Sunday, December 21, 2025
A long overdue inquiry
The BBC report that the review will be led by former senior civil Philip Rycroft and will report back in March:
Speaking in the House of Commons, [Communities Secretary Steve] Reed said: "The facts are clear. A British politician took bribes to further the interests of the Russian regime, a regime which forcefully deported vulnerable Ukrainian children and killed a British citizen on British soil using a deadly nerve agent.
"This conduct is a stain on our democracy. The independent review will work to remove that stain."
Earlier this year the government published its strategy, external for "modern and secure elections", which Reed said "will close loopholes that should have been closed long before we entered office".
"However, in the time since that strategy was published, events have shown that we need to consider whether our firewall is enough," he added.
He said the findings of the review would inform the government's Election and Democracy Bill, which it plans to publish next year.
The government said the review would conduct an "in-depth assessment of the current financial rules and safeguards and offer recommendations to further mitigate risks from foreign political interference".
It will also examine whether rules are in place to "protect our democracy from illicit money from abroad, including cryptocurrencies".
The government described the review as "a response to the evolving threat posed by political interference to British democracy, including the shocking cases of former MEP Nathan Gill and Christine Lee".
In 2022, MI5 issued a rare warning alleging that Ms Lee was a Chinese agent who infiltrated Parliament and made donations to politicians.
Ms Lee has previously said the MI5 alert "wrongly accused her of knowingly engaging in political interference" on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party.
Last month, Gill became the first politician to be jailed under the Bribery Act.
He is thought to have received up to £40,000 to help pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine.
He was an MEP when he accepted money from Oleg Voloshyn, a man once described by the US government as a "pawn" of Russian secret services.
However, Liberal Democrat spokesperson Zöe Franklin is also right in calling for the government to introduce a cap on political donations because "a small number of extremely wealthy individuals now wield disproportionate influence over British politics - that includes overseas donors".
Saturday, December 20, 2025
Alcock and Brown and the first transatlantic flight
The RAF commemorated the occasion with an exhibition in Swansea Museum and a very swanky dinner, which I wrote about on my Mayoral blog, here.
As Wikipedia recalls, together with John Alcock, Arthur Brown made the first non-stop transatlantic flight in June 1919. The two men flew a modified First World War Vickers Vimy bomber from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Clifden, Connemara, County Galway, Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Air, Winston Churchill, presented them with the Daily Mail prize for the first crossing of the Atlantic Ocean by aeroplane in "less than 72 consecutive hours". A small amount of mail was carried on the flight, making it the first transatlantic airmail flight. The two aviators were awarded the honour of Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (KBE) a week later by King George V at Windsor Castle.
The original plane is housed in the British Science Museum, hanging from a ceiling. The picture is of a replica produced for the exhibition.
The Swansea link comes from the fact that Sir Arthur Whitten Brown lived here for most of his adult life, working at the Vickers office in the town centre. There is though, no official blue plaque on Belgrave Court, as this letter to the Guardian in 2019 makes clear:
Jan Wiczkowski (Letters, 16 June) claims Arthur Whitten Brown as a Manchester man, although Brown was originally from Glasgow and died in Swansea in 1948. However, it is certainly true that he, John Alcock and their pioneering flight are largely ignored these days.
My mother was a neighbour of Whitten Brown when he lived in Belgrave Court in the Uplands district of Swansea. From what he seems to have told her the historic flight was at times terrifying, yet this was a man who would not go to the air raid shelter during the three-night blitz on Swansea in February 1941.
Your correspondent is right: “courage tempered with a little wild and optimistic madness” deserves to be remembered and celebrated, yet there is only a small, inconspicuous memorial on Belgrave Court. If anyone deserves a proper blue plaque, it is Whitten Brown.
Rev Dr Peter Phillips, Swansea
Time for that to be put right.
Friday, December 19, 2025
Keir Starmer's democratic deficit
They are in the process of restricting the right of people to demonstrate, proscribing protest groups like Palestine Action, proposing a crackdown on what demonstrators can chant, ramping up the use of facial recognition, introducing compulsory ID cards, and doing away with jury trials.
Now, as the BBC reports, elections in some local councils are facing further delays, amid an escalating blame game over Labour's planned overhaul of local government in England.
The BBC website says that ministers have indicated they will agree to postpone elections due next May until 2027, if authorities request it by mid-January. Polls in nine such areas have already been postponed once, having originally been scheduled for May 2025:
The government plans to get rid of the two-tier system of district and county councils, creating a swathe of new authorities that will be responsible for delivering all local services in their areas from 2028.
Ministers have now asked all 63 councils affected by the reorganisation that are due to hold elections in May to say whether they require a delay.
In a statement, Local Government Minister Alison McGovern said "multiple" authorities had asked for a postponement, after expressing concerns about their ability to run "resource-intensive" elections alongside the transition.
Others had questioned the cost to taxpayers of holding elections for councils that are due to be abolished, she added.
Speaking in the Commons, she added that those seeking a suspension were only a "minority" of affected councils, without offering further details.
The announcement of further potential delays, made on the last day before Parliament's Christmas break, comes just two days after Local Government Secretary Steve Reed told MPs scheduled elections "will go ahead".
Conservative shadow local government minister Paul Holmes said local leaders should not be blamed for further delays, adding that Labour's reorganisation had been "rushed and deeply flawed".
He accused Labour of "pausing the democratic process to serve their own political interests".
Whilst there is a precedent for cancelling elections to councils that are about to be replaced, the slow progress of the reorganisation has seen Labour face accusations it is acting undemocratically.
Local polls in nine areas, including Suffolk, East and West Sussex, and Essex, have already been put back once, having originally been scheduled for May 2025.
If elections are delayed again in any of these areas, it will mean some councillors will have sat for seven years without facing local voters.
Elections for new mayors in Greater Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, Hampshire and the Solent, and Sussex and Brighton have also ready been delayed two years until until May 2028, it was confirmed earlier this month.
The question is, have they delayed these elections as stated, because of administrative reasons or because they are running scared of losing thousands more seats? I was a member of a transitional authority in 1995, and there were no problems in accommodating elections as part of the reorganisation process.
Why are Labour always taking the policy route favoured by dictators rather than that preferred by democrats?
Now, as the BBC reports, elections in some local councils are facing further delays, amid an escalating blame game over Labour's planned overhaul of local government in England.
The BBC website says that ministers have indicated they will agree to postpone elections due next May until 2027, if authorities request it by mid-January. Polls in nine such areas have already been postponed once, having originally been scheduled for May 2025:
The government plans to get rid of the two-tier system of district and county councils, creating a swathe of new authorities that will be responsible for delivering all local services in their areas from 2028.
Ministers have now asked all 63 councils affected by the reorganisation that are due to hold elections in May to say whether they require a delay.
In a statement, Local Government Minister Alison McGovern said "multiple" authorities had asked for a postponement, after expressing concerns about their ability to run "resource-intensive" elections alongside the transition.
Others had questioned the cost to taxpayers of holding elections for councils that are due to be abolished, she added.
Speaking in the Commons, she added that those seeking a suspension were only a "minority" of affected councils, without offering further details.
The announcement of further potential delays, made on the last day before Parliament's Christmas break, comes just two days after Local Government Secretary Steve Reed told MPs scheduled elections "will go ahead".
Conservative shadow local government minister Paul Holmes said local leaders should not be blamed for further delays, adding that Labour's reorganisation had been "rushed and deeply flawed".
He accused Labour of "pausing the democratic process to serve their own political interests".
Whilst there is a precedent for cancelling elections to councils that are about to be replaced, the slow progress of the reorganisation has seen Labour face accusations it is acting undemocratically.
Local polls in nine areas, including Suffolk, East and West Sussex, and Essex, have already been put back once, having originally been scheduled for May 2025.
