, his wife, six children, and a maid.
The rectory became a base for radar personnel working at the station on nearby Rhossili Down, which provided early warnings for incoming enemy aircraft. This period led to its reputation for being haunted, with some visitors reporting strange sightings and sounds.
For anybody wanting to escape the rat race it is an ideal refuge. As the National Trust website says: 'the spacious, four-bedroom house is full of coastal charm with light-flooded rooms, sea views from many of the rooms and woodburners in both the sitting room and snug. Watch the sun set over the beach from the window seat or the garden.'
Bookings can be made here.
The current rectory was built around 1850 on the site of an earlier, less substantial rectory. It was home to Reverend John Ponsonby Lucas and his family from 1855 to 1898. During this time, it was a family home for the rector, his wife, six children, and a maid.
The rectory became a base for radar personnel working at the station on nearby Rhossili Down, which provided early warnings for incoming enemy aircraft. This period led to its reputation for being haunted, with some visitors reporting strange sightings and sounds.
For anybody wanting to escape the rat race it is an ideal refuge. As the National Trust website says: 'the spacious, four-bedroom house is full of coastal charm with light-flooded rooms, sea views from many of the rooms and woodburners in both the sitting room and snug. Watch the sun set over the beach from the window seat or the garden.'
Bookings can be made here.
Friday, October 24, 2025
Reflections on the Caerphilly by-election
In fact, the seat was taken by Plaid Cymru with a majority of 3,848 votes and a 47.4% vote share, in an election where, for the first time in a Senedd contest, turnout actually went up and passed 50%. This was despite, Farage spending the day in the constituency and Reform pouring unprecedented resources into their campaign. So, what went wrong for the so-called insurgents?
Firstly, Plaid Cymru had a well-known, highly-respected and effective local candidate, who has been a councillor in the area, seemingly for ever, and has been leader of the local council twice.
Lindsay Whittle also represented the area as a regional Assembly Member for five years, and had fought the constituency fourteen times prior to this election, while Plaid Cymru have history in this seat, coming within 2000 votes of winning it in a 1968 by-election.
An opinion poll a week before polling day, showed Reform in the lead with Plaid Cymru not far behind them. Once this was made public, it naturally led to progressive forces uniting behind the Welsh nationalist candidate, squeezing an already unpopular Labour Party down to a derisory 11% of the vote. Note that Labour have held this seat at every election since 1918.
An opinion poll a week before polling day, showed Reform in the lead with Plaid Cymru not far behind them. Once this was made public, it naturally led to progressive forces uniting behind the Welsh nationalist candidate, squeezing an already unpopular Labour Party down to a derisory 11% of the vote. Note that Labour have held this seat at every election since 1918.
Other parties were also squeezed, while the bigger turnout indicates that many voters were motivated to go to the polls to stop Reform.
In many ways this seat was a natural one for Reform to take. It has a large working class population, overwhelmingly born and brought up locally, only 2.9% of those living there were born abroad. It's demographcs are very similar to England's red wall seats where Reform are making inroads. However, yesterday's result shows that despite Reform aggressively running an anti immigration line during the campaign, there is a ceiling on the number of people who will respond to that sort of campaign.
The other lesson for those promoting the inevitability of a Nigel Farage premiership in three years time, is that there is an inherent problem for his party in counting on disengaged voters to put them in power. That is that people who are disengaged from the system don't tend to vote, or even to register to vote, preferring to express their discontent on social media instead. Getting these voters to the polling booth in the numbers required to win is more difficult that perhaps Farage and his advisors thought.
As the journalist, Will Hayward has reported several times in his newsletter, Reform in Wales is not a happy ship. He writes that there was a lot of anger among grassroots members at the perceived domineering approach that the group around their candidate, Llyr Powell had taken when it came to dominating local groups:
Within all parties, but especially ones like Reform, success is the great legitimiser. Many people within the party, especially those who have jumped ship from the Tories, are not there because of principle. They support Reform because they see it as the most effective vehicle for their own advancement. As soon as this is no longer the case, division can quickly rise to the surface.
Llyr Powell was Nigel Farage’s picked man in Wales. If he is put at the top of party lists ahead of May’s election after this failure I can imagine many in the party getting very angry.
Finally, what does this election mean for the rest of Wales?
This is, of course, a by-election, with very particular circumstances. Next May there will be 16 separate contests, fought on a closed list d'hondt system, where the sort of two party squeeze that occurred in Caerphilly will not be repeated.
In many ways this seat was a natural one for Reform to take. It has a large working class population, overwhelmingly born and brought up locally, only 2.9% of those living there were born abroad. It's demographcs are very similar to England's red wall seats where Reform are making inroads. However, yesterday's result shows that despite Reform aggressively running an anti immigration line during the campaign, there is a ceiling on the number of people who will respond to that sort of campaign.
The other lesson for those promoting the inevitability of a Nigel Farage premiership in three years time, is that there is an inherent problem for his party in counting on disengaged voters to put them in power. That is that people who are disengaged from the system don't tend to vote, or even to register to vote, preferring to express their discontent on social media instead. Getting these voters to the polling booth in the numbers required to win is more difficult that perhaps Farage and his advisors thought.
As the journalist, Will Hayward has reported several times in his newsletter, Reform in Wales is not a happy ship. He writes that there was a lot of anger among grassroots members at the perceived domineering approach that the group around their candidate, Llyr Powell had taken when it came to dominating local groups:
Within all parties, but especially ones like Reform, success is the great legitimiser. Many people within the party, especially those who have jumped ship from the Tories, are not there because of principle. They support Reform because they see it as the most effective vehicle for their own advancement. As soon as this is no longer the case, division can quickly rise to the surface.
Llyr Powell was Nigel Farage’s picked man in Wales. If he is put at the top of party lists ahead of May’s election after this failure I can imagine many in the party getting very angry.
Finally, what does this election mean for the rest of Wales?
This is, of course, a by-election, with very particular circumstances. Next May there will be 16 separate contests, fought on a closed list d'hondt system, where the sort of two party squeeze that occurred in Caerphilly will not be repeated.