If elections are delayed again in any of these areas, it will mean some councillors will have sat for seven years without facing local voters.
Elections for new mayors in Greater Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, Hampshire and the Solent, and Sussex and Brighton have also ready been delayed two years until until May 2028, it was confirmed earlier this month.
The question is, have they delayed these elections as stated, because of administrative reasons or because they are running scared of losing thousands more seats? I was a member of a transitional authority in 1995, and there were no problems in accommodating elections as part of the reorganisation process.
Why are Labour always taking the policy route favoured by dictators rather than that preferred by democrats?
Thursday, December 18, 2025
Farage under pressure to apologise
The paper says that some 25 former pupils and one ex-teacher have come together for the first time to express "dismay and anger" at the Reform UK leader's reaction to the allegations in recent weeks:
Mr Farage has been facing increasing pressure to apologise after his former peers alleged he made racist and antisemitic remarks at school. Claims include Mr Farage saying “Hitler was right” and making references to Nazi gas chambers at his private secondary school Dulwich College.
Mr Farage has repeatedly denied the allegations, with Reform UK suggesting the claims are part of a smear campaign against him.
In a powerful letter, the 26 signatories said it is "false" to suggest their allegations are politically motivated, as they "represent a broad swathe of professional backgrounds and political opinions".
They added: "Most of us have had no contact since we left Dulwich. Until writing this letter, we have not acted as a group. We have neither plotted nor conspired. All we have in common is that we either directly experienced or witnessed your racist and antisemitic behaviour."
The signatories also said it was "not true" they had only come forward since Reform began leading in the polls, pointing to previous reporting from as far back as 2013 in which similar allegations were made.
Elsewhere, they said Mr Farage's recent denial "disturbs us" and said it is important people seeking high office "own their past". The letter continued: “While we agree that no one should be judged in later life on the basis of what they have said or done in their youth, those seeking high office need to own their past and demonstrate honesty.
“Your denials have caused dismay and anger, and compelled us to come forward. None of us has taken lightly the decision to speak up. It has been deeply troubling to revisit our memories, let alone to share them with journalists and the broader public.
“However, what disturbs us is less what happened years ago, hurtful as it was, but rather your refusal to acknowledge your past behaviour or apologise for it.”
The group also countered Mr Farage's suggestions "that the kind of language we recall you saying was typical of the cultural climate of Britain at the time".
While they said there was "some truth to this", they added: "However, these personalities did not make direct or personal remarks. They did not intimidate Jewish boys with references to perishing in gas chambers, as you did. They did not order a Black child of nine to ten years of age to go back to Africa, as you did. They did not chant vile racist ditties, as you did. Your behaviour was exceptional, even for those times."
However much the Reform leader wants it to, this issue is not going to easily go away.
Wednesday, December 17, 2025
Another slippery slope?
His stance comes following the appalling attack by two gunmen on a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach in Australia on Sunday, killing 15 people and injuring a further twenty-seven:
The prime minister’s official spokesperson said that while “free speech is an important right in this country, that can’t extend to inciting hatred or harassing others”, saying the police will use their powers “more robustly” to tackle the proliferation of antisemitism.
Starmer and the Chief Rabbi are, of course, absolutely correct that hate speech has often led to unacceptable and horrendous atrocities against Jews, but also against other minorities, and where there is a clear causality then the police need to act.
But at the same time, in enforcing any new rules, care must be taken to distinguish between, for example, rhetoric criticising the actions of the state of Israel, which is not anti-semitic, and language that is clearly discriminatory.
There are inherent risks in asking the authorities to police what people can and cannot say when demonstrating. The ban on supporting Palestine Action for example, has led to hundreds of unnecessary arrests and overreach on the part of the police, with some people being arrested for displaying perfectly legal wording on placards.
The police already have powers to deal with hate speech and incitement. A new directive in which officers are asked to make a judgement call on what is anti-semitic and what is not, could well act as a severe restraint on people's basic democratic rights and lead to more confusion and inconsistencies in the way that peaceful protest is policed.
It would be a further step down a very slippery slope and one that should be considered very very carefully before it is taken.
Tuesday, December 16, 2025
TUC brand Reform as a threat to Welsh industry
The paper says that the TUC believe that thousands of jobs in Wales are at risk under Reform and Tory policies that could revive Margaret Thatcher's "industrial destruction":
Ahead of crunch Senedd elections next year, analysis for the TUC found Nigel Farage's party poses the biggest threat to Welsh industry. Reform has vowed to scrap net zero and proposed cutting renewable subsidies, which risks making clean industrial upgrades unviable.
Analysis found this could starve Welsh industry of investment and deny factories vital investment, threatening 39,873 industrial jobs. Reducing investment in home-grown clean power will also make the UK more reliant on imported gas, which means bills can be hit by global shocks like Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
It comes after years of Tory neglect pushed factories, car plants and manufacturing sites in Wales to the brink. Last year, thousands of steel workers in Port Talbot lost their jobs when Tata closed its blast furnaces.
The Conservatives would threaten similar numbers of jobs, but researchers said the likelihood of the party enacting their policies was less likely. By comparison, Labour, Plaid Cymru, the Greens and the Lib Dems have all made stronger commitments to retaining or expanding clean industrial upgrades.
Flintshire, Neath Port Talbot and Carmarthenshire are the local authorities most at risk from job losses, with over 2,000 industrial jobs at risk in each, the analysis found. 7,765 auto workers are threatened, as are 7,544 metals workers and 5,813 plastics and rubber workers, both directly and indirectly in the supply chain.
TUC Cymru President Tom Hoyles said: “Welsh industry needs urgent action from all parties to survive and thrive in the 21st century. Policies which seek to turn back the clock and revive Thatcher’s industrial destruction would put thousands of Welsh jobs at risk.“
Industrial workers and the TUC are launching the “Save Welsh Industry – No More Site Closures” campaign this week. They are calling on politicians in Westminster and Cardiff Bay to bring forward measures to slash industrial electricity costs and to accelerate clean energy investment.
The campaign also demands work to prevent offshoring of jobs and emissions and to promote domestic industry, as well as a commitment to buy Welsh-made steel, cement and materials for big infrastructure projects.
It is about time the consequences of Reform's policies were spelt out in this way.
Monday, December 15, 2025
Labour MPs on alert over disabled jobs cuts
The paper says that MPs raised concerns over possible changes to the Access to Work (ATW) scheme, and hailed it as a vital lifeline for young people with learning disabilities and autism. Established in 1994 , the ATW scheme is designed to help people with disabilities or conditions get into employment or stay in their jobs.
The group, which includes Sir Jeremy Hunt, Daisy Cooper, Vicky Foxcroft and Rachel Maskell, has now written to the Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden, raising concerns further reforms could see unemployment rates soar.
In a letter, they said: “It is vital that we do all we can to support these young people into meaningful, sustained employment. One of the most effective ways to do this is through supported internships.
“However, recent changes to Access to Work funding, specifically the 26-week cap are putting these programmes at risk. Supported internships follow the academic year, and the final phase of the programme is critical.”
It comes with 948,000 individuals aged 16–24 not in education, employment, or training between April and June 2025. Young people with Education, Health and Care Plans are also 80% more likely to be unemployed compared to their peers.
The letter adds: “We recognise the government faces difficult decisions, and that Access to Work is in need of reform. However, we strongly urge you to reconsider this cap for supported internships. Enforcing it will jeopardise the long-term employment prospects of young people with learning disabilities and autism. Unless addressed, the policy changes risk driving up unemployment rates among young people across the UK”
With the Labour government intent on cutting spending on welfare it is not surprising that MPs are on alert, however this scheme is important in helping people get into work and should be protected.