The Caerphilly result will inevitably give a boost to Plaid Cymru and the likelihood is that they will now be the largest party in the 96 seat Senedd, with Reform not far behind them.
Labour is likely to be the third largest party with Tories, Liberal Democrats and Greens also represented, but no one party will have a majority.
Labour is likely to be the third largest party with Tories, Liberal Democrats and Greens also represented, but no one party will have a majority.
The key to the electoral performance of the smaller parties in each of these constituencies will be differential turnout. The threshold that needs to be reached to get elected is 12%, but Reform's difficulty in getting its disengaged supporters out to vote may well be a factor.
Whatever the result, I cannot see Nigel Farage's party getting enough support to form a government, which means that a Plaid Cymru-Labour coalition or a minority Plaid Cymru government is the most likely scenario.
It is worth noting, that a number of influential people in Welsh Labour are opposed to going into government with Plaid. Their reasoning is that Reform should be put into power, where they will make a pigs-ear of the entire thing, lose support across the UK and let Labour win another UK general election. The political term for this view is 'wishful thinking'. It would also be a disaster for Wales.
There is still seven months to go to the Senedd elections, so anything can happen. The one thing that is clear however, is that last night's result was a major blow to Reform and it is going to affect their prospects going forward.
It is worth noting, that a number of influential people in Welsh Labour are opposed to going into government with Plaid. Their reasoning is that Reform should be put into power, where they will make a pigs-ear of the entire thing, lose support across the UK and let Labour win another UK general election. The political term for this view is 'wishful thinking'. It would also be a disaster for Wales.
There is still seven months to go to the Senedd elections, so anything can happen. The one thing that is clear however, is that last night's result was a major blow to Reform and it is going to affect their prospects going forward.
The most cost-effective ways to reduce child poverty
A full reversal of the cap, introduced by the Conservatives in 2017, and which restricts universal or child tax credit to the first two children in most households, is estimated by the IFS to cost around £3.6 billion and lift some 630,000 children out of poverty:
The IFS also outlined options for a partial reversal, allowing the government to avoid the full cost by prioritising specific groups. Rachel Reeves has faced increasing calls to lift the cap.
Exempting working families from the limit would reduce the bill to £2.6 billion and reduce child poverty by 410,000.
A payment for third and subsequent children at half the rate paid for the first two would cost around £1.8 billion.
Tom Wernham, a senior research economist at the IFS, said: “Reversing the two-child limit is one of the most cost-effective options the government has to achieve a quick reduction in child poverty.
“There are ways to partially undo the policy that would cost less than the full £3.6 billion needed for its full removal.”
He said the government must ultimately decide who it wants to help and what it wants the benefit system to do.
“It could target support on the youngest children, or strengthen work incentives by lifting the limit for families in work, or spread the extra cash more thinly but across a wider group,” he said.
“None of these options would be as costly as full reversal, but nor would they do as much to reduce poverty.”
It comes as part of the IFS’s annual “green budget”, setting out the challenges facing the Chancellor ahead of the Budget each year.
Let's hope that the chancellor takes note.
Thursday, October 23, 2025
What was behind the Villa Park ban?
this is not a decision to ban football hooligans; it is a decision to ban all away fans from a game, which a safety advisory group has not done in this country for nearly 25 years. It was a decision taken not on the grounds that he suggests, which was the risk posed by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans; it was a decision taken in no small part because of the risk posed to them because they support an Israeli team and because they are Jewish. I would gently say to him that if he is conflating everybody who supports an Israeli team—the vast majority of whom by definition will be Jewish—with violent football hooligans, he should consider whether he can really stand in front of this House and say that he is not behaving in a way that is antisemitic.
The Guardian however, has another view of the matter. They report that the ban was imposed after police intelligence concluded the biggest risk of violence came from extremist fans of the Israeli club.
The paper says that the police assessment led to the fixture on 6 November at Villa Park in Birmingham being classed as high risk, though the intelligence and risk assessments that led to that conclusion and ban have not been made public:
But sources with knowledge of the details of the intelligence and risk assessments have told the Guardian that the Maccabi fans were considered likely to be the perpetrators of trouble.
According to sources, police intelligence said:
* Scores of extreme Maccabi fans with a past history of violence and shouting “racist taunts” were expected to travel to the Birmingham game.
* Dutch police told their British counterparts that the Maccabi fans had instigated trouble in Amsterdam at a game last year.
* They had randomly picked Muslims in Amsterdam to attack. That led to reprisal violence with some Dutch Jews attacked.
* A huge Dutch police effort, involving 5,000 officers across three days, was needed to quell the trouble.
* A community impact assessment by West Midlands police recorded that some Jewish people wanted the Maccabi fans banned because of the trouble that might ensue if they attended.
* Any trouble started by Maccabi fans attending the Birmingham game could lead to reprisals from local people and further trouble.
* The process did not consider whether the ban on fans of the Israeli club could be criticised as antisemitic itself or surrendering to antisemitism.
The ban on Maccabi fans was made by Birmingham’s Safety Advisory Group. It was decided after an intelligence assessment was conducted by West Midlands police, shared with the national UK football policing unit.
The UK football policing unit is understood to have backed the conclusions reached by local police.
Last week, the prime minister, Keir Starmer, said: “This is the wrong decision. We will not tolerate antisemitism on our streets. The role of the police is to ensure all football fans can enjoy the game, without fear of violence or intimidation.”
A source with knowledge of the assessments said: “The biggest risk was always the extreme Maccabi fans who want to fight.”
The source accepted those making the assessments and decisions did not consider how the ban on Israeli fans could be seen when made public, with some claiming it was a surrender to antisemitism: “If you don’t know the detail and have not read the intelligence, you could conclude it was because the traveling fans were Jewish. That is just not the case.”
As there are no direct flights from Israel to Birmingham, Maccabi fans would probably have travelled first to London. Trouble was feared across the estimated three days Maccabi fans would be in the UK for the game: arriving in the UK, then on to Birmingham and attending the game itself before their return journey.
After the row erupted, the government said it would offer police extra resources to minimise the risk. But so severe was the risk that it is estimated specialist riot police would have had to be drafted in from around the country if the ban was reversed.
At least 1,500 to 2,000 riot officers would be needed with many brought in through mutual aid from the across the UK, at an estimated cost of £6m, though likely to be higher.
On Monday evening, Maccabi Tel Aviv announced they would not sell tickets for the Europa League match in Birmingham next month. Their allocation of tickets was expected to be about 2,400.
It is clear to me, at least, that this ban is not political, it is not anti-semitic, but has been made for justifiable operational reasons. Perhaps the politicians who have been piling in on this should step back and allow the police and the safety advisory group to do their job.
Wednesday, October 22, 2025
Are Labour planning a further hit on the disabled?
The paper says that these tax breaks are worth around £1billion a year, and the measure will mean cutting an exemption which allows cars leased under the scheme to be exempt from VAT or insurance premium tax. BMWs, Mercedes and other luxury cars could also be removed from the scheme:
Around 860,000 disabled people use the scheme, which is open to people who claim a qualifying mobility allowance, usually through the Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
Removing the tax breaks would mean more claimants need to make an advance payment for their cars.
Under the scheme, claimants can exchange all or part of their mobility allowance for a vehicle but they most pay up front if the cost of a larger or more expensive vehicle exceeds it.
James Taylor of the charity Scope warned that scrapping tax breaks “could heap extra costs onto disabled people all over Britain.
"Restricting eligibility to Motability could hit disabled people on lower incomes hard.”
It is understood that no decision has been taken as Ms Reeves weighs her options ahead of next month's Budget.
Today, the Chancellor said she can't "leave welfare untouched" without hiking taxes and cutting spending on schools and hospitals.
The Government was forced into a retreat over botched disability benefit cuts by Labour MPs earlier this year.
But Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden has signalled another attempt will be made to slash the welfare bill.
If this happens it will be a serious misstep for Labour. They are already suffering in the polls because of cuts to the winter fuel allowance, their failure to scrap the two-child benefit cut, cuts to incapacity benefit and other measures. Further cuts will just reinforce the perception of Starmer's party as Tory-lite.
Tuesday, October 21, 2025
Chaos in Kent
The paper says that footage of an online meeting in which Kent County Council leader Linden Kemkaran could be seen berating backbench councillors when they questioned her was leaked to the press on Saturday:
Four Reform UK councillors have been suspended after a video was leaked to the press showing the leader of the party’s flagship local authority telling council members to “suck it up”.
Reform UK took control of Kent County Council (KCC) after winning 57 of the 81 seats at the local elections in May, overturning a 30-year Tory majority.
Footage of an online meeting in which KCC leader Linden Kemkaran could be seen berating backbench councillors when they questioned her was leaked to the press on Saturday.
A Reform UK spokesperson said: “Cllrs Paul Thomas, Oliver Bradshaw, Bill Barrett and Maxine Fothergill have had the whip suspended pending investigation, following evidence that they brought the party into disrepute.”
Doorstepped by the BBC on Monday and asked about the suspensions, Cllr Kemkaran said it was “business as usual” at Kent County Council.
The sweary video saw councillors being told by Ms Kemkaran, the Reform leader of Kent County Council, to “f***ing suck it up” if they didn’t agree with the decisions.
Cllr Kemkaran warned those voicing dissent that they would be “screwed”, and that Reform would not be able to win a general election, if they failed to balance Kent’s budget.
In the chaotic recording, obtained by The Guardian, she allegedly shouted down fellow councillors and threatened them with being “muted”, prompting comparisons with the notorious “Jackie Weaver” parish council Zoom meeting, footage of which went viral during the pandemic.
“Let’s not forget, we are the shop window in KCC. People are looking at us, they are judging us every single minute of every single day. Nigel knows that. He is super aware that we are the flagship council,” Ms Kemkaran told her colleagues.
Kent is one of the 10 councils Reform took control of in a stunning set of local election victories in May, with the party vowing to cut wasteful spending and reduce council tax bills.
But, despite rolling out its Elon Musk-inspired Department of Local Government Efficiency (Dolge) unit in the council, Kent’s Reform leaders are still set to hike council tax rates next year.
Labour said the leaked footage showed that a government run by Nigel Farage would be “complete chaos”, while the Liberal Democrats said the meeting looked “more like an episode of The Traitors than the running of a major council”.
Cllr Kemkaran, who oversees the £2.5bn council budget, told the meeting: “We are going to live or die on that budget. If we don’t balance the books, you can forget Reform winning the next election. It’s that crucial.”
She added: “If we can avoid putting up council tax by the full 5 per cent, that is going to be the best thing that we can do to show that Reform can actually run something as big as Kent council.”
There have been rumours of a split among Kent’s Reform councillors since the party took control of the local authority.
On Monday, Reform UK announced the suspension of four KCC councillors, including Mr Thomas, whom Ms Kemkaran threatened to mute during the meeting. Mr Thomas had questioned whether Reform had the “right” leader and cabinet, before he was muted by the council leader.
It is clearly going well for Nigel Farage's party.
Monday, October 20, 2025
Brexit continues to have negative effect on the UK economy
The paper says that Bailey, who was speaking at the G30 40th annual International Banking Seminar on Saturday, said that the economy is, however, likely to adjust and find balance again in the longer term:
The event in Washington, DC saw Mr Bailey highlight a decline in the UK’s potential growth rate from 2.5 per cent to 1.5 per cent over the past 15 years.
He linked this to lower productivity growth, an ageing population and trade restrictions – including post-Brexit economic policies.
“For nearly a decade, I have been very careful to say that I take no position per se on Brexit, which was a decision by the people of the UK, and it is our job as public officials to implement it,” Mr Bailey said.
“But, I quite often get asked a second question: what’s the impact on economic growth?
“And as a public official, I have to answer that question.
“And the answer is that for the foreseeable future it is negative.
“But over the longer term, there will be – because trade adjusts – some at least partial rebalancing,” Mr Bailey added.