Sunday, December 14, 2025
Labour under fire over tackling violence against women
The paper says that important voices in the violence against women and girls (VAWG) sector have privately accused ministers of sidelining first-hand expertise and expressed concern that the strategy will not be sufficiently radical to achieve the government’s flagship manifesto promise to halve the rate of VAWG in the UK in a decade:
Initially expected in spring, the VAWG strategy was delayed until summer and then autumn.
On Friday it emerged that schoolboys would be the target of the strategy, which the BBC reported would be built around the pillars of preventing radicalisation of young men, stopping abusers and supporting victims.
But multiple sources from organisations working in the VAWG sector said they had felt sidelined during the devising of the strategy.
One figure in the sector, comparing the past 18 months with the process before the strategy produced in 2019 by the Conservative government, said: “It is worse than under the Tories. In fact, we were so much better off under the Tories, you could get a meeting, they engaged with you. This whole process has been incredibly haphazard.”
Another figure in the sector noted that after the murder of Sarah Everard, the Conservative government reopened a public consultation. “We saw more senior ministers and had more contact with the secretary of state under the last government,” they said. “Ministers like Alex Davies-Jones and Jess Phillips have clearly worked hard on this, but it feels the machine has worked against them.”
Further concern is that the publication of the strategy, which is expected just before parliament closes for the Christmas recess, will be lost. “They’ve had 18 months and now they’re scrabbling around in the last week of parliament. It just feels like an afterthought,” said one source. “It hasn’t felt like it’s been a properly considered process where they’ve really sought the expertise in a considered way. It’s been slightly haphazard.”
On Tuesday Karen Bradley, the chair of the home affairs committee, wrote to Phillips and Davies-Jones to complain that “there has been poor engagement and transparency with VAWG stakeholders throughout the development of the VAWG strategy”. She noted that the VAWG advisory board – which contained experts to guide policy – had met only twice in person and once online and its role had been limited.
Andrea Simon, the director of the End Violence Against Women and Girls coalition, said there had been positive moves from the government, including £550m of funding for victim support, and proposed law changes to improve the fair treatment of victims in rape trials and ban depictions of strangulation in pornography. She called on the government to commit to a monitoring and evaluation structure for the strategy, to ensure accountability.
“Without that, the government will potentially fall foul of the lack of oversight we’ve seen in previous, underresourced strategies,” she said. “There has been a lot of rhetoric about commitment to halving VAWG through a cross-government approach, but that won’t stand up unless they are willing to be open, transparent, and bring in external scrutiny.”
While stories were emerging about the strategy in the press, a different figure said a full document had not been shared with even a small number of trusted parties. “You have to ask how a cross-governmental, strong strategy is being built if none of the experts are at the table,” they said.
Karen Ingala Smith, a co-founder of the Femicide Census, said it was “disappointed” not to have been invited to join the VAWG advisory board, adding that the two wider meetings she or her co-founder, Clarrie O’Callaghan, had attended felt like “box-ticking” exercises.
“It felt like it wouldn’t have mattered what we said, it wasn’t going to make any difference to what was written,” she said. “It felt perfunctory and tokenistic.”
Who knew Labour could make a bigger mess of this issue than the Tories?
Saturday, December 13, 2025
Swansea's link to the development of radar
Near the end of the war, he moved to Australia, where he used this knowledge to carry out research that he headed as Chief of the Radiophysics Division of CSIRO:
These programs, which included his enduring personal interest in cloud physics, artificial rainmaking, and the causes of natural variability in rainfall, were undertaken in the stimulating environment that he fostered at the radiophysics laboratory.
Wikipedia adds more detail about the revolutionary work carried out by Bowen in fitting radar into an aircraft, which they describe as difficult because of the size and weight of the equipment and the aerial:
Furthermore, the equipment had to operate in a vibrating and cold environment. Over the next few years Bowen and his group solved most of these problems. For example, he solved the problem of the power supply in aircraft by using an engine-driven alternator, and he encouraged Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) to produce the first radio-frequency cables with solid polythene insulation.
Further refinements continued until September 1937, when Bowen gave a dramatic and uninvited demonstration of the application of radar by searching for the British Fleet in the North Sea in poor visibility, detecting three capital ships. Bowen's airborne radar group now had two major projects, one for the detection of ships and the other for interception of aircraft. Bowen also experimented briefly with the use of airborne radar to detect features on the ground, such as towns and coastlines, to aid navigation.
On the outbreak of the Second World War, Bowen's unit was moved to St Athan. One of the first things that Bowen did there was to try to detect a submarine by radar. By then, the cavity magnetron had been improved by John Randall and Harry Boot, making airborne radar a powerful tool. By December 1940, operational aircraft were able to detect submarines at up to 15 miles (24 km). This technology had a major effect on winning the Battle of the Atlantic which eventually enabled forces to be built up by sea for the invasion of Europe.
In April 1941, RAF Coastal Command was operating anti-submarine patrols with about 110 aircraft fitted with radar. This increased the detection of submarines both day and night. Few of the attacks were lethal until the introduction in mid-1942 of a powerful searchlight, the Leigh light, that illuminated the submarine. As a result, the U-boats had to recharge their batteries in daylight so that they could at least see the aircraft coming. The radar and the Leigh light cut Allied shipping losses dramatically.
It is fair to say that this work would have proved fairly significant in helping the Allies win the war in the Atlantic.
Wikipedia adds more detail about the revolutionary work carried out by Bowen in fitting radar into an aircraft, which they describe as difficult because of the size and weight of the equipment and the aerial:
Furthermore, the equipment had to operate in a vibrating and cold environment. Over the next few years Bowen and his group solved most of these problems. For example, he solved the problem of the power supply in aircraft by using an engine-driven alternator, and he encouraged Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) to produce the first radio-frequency cables with solid polythene insulation.
Further refinements continued until September 1937, when Bowen gave a dramatic and uninvited demonstration of the application of radar by searching for the British Fleet in the North Sea in poor visibility, detecting three capital ships. Bowen's airborne radar group now had two major projects, one for the detection of ships and the other for interception of aircraft. Bowen also experimented briefly with the use of airborne radar to detect features on the ground, such as towns and coastlines, to aid navigation.
On the outbreak of the Second World War, Bowen's unit was moved to St Athan. One of the first things that Bowen did there was to try to detect a submarine by radar. By then, the cavity magnetron had been improved by John Randall and Harry Boot, making airborne radar a powerful tool. By December 1940, operational aircraft were able to detect submarines at up to 15 miles (24 km). This technology had a major effect on winning the Battle of the Atlantic which eventually enabled forces to be built up by sea for the invasion of Europe.
In April 1941, RAF Coastal Command was operating anti-submarine patrols with about 110 aircraft fitted with radar. This increased the detection of submarines both day and night. Few of the attacks were lethal until the introduction in mid-1942 of a powerful searchlight, the Leigh light, that illuminated the submarine. As a result, the U-boats had to recharge their batteries in daylight so that they could at least see the aircraft coming. The radar and the Leigh light cut Allied shipping losses dramatically.
It is fair to say that this work would have proved fairly significant in helping the Allies win the war in the Atlantic.
Friday, December 12, 2025
Starmer adds more peers than he has removed
They say that the prime minister has put forward 25 new members for the House of Lords, including his former director of communications Matthew Doyle and Rachel Reeves’s ex-chief of staff Katie Martin:
The list of potential new Lords follows staunch opposition from peers to Labour’s flagship Employment Rights Bill.
A Labour source said: “The Tories stuffed the House of Lords, creating a serious imbalance that has allowed them to frustrate our plans to make working families better off. This needs to be corrected to deliver on our mandate from the British people. “
Women’s rights activist Sharron Davies was nominated by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, alongside ex-Tory cabinet minister John Redwood and journalist and historian Simon Heffer.
Another Labour aide Carol Linforth, seen on stage removing Sir Keir’s jacket when he was glitter-bombed during his 2023 Labour conference speech, is also on the list, as well as Sir Michael Barber, who served in No 10 during Sir Tony Blair’s premiership.