Referencing the works of 18th-century economist and philosopher Adam Smith, he continued: “Why do I give that answer? Because that’s the Smithian growth model: making an economy less open restricts growth over the long term.
“Longer term, you will get some adjustment. Trade does adjust, it does rebuild.
“And all the evidence we have from the UK is that is exactly what is happening.”
Investment in innovation and new technologies, including AI, may help address the decline in productivity growth in the long run, Mr Bailey said.
“If we take account of the impact of ageing and trade restrictions, we’re really putting our chips on investment,” he said.
“We’re putting our chips on general-purpose technology, and AI looks like the next general-purpose technology, so we need to work with it.
“We need to ensure that it develops appropriately and well.”
Mr Bailey warned that, although AI is likely to usher in a breakthrough in productivity long-term, it may “in the current circumstances, be a risk to financial stability through stretched valuations in the markets”.
“It doesn’t undermine the fact that AI, in my view, is likely, in addressing this slower growth issue, that we have and the consequences of it – that it is actually the best hope we have, and we really do need to do all we can to foster it,” he said.
The problem with waiting for the longer term of course, is that in the meantime the economy continues to struggle, and that hits everybody, no matter how they voted in 2016.
Sunday, October 19, 2025
The question Reform just won’t properly answer
Will says that Reform are declining to properly answer questions about their Caerphilly candidate, Llyr Powell’s links to the party’s disgraced former leader in Wales, Nathan Gill:
Mr Gill has admitted eight counts of taking Russian bribes while a member of the European Parliament.
Mr Powell worked for Mr Gill though not at the time incidents took place.
Reform are desperate for people to stop asking them questions about this. In a BBC Radio Wales interview last week Mr Powell was asked if he knew anything about Gill’s crimes, to which he replied:A few points on this:
“That’s really low to ask me that. I’ve been clear that no, I knew absolutely nothing.
“No-one was more angry with what Nathan did than me. It was an act of betrayal. I’ve been clear about that.
“The fact that he had a plea deal I wasn’t happy with. I think if he did do these [crimes], as he’s pled guilty to, now he should feel the full weight of the law.
“But for political opponents to smear my name with this, I find it absolutely disgusting.
“No one’s asking questions of other parties of what they knew about when their members have done some horrific things in particular. There’s some real questionable things being done there, and I haven’t heard the other parties speak about those members before.”
1. The idea that other parties would not get the same level of questioning is ridiculous. Vaughan Gething ultimately had to resign because of the media questions asked about a donation he received.
2. It is clear that Mr Powell did not work for Mr Gill at the time the offences took place and there is no evidence to suggest that he had any knowledge of Mr Gill’s crimes.
3. The idea that if it was another party in this position Reform wouldn’t be raising the issue at every available opportunity is laughable.
4. It is perfectly legitimate to diligently question the relationship a Reform candidate has to a man who committed serious crimes.
Based on point four, I approached Reform to ask: “When did Llyr Powell last have direct contact with Nathan Gill whether by phone, email, text or Whatsapp?”
They replied saying “Llyr has answered these questions” and directed me to an interview with WalesOnline where he was asked when they last spoke, or if he had looked back at their last messages since his former boss pleaded guilty?
Mr Powell said in that interview:
“No because you change phones.Clear as mud right? I assume that “Brexit night” was January 31, 2020, when the UK officially left the EU. However when I tried to seek clarification from Reform they stopped replying. Three times I have asked them for this and it’s being ignored (they normally reply within minutes).
“European phone... Nathan had a different number by the end. If I’m being totally honest with you I don’t know whether it was the Brexit night when we actually left [that we last spoke] and it was like a: ‘Can you believe this?’ I think that might have been a message.
“Mine and Nathan’s relationship was purely when he needed me in the sense of casework or press advice on Welsh-specific [matters].”
Let’s accept he means January 2020 as the date he last spoke to Mr Gill. I am surprised, given what a small world that extreme right of politics is in Wales, that they went half a decade without contact or meeting at events.
I do think it is telling that they are clearly unwilling to properly commit to a date. This is not a small thing. Reform are likely to be the biggest party in Wales, it is not crazy to imagine that Llyr Powell could be our next First Minister. The fact the party is seemingly being evasive about when he last had contact with a man who was the party’s Welsh leader, and took bribes from a foreign power, is concerning.
I repeat, imagine how relentless Reform would be if this was any other party.
Like Will, I think we deserve some answers to these questions.
P.S. If you haven't already, it is well worth subscribing to Will's newsletter.
Saturday, October 18, 2025
Dylan Thomas' birthplace
Chief amongst the Dylan Thomas landmarks is his birthplace at 5 Cwmdonkin Drive in the city's Uplands district, which is available to visit (as Johnny Depp did in 2023), and you can even stay there if you wish. The house has its own website here.
The site records that Dylan Thomas was born in the front bedroom of the house in 1914 and continued to live at Number 5 until his parents moved out in 1937 of his “…Glamorgan villa…” overlooking the “…long and splendid curving shore…” of Swansea Bay:
This is where the subject of the film Edge of Love and author of Under Milk Wood spent his formative years. Dylan’s birthplace has now been fully restored to its condition in 1914 when it was bought as a new house by the Thomas family.
Number 5 was one of six houses (three pairs of semi-detached houses) that were built between 1913 and 1915. Planning permission for the development was granted in 1908 by the Borough of Swansea to a Mr T Lewis. It has been documented that the builder, W H Harding lived next door in Number 6. In fact, the South Wales Directory for 1920 lists the occupant as being Thomas Lewis – the developer. Harding, who had a builders yard in The Grove, lived in Eversley Road, Sketty, next door to Dylan’s great friend Daniel Jones.
There is a further reference to the Lewis family in Dylan’s short story Patricia, Edith and Arnold. Edith is the maid who “…belongs to Mrs Lewis…” who talks over the back garden wall to Patricia who is the Thomas’s maid “…when they should be working…” and finds out that both are dating the same man – Arnold Matthews – who they confront at the bowls pavilion in Cwmdonkin Park with the inevitable tears as the outcome.Dylan Thomas Birthplace (Number 5 Cwmdonkin Drive) is a house whose walls have many tales to tell.
The visit of Prince Charles to the Dylan Thomas Birthplace on 14th December 2012 marked the end of a nine year journey which began when Geoff Haden, a Swansea local, visited the house during on the 50th anniversary of the poet’s death in 2003.
The crumbling ex-student bedsit house he found spurred him to take on the daunting restoration project when the lease became available two years later.
The culmination of the three year restoration was the opening of the house by Dylan’s daughter Aeronwy on the 94th anniversary of Dylan’s birth in 2008. The house is as it might have been in 1914 when bought by the Thomas family as a new house. The project could not have happened without a huge team effort from building craftsmen and building suppliers who were followed by the vast number of people involved in the furnishing of a whole house over a nine month period. It was a three year, self funded, labour of love to restore Dylan Thomas’ birthplace and family home.
It is well worth going to see the house and the views are spectacular.
Wednesday, October 15, 2025
A threat to financial and political transparency
The paper says that when Elon Musk appeared on huge screens dotted along Whitehall calling for thousands of attendees at far-right campaigner Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom rally to “fight back… or die”, the tech billionaire’s image was accompanied by the logos of the event’s sponsors. All but one were cryptocurrencies.
They say that these images highlighted the arrival in Britain of a global pattern: the embrace by extreme rightwing movements of decentralised digital currencies:
Authorities have long warned that cryptocurrencies pose an urgent challenge to the UK’s democracy by enabling hostile state actors and foreign nationals to secretly donate to political parties.
Tom Keatinge, director of the Royal United Services Institute’s Centre for Finance and Security, said: “The average person in the UK might think of it as being a marginal thing, but in that [far-right] community – which is a growing community – it’s mainstream.
“Historically, there’s been one form of money. It’s been issued by the central bank, and that’s been controlled by the government. That isn’t the case any more.”
The article points out that Athena Bitcoin Global, one of the main sponsors of the event, which saw up to 150,000 people gather in central London, has been accused of profiting from cybercrime in the US.
Meanwhile, senior Labour MPs have expressed concern about the prospect of crypto-based political donations and are pressing ministers to delay the much anticipated elections bill, designed to change electoral oversight laws, so that it can include a clause banning them. Ireland, Brazil and Greenland have all banned crypto donations.
These concerns crystallised last weekend with a report in the Observer that several sources told the paper that the Electoral Commission had been given prior notice by a party, understood to be Reform UK, that it had received a donation made in cryptocurrency in recent weeks:
Reform is the only political party in Europe to accept donations in crypto, something that its leader, Nigel Farage, announced at a bitcoin conference in Las Vegas in spring. Its party conference in Birmingham last month was sponsored by several alternative finance groups, including at least two crypto companies.
While the value of the donation is not yet known, parties only need to notify the commission if they have received more than £11,180 centrally. MPs, who have a lower reporting threshold of £2,230, are expected to declare donations on their register first.
A Reform spokesman said: “All donations above the reporting limit will be disclosed in the usual way.”
We need more transparency in politics, not less. That is why it is so important that controls are imposed on crypto currency donations.
Authorities have long warned that cryptocurrencies pose an urgent challenge to the UK’s democracy by enabling hostile state actors and foreign nationals to secretly donate to political parties.
Tom Keatinge, director of the Royal United Services Institute’s Centre for Finance and Security, said: “The average person in the UK might think of it as being a marginal thing, but in that [far-right] community – which is a growing community – it’s mainstream.
“Historically, there’s been one form of money. It’s been issued by the central bank, and that’s been controlled by the government. That isn’t the case any more.”
The article points out that Athena Bitcoin Global, one of the main sponsors of the event, which saw up to 150,000 people gather in central London, has been accused of profiting from cybercrime in the US.
Meanwhile, senior Labour MPs have expressed concern about the prospect of crypto-based political donations and are pressing ministers to delay the much anticipated elections bill, designed to change electoral oversight laws, so that it can include a clause banning them. Ireland, Brazil and Greenland have all banned crypto donations.
These concerns crystallised last weekend with a report in the Observer that several sources told the paper that the Electoral Commission had been given prior notice by a party, understood to be Reform UK, that it had received a donation made in cryptocurrency in recent weeks:
Reform is the only political party in Europe to accept donations in crypto, something that its leader, Nigel Farage, announced at a bitcoin conference in Las Vegas in spring. Its party conference in Birmingham last month was sponsored by several alternative finance groups, including at least two crypto companies.
While the value of the donation is not yet known, parties only need to notify the commission if they have received more than £11,180 centrally. MPs, who have a lower reporting threshold of £2,230, are expected to declare donations on their register first.
A Reform spokesman said: “All donations above the reporting limit will be disclosed in the usual way.”
We need more transparency in politics, not less. That is why it is so important that controls are imposed on crypto currency donations.
Tuesday, October 14, 2025
Farage seeks to distance Reform from the Russians
The website says that Farage – who led both of those parties – told the BBC on Friday: "I'm the only person in the senior management team of Reform who's ever even met him", however, Reform's current deputy leader Richard Tice and chairman David Bull both spent time with the Anglesey-based politician, who was an MEP for Wales between 2014 and 2020:
Before his exposure as a Russian asset, Gill was effusively praised by Tice at a Brexit Party event in 2019. Introducing Gill to the stage, Tice said: "Your first speaker is well known to you. He's been an MEP for the last five years. He's also before that been a very successful entrepreneur who employed over 200 people."
Tice was leader of Reform when he posted on social media a picture of himself smiling next to Gill outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. The post, from April 2021, read: "Great to be with Nathan Gill, leader of Reform UK Wales, campaigning today. Wales needs to reopen, never lockdown again and focus on cutting taxes..."
In 2019 Gill filmed himself welcoming newly-elected Brexit Party colleagues to the European Parliament – including David Bull, who at the time was MEP for North West England and is now chairman of Reform. Bull could be seen smiling, puffing out his cheeks and saying "it's overwhelming" as Gill filmed his reaction to the parliament's Strasbourg headquarters.