Last year, he was appointed an adviser to Sir Keir to help him drive forward the delivery of his five “missions”.
At least Starmer avoided the faux pas of nominating former Welsh First Minister, Vaughan Gething, a move that would have really undermined Labour's Senedd campaigning.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats made a total of five nominations, including former MP and coalition government minister, Sarah Teather.
How anybody can justify the continuation of this over-bloated institution is beyond me, it needs fundamental reform to democratise it. As the Electoral Reform Society says it's 'ridiculous' that Starmer has created more peers than he's removed.
Darren Hughes, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, issued this statement criticising the appointment of more political peers:
Keir Starmer himself not long ago described the wholly unelected and grossly bloated House of Lords as ‘indefensible’. Nothing has changed since then so it is deeply disappointing to see even more peers being stuffed into the upper chamber.
Firstly, it is absurd for the Lords, which at more than 800 peers is already the second largest legislative chamber after China’s National People’s Congress, to be getting even more members. It is also patently ridiculous that the government has now added more peers into the Lords than the 92 hereditary peers it is in the process of removing.
The ending of the remaining hereditary peers is a step in the right direction, as people should not be making our laws because of who their parents were. But [the new peerages] highlight just how unsustainable a wholly unelected and unrestrained chamber is.
I can understand why Ed Davey nominated additional peers, but really, he and the rest of the party should be fighting tooth and nail to abolish the Lords and replace it with an elected second chamber.
Darren Hughes, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, issued this statement criticising the appointment of more political peers:
Keir Starmer himself not long ago described the wholly unelected and grossly bloated House of Lords as ‘indefensible’. Nothing has changed since then so it is deeply disappointing to see even more peers being stuffed into the upper chamber.
Firstly, it is absurd for the Lords, which at more than 800 peers is already the second largest legislative chamber after China’s National People’s Congress, to be getting even more members. It is also patently ridiculous that the government has now added more peers into the Lords than the 92 hereditary peers it is in the process of removing.
The ending of the remaining hereditary peers is a step in the right direction, as people should not be making our laws because of who their parents were. But [the new peerages] highlight just how unsustainable a wholly unelected and unrestrained chamber is.
I can understand why Ed Davey nominated additional peers, but really, he and the rest of the party should be fighting tooth and nail to abolish the Lords and replace it with an elected second chamber.
Thursday, December 11, 2025
How UK aid cuts have consequences for our security
The article points out that major reductions in development funding from the US, Germany, France, and the UK mark the biggest contraction in aid spending in decades, adding that by some projections, aid spending by the top donors in the world will decline by $67 billion (£50bn) from 2023 to 2026, a drop of almost a third:
This is driven primarily by Donald Trump's administration shuttering the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and cancelling 80 per cent of its foreign aid programmes. Its sudden and chaotic decision to cut USAID has been coupled with an increasingly uninterested, if not adversarial, approach to multilateral cooperation in general – skipping G20 meetings and calling the language of the Sustainable Development Goals (the global, UN-set targets for addressing poverty) "adverse" to American interests.
Cuts and disruption at this scale will have human consequences. By some projections, 100,000 deaths so far, and potentially millions in future. But as my colleague Jerome Puri and I outline in the report "Rethinking UK aid policy in an era of global funding cuts," they will also have security and geopolitical implications that we should not ignore.
The international organisations through which much aid spending is channelled – particularly UN agencies –– work on global challenges which affect UK security too. This includes controlling infectious diseases, pandemic monitoring and preparedness, and biosecurity.
An analysis by the World Health Organisation (WHO) of its 108 country offices’ work through March–April 2025 found that 70 per cent reported disruptions linked to aid cuts since the start of 2025, particularly for systems needed to monitor, prepare for and respond to outbreaks of preventable diseases. Analysis by Germany’s Kiel Institute has found there is evidence of significant returns for aid donors who invest in health in poorer countries, particularly in controlling and managing infectious diseases which if left unmanaged would result in wider crises. Preventing pandemics is more cost-effective than responding to them.
The UK government cut Britain's aid budget earlier this year not for the ideological reasons of the Trump administration, but because it wanted to find tactical cuts to provide more funding to defence. Parliament's Defence Select Committee has rightly said it is critical and urgent that the UK improve its readiness to fight a war to defend itself. But one of the biggest risks to UK security in the past five years was the Covid-19 pandemic, meaning the structures for controlling and addressing risks to global health are critical to our security too.
The government has sought to preserve – even as it cuts spending – part of its contributions to major global health funds. But it has nonetheless cut funding for some initiatives, including those focused on critical but less attention-grabbing issues, such as combatting anti-microbial resistance – and it will be affected by the wider reduction in resources for international health institutions.
This year’s cuts in aid spending are also likely to particularly hit countries most affected by conflict – recent trends in spending suggest what aid remains may well be channelled to more stable countries where impact is easier to measure, or reserved for short-term emergency responses.
Countries like Somalia, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, and Palestine have all already been hit by the UK’s cuts to aid it spends directly in specific countries. The difficult work of preventing conflict in the first place, or trying to reduce the likelihood it spirals out of control into wider regional wars is likely to lose out from wider cuts too. Uncontrolled conflict creates fertile ground for illicit finance, organised crime, and refugee flows. And, most refugees fleeing conflict head for more stable neighbouring countries, many of which – Kenya, Bangladesh, and Jordan, for example – have been hosting massive refugee camps for years. Reduced UN capacity and funding will make it harder for these countries to manage these situations – without sufficient international support, these governments may face domestic pressure to restrict rights or push refugees back, in ways that could affect regional security too.
As the article says, aid and defence spending are often described as opposed "soft" and "hard" power tools, but it might be better to see investment in global public goods such as health security or climate action not as soft power – but as practical and direct investments in collective security.
It adds that ensuring some resources are concentrated on neglected conflicts also has wider benefits, in guarding against those conflicts spiralling out of control in ways which can have long-run effects on regional stability and irregular migration.
These are wise words that the government would be wise to take note of.
Wednesday, December 10, 2025
Covid fraud under the Tories cost the taxpayer £10.9 billion
Hayhoe's report says that the response to the pandemic had led to "enormous outlays of public money which exposed it to the risk of fraud and error", with employment support schemes set up by the previous Conservative government, including furlough and help for the self-employed, suffering £5bn of fraud:
Many of the support measures were credited with propping up the economy throughout the Covid lockdowns. However, Mr Hayhoe said the "outrage" at fraud, abuse and error was "undiminished".
Mr Hayhoe had been asked by Chancellor Rachel Reeves to investigate the amount of public money lost to fraud given his experience in procurement as the former chair of an NHS trust.
The near £11bn lost to fraud and error is close to what the government spends on the UK's justice system. The report said £1.8bn had been recovered, although: "Much of the shortfall is now beyond recovery."
However, it added that there were still areas "where investing in recovering money paid out incorrectly is worthwhile and work should continue".
The report said weak accountability, bad quality data and poor contracting were among the main reasons for the losses.
Most public bodies were unprepared for "a crisis that required spending on such a scale and with such urgency".
"Consequently, some measures to protect against potential fraud were inadequate."
This applied to the procurement of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) where the volume of orders "overwhelmed the newly created supply chain and involved measures that invited mistrust, opportunism and profiteering".
It found £13.6bn was spent on PPE procurement, with 38 billion items purchased - although 11 billion were unused by 2024. Losses were estimated at £10bn from over-ordering and £324m of fraud.
The support for small businesses was also criticised, where "lending relied on self-certification with inadequate checks to prevent abuse".
It said the design of the Bounce Back Loan Scheme "created specific vulnerabilities to fraud and error", with the programme estimated to have incurred fraud and error losses of up to £2.8bn.
The report acknowledges that the schemes were designed and rolled out at speed but Mr Hayhoe says that fraud prevention should be more embedded into future disaster responses.
What adds to the feeling of outrage about this lost cash is that in many instances it was facilitated by people who should know better, through fast track VIP streams that failed to deliver.
That was the main reason, in my view, why pandemic-era PPE contracts cost the British taxpayer £1.4bn on undelivered contracts and unusable gowns, masks and gloves, with only a small fraction of that - £400m - having been recovered.
The government must continue to try and recover this money, while ensuring that lessons are learnt for the future.
Tuesday, December 09, 2025
Labours energy price cut could be swamped by rising costs
The paper says that in her Budget last week, the chancellor promised to take £150 off household bills by scrapping the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) scheme, but the former Labour donor and green entrepreneur Dale Vince has now claimed that the impact of paying for building nuclear energy capacity will largely wipe out the £150 because of the £1bn cost in the first year and ongoing costs for nuclear power:
Further analysis shows that, under plans announced by Ofgem, levies on bills to fund gas pipelines and the high-voltage electricity grid are set to rise £40 from £222 a year in April when the government’s £150 discount is due to come into effect.
The levies are due to rise for the following four years - reaching £338 a year by April 2030, according to Ofgem’s impact assessment.
Meanwhile, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) also revealed in its report with the Budget that £1bn a year will be added to household energy bills to fund energy secretary Ed Miliband’s next auction for renewables projects, known as “allocation round 7” (AR7).
The concerns are that instead of reducing household bills by £150, energy bills will instead rise.
Mr Vince told The Independent that the chancellor’s much-publicised £1bn in energy bill savings will be entirely wiped out by the costs of the Sizewell C nuclear project — costs the government is forcing households and businesses to pay years before construction even begins.
He claimed that the £150 discount is almost identical to the total annual charges that will hit homes and businesses through the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) nuclear levy, created to fund Sizewell C.
He said: “The chancellor’s energy savings will be wiped out overnight by the cost of Sizewell. From November, the government has decided to load the financial risk of this project straight onto our energy bills — before a single shovel hits the ground. And this isn’t some one-off charge.
“We’ll be subsidising Sizewell for at least 10 years, maybe longer — nuclear projects always run late. And we could still be paying for decommissioning well into the 22nd century.
“Imagine ordering a car and the dealership starts charging you before they’ve even built the factory — that’s what’s happening here.
“EDF say Sizewell will be ready in 2035, but Hinkley Point is running 14 years late and its price has jumped from £18 billion to £46 billion. Sizewell won’t bring bills down or help us get to Net Zero in time — but it will cost us for years.”
He claimed that the extra cost would be at least £35 and grow to £140 for a small hairdressing salon.
The government of course denies it. But realistically, raising expectations of a cut in bills, when extra costs are being added to them and when many of the factors leading to price rises are out of the government's control is a big gamble.
Monday, December 08, 2025
Following the Russian playbook
The paper says that three more British MEPs from Nigel Farage’s bloc are alleged to have “followed the script” given to Gill, who was being bribed by an alleged Russian asset, according to prosecutors, as a police investigation into the affair continues:
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has named Jonathan Bullock, Julia Reid and Steven Woolfe, saying they followed the script provided to Nathan Gill by Oleg Voloshyn when giving interviews to 112 Ukraine, a pro-Russian TV channel in March 2019.
In all, at least eight MEPs elected for either Ukip or the Brexit party are now known to have been the focus of efforts by Reform UK’s former Wales leader Gill to co-opt them into fulfilling tasks set for him by his Kremlin paymasters.
The claims that the three followed Gill’s talking points – disclosed in CPS documents in Gill’s case – are among those which have raised fresh questions over the extent of Gill’s influence since his jailing last month. There is no suggestion that any of the three committed criminal acts or had been aware Gill took bribes to promote Russian interests.
Amid the continuing police investigation, the Labour party has called on Farage to voluntarily offer to help investigators, who have already spoken to MEPs he led in the European parliament.
The chair of the Labour party, Anna Turley MP, said: “He must order an urgent investigation into pro-Russia links in Reform, and he should voluntarily go to the police for interview and help them with their inquiries.”
Last week, another former leading member of the group of MEPs headed by Farage denied taking money as part of a campaign to promote Russian interests.
David Coburn, who was also the leader of Ukip in Scotland for four years, was mentioned in WhatsApp messages between Gill and Voloshyn – a former Ukrainian MEP who is accused of the bribery – that were released by prosecutors.
The messages showed Gill and Voloshyn apparently discussing how much should be set aside for Coburn, who was also an MEP for Reform UK’s precursor the Brexit party. Coburn denied taking any payment when confronted by BBC journalists outside his home in France.
The messages were sent in April 2019 before a meeting at the European parliament of the editorial board of 112 Ukraine, whose membership included Gill and Coburn, and which was connected to Viktor Medvedchuk, Vladimir Putin’s ally in Ukraine.
The case for an investigation into foreign interference in UK politics is becoming compelling. The focus at present is on associates and former associates of Nigel Farage, but there are suggestions that others may well have been approached from other parties.
I don't believe that we can rely on Reform to conduct an investigation into its own affairs, this has to be a UK government inquiry, and an all-embracing one at that.
Sunday, December 07, 2025
Farage under pressure as the past comes back to bite him
In an angry performance at a press conference in London, the Reform leader suggested he would boycott the BBC and said ITV had its own case to answer, as he repeatedly shouted “Bernard Manning”.
Manning, a comedian from Manchester who died in 2007, was a regular face on British television in the 1970s but he drifted from the public eye after claims that his material was racist and misogynistic.
The intemperate performance by Farage, whose party has slipped in the national polls in recent weeks, came as a further five school contemporaries came forward to the Guardian with allegations that they had witnessed deeply offensive racist or antisemitic behaviour by him.
The former Dulwich college pupils said they had been motivated to speak now by the response of Farage and others in his party to an investigation by the Guardian based on multiple accounts of racism.
This is a classic deflection tactic, playing the victim in the hope of flipping the script, shifting the blame for his youthful issues, and trying to make the BBC the problem in the hope that we'll all forget about the appalling behaviour he is accused of.
Farage claims that the BBC has no moral right to scrutunise him on his past because of their own history with dodgy individuals. However, the difference between them is that the BBC has apologised for their past and moved on. Farage has not apologised, while his career has consistently been about identifying target groups and exploiting them for political gain, a tactic, as any historian will tell you, is reminiscent of Germany in the early 1930s.
A perfect example of this behaviour is Farage noting that a third of Glasgow’s children didn’t learn English as their first language, and railing against the ‘cultural smashing’ of Glasgow.
As Ben Wildsmith asks on Nation Cymru, Glaswegian kids haven’t instituted their own ‘English Not’ in the classrooms of that city, so what is Farage’s actual problem?:
Well, it’s not that the children can’t or won’t speak English. The Scottish Government’s figures relate to pupils studying English as an additional language, so, by definition, these kids are speaking English. The objection seems to be that it isn’t their mother tongue.
Now, think about that for a moment. If Farage is saying that learning English – i.e. actively engaging with the host culture and trying to conform to it – is irrelevant to his notion of who belongs here, then what are his qualifiers?
I’m old enough to remember when Farage was insisting that Brexit wasn’t a racist enterprise because it would open the door to immigration from Commonwealth countries. Now that European exclusion is safely in the bag, it seems that the goalposts have moved.
This argument is all the more astonishing when viewed through a Welsh lens. Imagine bursting into a classroom full of Welsh-learners and accusing them of culturally smashing Wales because they hadn’t learned the language before moving here.
Bullying people who are demonstratively doing their best to fit in is as counterproductive as it is contemptible.
It’s only counterproductive, however, if your aim is to produce harmony. If your product is division, resentment, and anger, then suggesting that people can do nothing to advance their prospects of being accepted in a country you propose to run is, of course, extremely effective.