Gill and Bull were among a delegation of MEPs who visited Indian-administered Kashmir in 2019, alongside fellow Brexit Party members Alexandra Phillips and James Wells. The visit was controversial as Kashmir's opposition parties had been barred from fact-finding missions since India withdrew the region's semi-autonomous status.
Plaid Cymru's Westminster leader Liz Saville Roberts said: "Nigel Farage has been caught lying again. His own deputy, Richard Tice, stood alongside Nathan Gill and heaped praise on him – the former Reform leader in Wales who has now admitted taking Russian bribes.
"It’s yet another example of Farage saying whatever suits him in the moment, no matter the facts."
This story is going to run all the way to the Senedd elections.
Monday, October 13, 2025
A toxic environment
The Guardian reports that voluntary organisations say they are being forced to introduce extensive security measures to protect staff and property – a trend described by one charity head as in danger of becoming the “new normal” – after being targeted amid increasingly toxic rhetoric around immigration and race by politicians and extremist activists.
The paper says that refugee and asylum seeker charities, Muslim, Jewish and ethnic minority organisations, women’s groups, youth bodies, homelessness charities and even charity shops have reported being subject to violence, threats and abuse:
Incidents include threats to rape and kill staff, verbal and physical abuse of beneficiaries on the street, attempted break-ins to charity-owned accommodation, and damage to offices and vandalism, including anti-migrant and racist graffiti.
Charities were being “targeted because of what they stand for and who they support”, said Saskia Konynenburg, executive director at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
The threat has become more explicit and targeted since the far-right Southport riots in 2024 and the spread of inflammatory political and social media rhetoric around immigrants and “small boats”, say charities. They add the abuse has become more extreme and uninhibited in the way it is expressed or enacted, both on and offline.
A coalition of more than 150 charities including Age UK, Citizens Advice and the Muslim Council of Britain has written to the prime minister, Keir Starmer, urging him to challenge the “cynical” targeting of civil society organisations by far-right politicians and activists seeking to stoke division for political gain in local communities.
Ali Harris, the chief executive of equality and human rights charity Equally Ours, which organised the letter, said: “The devastating antisemitic attack at Heaton Park Synagogue is a tragic reminder that it’s never been more important for us all to stand united when any of our communities are targeted.
“We are taking this collective stand because the organisations in this coalition and the communities we serve are experiencing growing threats and aggression – in places of worship, offices, shops, on public transport and high streets. People with extreme views are increasingly violent in how they express or act on their hatred.”
One charity chief executive told the Guardian increasingly mainstream political rhetoric on the political right denigrating immigrants and refugees, and stoking community divisions along ethnic lines had created a “permission structure” for racism which had emboldened far-right activists.
Last month, a drugs and alcohol charity in east London that formerly shared its premises with a refugee support charity was daubed with a George Cross and far-right graffiti. Volunteers repainted the office front only for far-right activists to return and deface the building with the slogan “East London stands with Southport”, a reference to the far right riots in Southport in 2024.
Some charities have taken drastic safeguarding action in response to the threats including installing safe rooms, fitting staff with phone trackers, hiring security guards, taking down charity signs outside offices, removing staff names from websites and redacting trustee names from publicly available Charity Commission filings.
Others have temporarily closed offices on the advice of local police, stopped providing outreach services because of the potential danger to staff and beneficiaries, and drawn up emergency action plans in the event their premises are attacked.
One refugee charity head said they currently spent “60% of the time managing safety issues related to far-right activism”. Another charity told the Guardian it was considering spending thousands of pounds on personal safety devices. One charity head described the tight focus on staff security as the “new normal”.
The most depressing aspect of all this is the failure of UK Labour Ministers to challenge the hate and bigotry head-on instead of pandering to it. Surely, it is time to take a stand.
Sunday, October 12, 2025
Labour hypocrisy on no-fault evictions
The paper says that scrapping no-fault evictions “immediately” was one of Labour’s main manifesto pledges before its 2024 election win, but more than a year on, the party’s flagship renters’ rights bill has not been made law:
Local authorities cannot normally carry out no-fault evictions – known officially as section 21 evictions – as they apply to tenancies issued by private landlords.
However, Lambeth council in south London has been able to start eviction proceedings against 63 households because it created an arm’s-length body to manage some of its housing stock.
Five families have already been issued with possession orders via the courts and two of those have had their homes repossessed by bailiffs. Another 24 have left properties voluntarily after receiving a section 21 notice.
Internal council documents seen by the Guardian suggest that council officials have been planning to regain possession of the properties since at least 2023, but the full implementation of the scheme was delayed until after last year’s election.
An internal briefing document from March 2024 read: “Advice received from democratic and legal services [is] that this is a key decision and it is too controversial to take during the pre-election period.”
Plans to evict the tenants were made despite the fact Lambeth council wrote to the Conservative government in 2019, asking it to end no-fault evictions.
The tenancies were overseen by Homes for Lambeth, a group of companies wholly owned by the council. It was established in 2017 as part of an estate regeneration scheme. As part of this initiative, the local authority bought back some properties from residents who had purchased former council houses at a discount as part of the right-to-buy scheme introduced by Margaret Thatcher’s government in 1980.
The council then transferred these properties to Homes for Lambeth. This meant they were able to be rented on the private market, despite ultimately being owned by the local authority. At its peak, Homes for Lambeth managed about 200 properties across six estates.
However, Homes for Lambeth is now being disbanded due to concerns over poor performance after an independent review by former senior civil servant Bob Kerslake in 2022. Kerslake recommended that management of the Homes for Lambeth stock be brought back “in house” to improve efficiency.
About 100 of the homes were vacated voluntarily before eviction notices were issued. The council is now using legal measures in an attempt to regain possession of the remaining properties. In internal documents, it said this would help it meet the “most urgent” housing needs in the borough, including accommodating vulnerable families who needed temporary housing after being made homeless.
Some residents tried to challenge the decision in court, but in June a judge ruled that current laws do not prevent councils from setting up companies to issue private tenancies.
Judge them by what they do, not by what they say.
Saturday, October 11, 2025
An unusual venue
This building was used by the old West Glamorgan County Council for formal dinners and other occasions, but my first experience of it was shortly after I was elected as a Welsh Assembly member in 1999, when Prince Charles hosted a formal (and largely inedible) dinner there.
Since then I have been back on a number of occasions, as an AM, as Lord Mayor of Swansea and also for a wedding reception. On each occasion the catering far exceeded my first experience, which I largely put down to menu choice - I'm chiefly a pie and chips man.
As the Margam Country Park website recounts, the Orangery was built by 1790 to house a great collection of orange, lemon and other citrus trees, which the Talbots inherited from their Mansel forebears:
Nothing is known for certain of the origin of these trees, but legends suggest that originally they were originally a gift for the crown. As they were being transported the ship was wrecked on the coast near Margam and the trees claimed by the Mansels. Travellers who journeyed through Wales at the end of the eighteenth century in search of picturesque beauty, and who published accounts of their tours, noted several versions of the legend. Queen Elizabeth I, Charles I, Charles II’s wife Catherine of Braganza and William III’s Queen Mary all appear in the variations of the story.
By the mid-eighteenth century the citrus collection numbered about one hundred trees and was housed in several greenhouses in the park. It was the bold design of Thomas Mansel Talbot to build the present Orangery, 327 feet in length, to accommodate the whole collection.
In Britain orange trees need protection from the severity of our winter weather, but in the summer months they can stand out of doors and were used to ornament the formal gardens of the time. As a building the Orangery is superbly functional; long and narrow with a series of twenty-seven tall windows to admit the winter light. The plain back wall contained fireplaces, from which hot air passed through flues. In its centre was the high door through which fully-grown trees could be wheeled into the garden.
A building of such length risked appearing monotonous, but this was avoided by imaginative treatment of the façade. Deeply-worked stone, offset by smooth-faced ashlar, holds light and shadow in the ever- changing, strongly emphasised, horizontal lines of the plinth. The band of rusticated vermiculated stone, the matching heights of key-stones, the frieze of triglyphs, and the row of sculptured urns on the skyline all give a sense of unity and harmony. The building ends with pavilions of smooth stone ornamented with delicately carved scrollwork and lit by Venetian windows.
The stone from which the Orangery is built was hewn locally, in Thomas Mansel Talbot’s own quarry at Pyle. The men who dressed the stone worked under the master mason William Gubbings, one of the craftsmen who had been employed earlier on the villa at Penrice under Talbot’s architect Antony Keck.
When the Margam estate was bought by the former Glamorgan County Council in 1973, the Orangery was in ruins. Four years later, the restoration of this impressive building had been completed and it was opened by the Queen in her Silver Jubilee Year.
Friday, October 10, 2025
Starmer takes another step towards authoritarianism
The Guardian reports that Starmer will be ordering the home secretary to look at further curbs on protests including potential powers to take action against specific inflammatory chants at pro-Palestinian protests.
The paper says that the prime minister told reporters that he is looking at going even further than the measures announced by Shabana Mahmood, which would look at the “cumulative impact” of repeat protests in certain locations:
The proposals have been attacked by civil liberties group over the threats the potential restrictions pose to the right to protest. But after a terror attack on a Manchester synagogue, Starmer is also under pressure to go further, especially over chants that could invoke violence, such as “globalise the intifada”.
Over the weekend, Mahmood said the new laws would allow police officers to consider the cumulative impact of protest when deciding whether or not they are lawful. Protests could be re-routed or even barred altogether if their impact was considered too disruptive.
But Starmer said there was more that could be done, specifically to address the small minority of protesters on pro-Gaza marches who he suggested engaged in antisemitic hate.
“I’ve asked the home secretary to look more broadly at what other powers are available, how they’re being used and whether they should be changed in any way,” he said. “I think we need to go further than that in relation to some of the chants that are going on at some of these protests.”
Starmer also suggested that police forces could take further steps themselves. “That has to be part of the review that we carry into what powers do we have and how they’re being exercised. And then the question of do any of these powers therefore need to be changed or enhanced?
“And that’s the exercise we’re going through. But we are talking at length to leaders of the Jewish community about this, as you would expect.”
Starmer said the review would take in all of the government’s current powers over public order. “I think we need to review more broadly public order powers and there will be a series of actions that we will agree in due course across Whitehall,” he said.
There are already laws against hate crime, meaning that these additional provisions are only needed as part of an attempt to suppress dissent. Labour really are returning to their authoritarian type.
Tories embrace Liz Truss budget rules
Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show it would cost around £4.5bn to axe the tax as it stands, but the Conservatives offered a “cautious” estimate that it would cost £9bn by the end of the decade.
The party said this would be paid for out of a £47bn pot of savings shadow ministers claim to have found, made up of welfare cuts, downsizing the civil service and further slashing the country’s foreign aid budget.
In her speech, Ms Badenoch said: “The next Conservative government will abolish stamp duty on your home. It will be gone.
“That is how we will help achieve the dream of home ownership for millions.”
Ms Badenoch also vowed that the Conservatives will undo a series of Labour tax hikes they have campaigned against.
Most notable was the promise to undo the government’s changes to inheritance tax on family farms, dubbed the tractor tax.
Also for the chop under a Tory government is Labour’s levy of VAT on private school fees, which Ms Badenoch said was a “vindictive tax on education”.
These too would be funded from its £47bn savings pot.
All of these pledges may well have gone down well with the few faithful who were there to hear the speech but there are real questions about the proposed spending cuts that are meant to fund them, not least being that if it is that easy, why didn't the last Tory government implement them when they had the chance? Why didn't they abolish stamp duty if that is what they believe is necessary?
I can't help thinking that the savings figure was plucked out of thin air rather the result of detailed research.
This is Trussian economics at its worse, unfunded promises that will crash the economy, while benefitting the better off in society, in this case the owners of expensive homes.