Farage doesnt get away with his youthful indiscretions that easily and he certainly doesn't get a pass by seeking to deflect attention back on his accusers.
Well, it’s not that the children can’t or won’t speak English. The Scottish Government’s figures relate to pupils studying English as an additional language, so, by definition, these kids are speaking English. The objection seems to be that it isn’t their mother tongue.
Now, think about that for a moment. If Farage is saying that learning English – i.e. actively engaging with the host culture and trying to conform to it – is irrelevant to his notion of who belongs here, then what are his qualifiers?
I’m old enough to remember when Farage was insisting that Brexit wasn’t a racist enterprise because it would open the door to immigration from Commonwealth countries. Now that European exclusion is safely in the bag, it seems that the goalposts have moved.
This argument is all the more astonishing when viewed through a Welsh lens. Imagine bursting into a classroom full of Welsh-learners and accusing them of culturally smashing Wales because they hadn’t learned the language before moving here.
Bullying people who are demonstratively doing their best to fit in is as counterproductive as it is contemptible.
It’s only counterproductive, however, if your aim is to produce harmony. If your product is division, resentment, and anger, then suggesting that people can do nothing to advance their prospects of being accepted in a country you propose to run is, of course, extremely effective.
Farage doesnt get away with his youthful indiscretions that easily and he certainly doesn't get a pass by seeking to deflect attention back on his accusers.
Saturday, December 06, 2025
Too risque for the House of Lords?
As the Glyn Vivian website records the ensuing battle ended with Swansea winning the bid:
The building of the new Guildhall was underway and the city council proposed raising the Assembly Hall ceiling to 13.4 metres to accommodate the Panels. This tipped the scales in Swansea’s favour. With great pomp and excitement, the Assembly Hall was renamed the Brangwyn Hall – in honour of the Panels – and inaugurated with the rest of the building in October 1934 by the Duke of Kent. In 1937, it was visited by King George VI.
Following this purchase, Brangwyn gifted Swansea the preparatory drawings and studies for the Panels – all of which are under the care of Glynn Vivian Art Gallery. These sketches and small paintings, teeming with delicate foliage, flora and fauna are fabulous natural studies of the lands that Brangwyn travelled to (as well as the animals he visited regularly in London Zoo).
For Brangwyn had an enduring Romance with Asia, the Middle East and Moorish Spain that earned him accolades in America and Europe. Art historian Libby Horner argues that he was amongst the most revered artists of the 1900s for his merging of the so-called ‘decorative arts’ with fine art traditions. This holistic approach to art-making was inspired by his voyages. Brangwyn sailed the seas for much of 1880s and 1890s, visiting Spain, Japan, North and South Africa and Istanbul. Influenced by the Continent’s fascination with Orientalist paintings, he made vivid-hued paintings of Egypt, Turkey and Morocco, which he visited in 1893.
The panels are controversial as they are both risque and hark back to an earlier age of empire. The Glyn Vivian site suggests that the House of Lords’ reason for rejecting them in 1930 was because they were teeming with “tits and bananas”:
They hardly sit comfortably with current sensibilities either. How can one help but notice the bare bodies and servile positions ascribed to the ‘native’ females? In the light of BlackLivesMatter and the urgent need to ‘decolonise’ the past, one has to agree with young activist Stevie MacKinnon Smith’s assessment that the Panels’ regressive colonial narrative needs to be addressed; that “their continued display without this acknowledgment is problematic”.
This article on Wales-on-Line says that Brangwyn intended for them to be a memorial to the First World War, and for a gloomy hall to be brought to life with a representation of the British Empire:
The plan was for them to be situated in the Royal Chamber, and Brangwyn made many considerations to the chosen location when painting the work, from the lighting that would enter the room, to allowing for the darkening of his work through the thick smoke from the peers' cigars.
But five years later came an announcement that the artist could not have foreseen.
After years of work and effort, a decision was made for the commission to be rejected, something at the time which was considered a great scandal, and a decision which reportedly left the artist heartbroken.
The Fine Art Commission made the decision as it felt it was not of the Cubist style then in vogue.
Whatever the reason for their rejection by the House of Lords, they remain a colourful addition to Swansea's premier concert hall.
Friday, December 05, 2025
Labour's march towards authoritarianism
They are proposing a 10-week consultation that will ask for views on how the technology should be regulated and how to protect people’s privacy, as well as creating a regulator to oversee police use of facial recognition, biometrics and other tools:
Policing minister Sarah Jones described facial recognition as the “biggest breakthrough for catching criminals since DNA matching” saying that it has already helped catch thousands of criminals.
“We will expand its use so that forces can put more criminals behind bars and tackle crime in their communities,” she said.
According to the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police made 1,300 arrests using facial recognition over the last two years, and found more than 100 registered sex offenders breaching their licence conditions.
But the technology has faced criticism, with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) describing the Met Police’s policy on use of live facial recognition technology as “unlawful”, earlier this year.
The equalities watchdog said the rules and safeguards around the UK’s biggest police force’s use of the technology “fall short” and could have a “chilling effect” on individuals’ rights when used at protests.
Other organisations also have doubts about this roll-out:
Reacting to the consultation, human rights organisation Liberty said the Government should halt the roll-out of the technology and introduce strict safeguards, including for independent sign-off before it is used and at least 14 days’ notice to the public when live facial recognition will be active.
It also called for police to only use facial recognition to prevent an imminent threat to life or people’s safety, search for suspects of serious criminal offences or missing people and victims of abduction and human trafficking.
Liberty director, Akiko Hart, added: “The public is finally getting a chance to have its say on this surveillance tech, but it’s disappointing the Home Office is starting a consultation with a pledge to ramp up its use.”
Silkie Carlo, director of civil liberty group Big Brother Watch, said: “For our streets to be safer, the Government need to focus their resources on real criminals rather than spending public money turning the country into an open prison with surveillance of the general population.
“Facial recognition surveillance is out of control, with the police’s own records showing over seven million innocent people in England and Wales have been scanned by police facial recognition cameras in the past year alone.”
Mass surveillance as a matter of routine, coupled with a growing database of images is not a good look in a democratic society. That is why it is important that this technology is tightly regulated, open to scrutiny by the public, and that the ad hoc expansion of facial recognition cameras by police forces is halted in the meantime.
The biggest concern is that this latest announcememt comes on the back of proposals to introduce compulsory digital ID cards and to do away with jury trials. Put them all together and it is beginning to look like the UK is turning into a much more authoritarian state.
Thursday, December 04, 2025
What will Labour do if Reform win the most seats in May's Senedd elections?
The website's Labour source told them: “I am absolutely shell shocked to hear that one of Welsh Labour’s most prominent and promoted candidates is openly talking about a Reform-led Welsh Government. This would shock a lot of people across the Welsh Labour movement. I know of nobody else in the Welsh Labour and Trade Union movement who thinks that a Reform government would be good for Wales."
It does not appear to be the case that Mr Thomas suggested in any way that a Reform government would be good for Wales, but the view that such an outcome would expose Farage's party as incompetent and therefore assist Keir Starmer win the next general election, is one that is held by other senior members of Welsh Labour.
I am told that there is a rift between the Welsh Parliamentary Labour Party and their Senedd members on this issue, with some MPs believing that should Labour end up as the third party in the Senedd, then they should refuse to do any deals, thus allowing Reform to form a government.
The reasoning is that a Reform government in Wales would be utterly incompetent, be seen to take its orders from Nigel Farage in England, will slash public spending, cut jobs and services, create chaos and misery, and stir up trouble against minorities, thus alienating voters across the UK.
This is called putting one's party's interests ahead of the nation's. Any mainstream politician who allows this to happen deserves all the opprobrium that will be coming their way.