Thursday, October 09, 2025
Another Brexit crisis
The paper says that the European Commission has revealed plans to double the current level of 25 per cent, while reducing tariff-free import volumes to 18.3 million tonnes a year – a 47 per cent reduction:
The director general of UK Steel said the fresh tariffs would be “devastating” to the industry, which currently exports 78 per cent of its steel to the EU. The increase comes after the industry is still dealing with the impact of 25 per cent tariffs on imports to the US, imposed by Donald Trump.
The prime minister has said he is in discussions with both the US and EU about the tariffs, saying the government is strongly supportive of the steel industry.
Gareth Stace, of UK Steel, warned the government must “go all-out” to secure quotas for the UK or “potentially face disaster”.
Speaking to Times Radio, he said: “This is perhaps the biggest crisis the UK steel industry has ever faced.
“The US has closed off its steel market to imports, and today, what we’ve seen is the EU proposing to do the same.
“We’re seeing a rapid rise of protectionist trade measures all over the world. And let me tell you, the last country to defend its steel industry will be the first country to deindustrialise. This is a massive issue for our sector.
“If the UK government can’t get round the table with the EU and convince the EU that we’re their friend, not their enemy, and then carve out a reasonable quota for UK exports into the EU, then we will see job losses in our sector.
“We will never, if we can’t get a deal, be the same steel sector in the UK ever again if we cannot trade with our biggest trading partner.”
This is going to be another blow to the steel industry and in particular communities in Port Talbot, already reeling from a huge number of redundancies. In many ways though this is yet another Brexit crisis.
If we were still in the single market the UK would be on the right side of these tariffs. Perhaps that is what Keir Starmer should be negotiating.
Wednesday, October 08, 2025
Labour's Reform-lite policy threatens NHS
The paper says that Prof Nicola Ranger, the RCN general secretary, told them: “Health and care services would cease to function without migrant nursing staff. While other countries offer immediate paths to settlement for nurses, the UK is going in the opposite direction.”:
Labour is proposing to double the time that overseas workers will have to wait – from five to 10 years – before they can apply for indefinite leave to remain or claim any kind of benefit, including tax-free childcare, disability living allowance or housing support.
The plans, outlined by the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, at the Labour conference last week, would also mean foreign workers would have to volunteer in their local communities and pass a number of other existing tests to gain British citizenship.
The proposals were first outlined the government’s immigration white paper in May and are seen as a direct response to the rising electoral threat of Reform UK.
The RCN, which represents more than 500,000 nurses in the UK and overseas, said the policy would “deny people access to vital support for a decade or more, increase poverty and ultimately drive them away when there are already gaping holes in the workforce”.
Ranger, who is also the union’s chief executive, added: “These proposals are no way to treat people who come to the UK to care for patients, become part of our communities and pay tax.
“It is pandering of the worst kind, ignorant of the impact on valued migrant staff and their families, but also the patients who need safely staffed services. Yes, ministers need to grow the domestic workforce, but the UK must also be a welcoming, secure place for international nurses.”
More than 800 NHS workers criticised the plan on Monday as “harmful, divisive and xenophobic” and warned that the health service would “crumble” without them.
The plans have caused concern in several key public services – including the NHS, social care and prisons – which rely heavily on overseas workers. About one in five NHS staff in England are not British, according to official figures.
In a letter coordinated by the groups Praxis and Medact, the 800-plus medics said the “already strained NHS would crumble under the pressure” of these proposals, potentially triggering a staff exodus and discouraging overseas medics from working in the UK.
A social worker who spoke to the Guardian on condition of anonymity said 25-50% or more of his team would be likely to leave the UK if the government made it harder for them to gain citizenship. “The policy is foolish in terms of the impact it’s going to have on the NHS and [it’s] cruel on all the people it’s going to affect,” he said.
The letter says nurses, doctors, dentists and other NHS professionals are “deeply concerned” by Mahmood’s plans to impose “longer and more precarious” routes to settlement.
It turns out that the health service is no safer in the hands of Labour than it would be under the Tories or Reform.
Tuesday, October 07, 2025
Reform's local difficulties
The Guardian reports that a Reform UK-run council where the party sought to pilot drastic cost-cutting plans is going to have to raise council tax after all.
The paper quotes Reform’s cabinet member for adult social care, Diane Morton, as saying that services at Kent county council were already “down to the bare bones”. It makes Kent the latest local authority controlled by Nigel Farage’s party to signal its intention to raise council tax:
“We’ve got more demand than ever before and it’s growing,” Morton told the Financial Times. “We just want more money.”
Morton said she believed the local authority would raise council tax by 5% – the maximum permitted – as councils try to honour their legal duty to make sure spending adds up before budgets are set for next year.
The Reform leaders of Northamptonshire Council, Durham Council, and Staffordshire Council are also looking at putting up council tax, their words reflecting every other council leader in the country, except that Reform were the ones who had promised something different.
As the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, Daisy Cooper says, the admission of a looming council tax rise in Kent is a “spectacular failure” for which the party's head of policy, Zia Yusuf, must “personally apologise”:
“Reform’s pledge to slash millions from Kent council’s budget has turned out to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. Just like his idol Elon Musk, Zia Yusuf has spectacularly failed to deliver what ‘Doge’ promised,” she said.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Guardian we are told that the finances of one of Nigel Farage’s key confidants are being examined by the UK’s tax and revenue authorities amid questions over his income from wealth and business activities.
They say that the scoping exercise by HMRC is said to be focused on tax residency and the business affairs of George Cottrell, whom Reform UK’s leader Farage has described as “like a son to me”.
And, only a couple of weeks ago, Reform UK's former leader in Wales admitted taking bribes to make statements in favour of Russia while being a Member of the European Parliament.
The BBC say that Nathan Gill pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery between 6 December 2018 and 18 July 2019:
The politician took money from Oleg Voloshyn - a man once described by the US government as a "pawn" of Russian secret services - and made speeches in the parliament, statements to a TV channel and arranged an event with a pro-Russian politician.
Gill was a close ally of Nigel Farage, while Llyr Powell, Reform UK's candidate for the Caerphilly Senedd by-election later this month, worked for him prior to the offences taking place. Neither were involved in the offences.