But this is not the only rift between Welsh Labour MSs and the UK Labour government as this letter shows.
As Nation Cymru reports, the letter, signed by over a third of the Labour Senedd group, asks the Prime Minister: “Why is the UK Government directly funding Welsh Councils to fix bus shelters, reopen park toilets, and provide bins?
“As well as top-slicing funding from the Local Growth Fund – which we would have expected to have been passed to the Welsh Government as an EU successor fund – Pride in Place is being imposed using powers in the UK Internal Market Act 2020.
“Regeneration is a devolved matter. Yet UKIMA is being used to give the UK Government authority to provide financial assistance without requiring consent from the Senedd or Welsh Ministers.
“You will remember the Welsh Government brought a Judicial Review against the last UK Government because, in its view, the Internal Market Act represented an unwarranted attack on devolution.
“The Conservative legislation repealed parts of the Government of Wales Act 2006, reduced the Senedd’s legislative competence, and gave UK Ministers broad ‘Henry VIII powers’ to amend primary legislation, which could undermine devolution.
“For our own Government to then come in and use the very same powers to act in devolved areas is at best deeply insensitive, at worst a constitutional outrage.”
They added: “Not only is it wrong in principle to use the Internal Market Act in this way, the design of the Pride in Place programme by the Wales Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, has cut out the democratically elected Welsh Government in a policy area that is fully within its remit.
“Whilst there is a genuflection in the neighbourhood selection criteria to the Welsh Government policies, the UK Government is, nonetheless, requiring Welsh local authorities to seek Whitehall approval for spending that cuts across existing programmes.
“This is ineffective and wasteful, and no way to spend public money.
“If this was being done by a Tory Government, we would be calling for a judicial review. This must never happen again.
“Wales needs and deserves to be treated as an equal part of the UK and the UK Government has a responsibility to act to deliver this equality.
“Not only is it wrong in principle to use the Internal Market Act in this way, the design of the Pride in Place programme by the Wales Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, has cut out the democratically elected Welsh Government in a policy area that is fully within its remit.
“Whilst there is a genuflection in the neighbourhood selection criteria to the Welsh Government policies, the UK Government is, nonetheless, requiring Welsh local authorities to seek Whitehall approval for spending that cuts across existing programmes. This is ineffective and wasteful, and no way to spend public money.
“If this was being done by a Tory Government, we would be calling for a judicial review. This must never happen again.
“Wales needs and deserves to be treated as an equal part of the UK and the UK Government has a responsibility to act to deliver this equality. The signs are clear that the public understands this, we must demonstrate that we do too.”
All those promises of two Labour government's working in lockstep, delivering for Wales, have disappeared now Starmer and his ministers have got their hands on power.
Instead, we have UK Labour continuing the approach taken by the Tories, undermining devolution, refusing to hand over more powers, and taking responsibilities back off Cardiff Bay so they can control the agenda themselves.
The Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats Jane Dodds is quite right when she says:
“You cannot claim to respect Wales while designing Welsh programmes from Whitehall. It shows a deep lack of understanding and a worrying disregard for the Senedd.
“If Labour’s representatives in Wales have lost faith in Labour’s MPs in London, it tells you everything about how little grip the party has on devolution.”
Wednesday, December 03, 2025
So many leaks
The paper says that Professor David Miles of the OBR’s budget responsibility committee told MPs on the Treasury select committee on Tuesday that the watchdog had raised the issue of leaks with the department before the chancellor’s statement last week.
Rather ironic considering the OBR then leaked the whole budget, but still a valid criticism despite that faux pas:
“I think it was clear that there was lots of information appearing in the press which perhaps wouldn’t normally be out there and that this wasn’t from our point of view particularly helpful,” he said.
He added: “We made it clear that they were not helpful and that we weren’t in a position of course to put them right.”
Miles was appearing before the committee after the OBR chair, Richard Hughes, resigned on Monday, taking responsibility for the inadvertent release of its budget documents about an hour before Rachel Reeves stood up to announce her tax and spending plans.
The prime minister’s official spokesperson insisted on Tuesday that the watchdog’s chair had not been pushed. “It’s categorically untrue that Richard Hughes was forced to go,” he said. “The chancellor has written to Richard and thanked him for leading the OBR and his many years dedicated to public service.”
As well as the premature budget release, Hughes’s departure also followed the publication on Friday of a letter that took what he called the “unusual step” of spelling out the evolution of the OBR’s forecasts over time, prompting a furious row about Reeves’s account of the backdrop to her budget decisions.
Miles said the letter was published because the watchdog felt the public had received a false impression, which was “damaging to the OBR and to the process”.
However, he denied that, as opposition politicians have claimed, the OBR’s letter showed Reeves was misleading in her 4 November pre-budget speech, in which she underlined the perilous state of the public finances.
He said the OBR’s forecasts “didn’t suggest that the fiscal outlook was problem free” and described the margin for error, or headroom, on the chancellor’s fiscal rules, which was £4.2bn in the 31 October forecast, as a “sliver” and “wafer thin”.
“I don’t think it was misleading for the chancellor to say that the fiscal position was very challenging,” he said.
However, Miles did highlight two “misconceptions” – the idea that the OBR had shifted the time period over which it assesses the yields on government bonds, perhaps under pressure from government; or that its forecasts had swung dramatically at the last minute, affecting Labour’s decision-making.
He told MPs there was “a view that the OBR’s forecasts were wildly fluctuating in the process both leading up to the pre-measures forecast, and perhaps after it as well, and that that had made the budget process more chaotic than it otherwise would have been”.
His evidence also flatly contradicted a government briefing on 14 November, as markets reacted to news that Reeves had dropped plans to raise income tax, which suggested that decision resulted from improved forecasts.
“There seemed to be a misconception that there seemed to have been some good news, and I’m not sure where that came from: it didn’t exist,” he told the committee.
“What had happened is that the forecast for headroom had gradually improved a little bit in the run-up to 31 October” (when the final ‘pre-measures’ forecast was sent to Reeves).
What seems clear from this evidence is that the concerted witch-hunt by the right wing press, suggesting that Rachel Reeves misled the public is far from reality, however it does appear true that the whole run-up to the budget was mismanaged.
As Miles told the Treasury committee, the slew of leaks may have hit economic growth by exaggerating consumer and business uncertainty, which “may well have been exacerbated by leaks which some days seemed to be suggesting one thing and the next day something different”, adding: “I don’t think that can have helped.”
Let's hope lessons are learned.
“I think it was clear that there was lots of information appearing in the press which perhaps wouldn’t normally be out there and that this wasn’t from our point of view particularly helpful,” he said.
He added: “We made it clear that they were not helpful and that we weren’t in a position of course to put them right.”
Miles was appearing before the committee after the OBR chair, Richard Hughes, resigned on Monday, taking responsibility for the inadvertent release of its budget documents about an hour before Rachel Reeves stood up to announce her tax and spending plans.
The prime minister’s official spokesperson insisted on Tuesday that the watchdog’s chair had not been pushed. “It’s categorically untrue that Richard Hughes was forced to go,” he said. “The chancellor has written to Richard and thanked him for leading the OBR and his many years dedicated to public service.”
As well as the premature budget release, Hughes’s departure also followed the publication on Friday of a letter that took what he called the “unusual step” of spelling out the evolution of the OBR’s forecasts over time, prompting a furious row about Reeves’s account of the backdrop to her budget decisions.
Miles said the letter was published because the watchdog felt the public had received a false impression, which was “damaging to the OBR and to the process”.
However, he denied that, as opposition politicians have claimed, the OBR’s letter showed Reeves was misleading in her 4 November pre-budget speech, in which she underlined the perilous state of the public finances.
He said the OBR’s forecasts “didn’t suggest that the fiscal outlook was problem free” and described the margin for error, or headroom, on the chancellor’s fiscal rules, which was £4.2bn in the 31 October forecast, as a “sliver” and “wafer thin”.
“I don’t think it was misleading for the chancellor to say that the fiscal position was very challenging,” he said.
However, Miles did highlight two “misconceptions” – the idea that the OBR had shifted the time period over which it assesses the yields on government bonds, perhaps under pressure from government; or that its forecasts had swung dramatically at the last minute, affecting Labour’s decision-making.
He told MPs there was “a view that the OBR’s forecasts were wildly fluctuating in the process both leading up to the pre-measures forecast, and perhaps after it as well, and that that had made the budget process more chaotic than it otherwise would have been”.
His evidence also flatly contradicted a government briefing on 14 November, as markets reacted to news that Reeves had dropped plans to raise income tax, which suggested that decision resulted from improved forecasts.
“There seemed to be a misconception that there seemed to have been some good news, and I’m not sure where that came from: it didn’t exist,” he told the committee.
“What had happened is that the forecast for headroom had gradually improved a little bit in the run-up to 31 October” (when the final ‘pre-measures’ forecast was sent to Reeves).
What seems clear from this evidence is that the concerted witch-hunt by the right wing press, suggesting that Rachel Reeves misled the public is far from reality, however it does appear true that the whole run-up to the budget was mismanaged.
As Miles told the Treasury committee, the slew of leaks may have hit economic growth by exaggerating consumer and business uncertainty, which “may well have been exacerbated by leaks which some days seemed to be suggesting one thing and the next day something different”, adding: “I don’t think that can have helped.”
Let's hope lessons are learned.
Tuesday, December 02, 2025
Will the Welsh government allow councils to go bust?
The auditor general told Radio Wales that councils face a "real squeeze" as costs spiral for children's care and other services, while at the same time local authorities have reacted with concern after the Welsh government announced an extra £169m in funding for next year, less than a third of what they said they need. The settlement could mean major cuts if a council failed to balance the books:
There have been warnings for years that some Welsh councils could face serious financial difficulties, in the way some authorities have in England.
While councils cannot go bust like companies, they can declare what is known as a section 114 notice - a legal instrument which says the authority is about to spend money beyond its means.
The notice usually means the council will meet in a few weeks to discuss how to avoid that - usually resulting in significant cuts to services.
Ministers have previously drawn up plans for what to do if this happened in Wales, but no Welsh authority is yet to issue a section 114 notice.
Adrian Crompton did not name the councils when he spoke to Vaughan Roderick's Sunday Supplement programme on BBC Radio Wales.
"What we're seeing now is that one or two local authorities are very, very close to the edge in terms of their financial sustainability," he said.
"It wouldn't take very much to push them over that edge as we've seen happen to some local authorities in across the border in England."
He said councils have a statutory duty to deliver a lot of their services - meaning they are required by law to provide them.
"Some areas of service where we're seeing really sharp cost growth, areas like children's services or the provision of temporary accommodation. These are largely demand-led areas, so not within the gift of local authorities to control directly.
"They have to deliver those services, and if they're faced with some unexpected cost in those areas that could be sufficient in a few cases to tip them over the edge."
Last week the Welsh government announced it planned to boost council coffers by 2.7% to £6.4bn.
But the £169m increase was less than a third of the £560m shortfall local authorities think they will face.
Unless the Welsh government put a substantial amount of extra cash into the pot, all twenty two Welsh councils will face some very difficult decisions next year. Will any find that they need to issue that section 114 notice?
Monday, December 01, 2025
So, tell me again, where exactly is Clacton?
The paper says that the Brexit MP has trousered more than £140,000 from selling personal messages on the US-based Cameo platform since December last year. They add that last year he even got up before the rest of his family on Christmas morning to log on and send a message:
His speaking records show he stood up in Parliament on only 22 occasions over the same period - speaking about grooming gangs, Ukraine and the migrant boat crossings. But he has mentioned his constituents in Essex just three times. In contrast he has spoken about the UK's deal to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands - and Donald Trump's opposition to the move - on six occasions.
Nigel Farage has earned more than £1million from second jobs on top of his £91,346 MP salary - including £400,000 as a brand ambassador for Direct Bullion(Image: PA) And an analysis of figures published on his Register of Interests suggest - based on a charge of £71.75 a pop - he filmed as many as 1,976 videos. That figure is likely to be lower as he can charge up to £3,776 for business videos. The figures also show he has earned more than £1million from second jobs on top of his £91,346 MP salary. That includes £400,000 as a brand ambassador for Direct Bullion - a precious metals and gold dealer.
But during his time as an MP, he has faced attacks over his record of meeting constituents while jetting more than 3,500 miles to the USA for paid gigs. Locals in the Essex town of Clacton are “furious” at the Cameo revelations and claim they had not seen Mr Farage in the area since his election. Mum Sarah Corner, 32, said she voted Reform and Nigel Farage at the 2024 election for a “total change” but regrets her decision.
The part-time waitress said: “I thought Reform would make a difference. I felt that after so many years of the Conservatives, something had to change. Reform and Farage made a lot of noise and frankly I thought, ‘Why not?’ I’ve not seen him once. I’ve seen stuff on social media after he’s been, but nothing in person. It feels like he’s cashing in. Clacton has huge issues.
"We’ve got deprivation, there’s a jobs shortage, schools and doctors are over subscribed. We don’t get a fair deal compared to the rest of Essex. We certainly don’t get a fair deal compared to London. I’ve not heard Farage speak about that. It’s all about migrants. I appreciate we’ve got a problem with migration in Britain. But Clacton needs sorting out. He’s like the rest, lining his pockets to suit his own agenda.”
Mr Farage's Cameo messages include inside jokes for people's birthdays - but he has used the phrase "Brexit means Brexit" in his videos. In one message he tells a punter: "It has come to my attention that you have no rizz and have been acting very skibidi lately."
On Mr Farage's Cameo Business profile, he states: "They call me Mr Brexit... some people say I am controversial, and I couldn’t care less." And his other Cameo account - offering personal messages - states: "Nigel Farage's Cameo videos offer fans a unique opportunity to receive personalised messages from the former UK politician and Brexit leader.
"Customers can request messages for a variety of occasions, from birthdays and retirements to roasts and motivational pep talks. Nigel is often asked to reference his political views on Brexit, immigration, and the Reform UK party, as well as mention specific TV shows, sports teams, and even silly inside jokes. His videos provide an entertaining and lighthearted way for fans to connect with him and his signature straight-talking, anti-establishment style."
In October 2021 Mr Farage read a greeting supporting the IRA, raising his drink and saying "up the RA" in a clip sent to Brian Ó Céileachair after his friend Aidan Hart paid £73 for a congratulatory birthday greeting. Mr Farage was elected in July last year but said he would not be holding face-face surgeries in his constituency over fears the public will "flow through doors with knives in their pockets".
Mr Farage said he had been advised not to accommodate the "old-style" physical meetings between MPs and constituents - before performing a U-turn (Image: Getty Images) He told radio station LBC he had been advised not to accommodate the "old-style" physical meetings between MPs and constituents. Mr Farage said: "Do I have an office in Clacton? Yes. Am I allowing the public to flow through the door with their knives in their pockets? No, no I'm not."
When asked why Clacton residents would flow through the door with knives in their pockets, he said: "Well they did in Southend. They murdered David Amess and he was a far less controversial figure than me." Conservative politician Sir David was fatally stabbed during a surgery in his Southend West constituency in 2021 by an Islamic State-supporting terrorist.
However, by September it emerged the Speaker's Office has "no record" of telling Mr Farage not to hold in-person surgeries. The following month in October he was forced into a U-turn when asked, “Which one of you is lying” – in reference to the conflicting claims – Mr Farage responded: “The speaker’s office is always right.”
It is little wonder that his constituents are disgruntled.
