Wednesday, January 28, 2026
Reform by-election candidate shows true colours
The paper says that Matthew Goodwin, a hard-right activist, has been criticised for claiming recently that people from black, Asian or other immigrant backgrounds were not always British, saying: “It takes more than a piece of paper to make somebody ‘British’”:
Speaking at an event in Denton, the GB News presenter twice declined to answer when asked by the Guardian whether he stood by those views – described by the Liberal Democrats as “racist” and “abhorrent”.
Nearly half of the Gorton and Denton population – 44% – identifies as coming from a minority ethnic background, while 79% of the constituency identifies as British, according to the latest census.
Goodwin refused to answer the Guardian’s questions as he posed for photographs alongside the Reform MP Lee Anderson at a bar in Denton.
Anderson, the Reform chief whip, described Goodwin as a “fearless” activist who would “debate anybody at any time”.
Lucy Powell, Labour’s deputy leader, said Goodwin’s politics sought to “drive a wedge between communities in Manchester” and that Reform offered “division, animosity and hatred – not the unity and pride which our city stands for”.
The Green party leader, Zack Polanski, alleged that Goodwin had “a track record of anti-Muslim bigotry” and that his candidacy was an insult to constituents.
The paper adds that Goodwin’s selection as the Reform candidate has surprised some commentators, given his outspoken views on British nationality and Islam:
Only three weeks ago, he wrote that Britain’s “ruling class” was “silencing” debate about Islam in “one of the most serious assaults on free speech and free expression Britain has ever seen”. More than one in four voters in Gorton and Denton identify as Muslim.
Goodwin's candidacy is a warning as to what Reform is really about. They are not just concerned with asylum seekers, they are targeting minority communities, they are divisive, disruptive, and a real threat to community cohesion.
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Home Secretary delivers another snub to Welsh First MInister
The broadcaster says that Shabana Mahmood's stance comes as the Labour party remains split over whether Cardiff Bay politicians should have direct control of criminal justice:
First Minister Eluned Morgan called for the devolution of policing last Thursday in a speech which warned Westminster Labour to act now to prevent pro-independence parties dominating the Senedd.
Plaid Cymru said the House of Commons exchange exposed "deep divisions" and a "lack of coherence within Labour's ranks".
Mahmood's white paper, published on Tuesday, could see the number of forces in England and Wales cut by about two-thirds.
An independent review will look at which forces should merge. The Welsh Liberal Democrats warned against a single Welsh organisation, fearing it could worsen local policing.
In the Commons, Plaid Cymru's Liz Saville Roberts said three independent commissions had recommended justice and policing be devolved to Wales.
She asked the home secretary: "Does she not agree that this package of radical changes is exactly the right time for the devolution of policing to Wales?"
In a short reply, Shabana Mahmood said: "No, I do not."
The Labour-led Welsh government has for years called for policing and criminal justice powers to be devolved to the Senedd.
Advocates of that policy argue it would allow the Welsh government to set policies that were more aligned to Wales' existing health and education systems.
The Welsh government commission on justice in 2019, external argued there was also "no rational basis" for Wales to be treated differently from Northern Ireland and Scotland, where policing is devolved.
Labour MPs have struck a different tone, however, with the now Welsh Secretary Jo Stevens saying in 2024 that problems with crime were too urgent to begin "fiddling" with policing powers.
Having already been snubbed by Labour MPs over her call for the control of Welsh railways to be devolved to the Senedd, Eluned Morgan has now had the same treatment from the Home Secretary. She just can't catch a break.
Monday, January 26, 2026
Is blocking Burnham a fatal mistake for Starmer?
The paper says that in a vote of the 10-strong “officers’ group” of the NEC, only one person, Lucy Powell, the party deputy leader and a close ally of Burnham, voted to allow the Greater Manchester mayor to compete to be a candidate in the seat vacated by Andrew Gwynne this week.
They add that the other eight members, which included the prime minister Keir Starmer, voted against the move, with the NEC chair, the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, abstaining:
Allies of Starmer characterised the NEC’s decision as simply upholding party rules. But those who had urged Starmer to allow Burnham to stand said the decision was a calamitous mistake.
One source on the party’s soft left said: “No 10 have chosen factionalism over what’s right for the party. They will have to change course, not least once they realise they will lose the byelection without Andy.”
There was no immediate reaction from Burnham. But Mainstream, the left-leaning Labour group associated with the Greater Manchester mayor and other senior figures such as Powell, said: “Labour must reverse this decision if it is serious about putting country before party. We urge the party to reconsider in the interests of taking on Reform and building the strongest possible team in Westminster.”
Another Labour source said the NEC meeting, described as “respectful and collegiate”, had heard concerns about the cost of holding a mayoral byelection to replace Burnham two years into his term, and worries about a divisive campaign by Reform UK.
One tweets summs up how Starmer has put his future on the line by this decision:
In the knifing of Burnham, no senior Labour politician got blood on their hands. Shabana Mahmood, shielded by convention, chaired the crucial NEC meeting but did not vote (on the morning media round she had praised Burnham as an “exceptional politician”). Deputy Leader Lucy Powell, unsurprisingly, cast a lonely vote for Burnham. Wes Streeting condemned the anonymous briefings against Burnham as “disgraceful” and, without endorsing Burnham’s run, said the party needed “the best possible candidate” in Gorton and Denton. Ed Miliband said Burnham should be allowed to stand. So did Sadiq Khan. Those publicly trashing Burnham’s run were a selection of backbenchers. The figures on the NEC who voted to block Burnham are not household names. This is a decision that will be entirely put at the door of Keir Starmer. And if this decision results in the loss a safe Labour seat, in the party’s heartland of Greater Manchester, the Prime Minister will find that it is very, very lonely at the top.
On the argument that allowing Burnham to become an MP could have added to speculation about the Prime Minister's future, blocking him in this way has stirred up even more discontent within the Labour Party.
Allowing Burnham to stand would have been the wise choice for Starmer. There was no guarantee that the Manchester mayor would have won the by-election, it was a gamble for him just as it much as it would have been for the Burnham. But without Burnham, the seat is likely to go to the Greens or Reform and, as the tweet says, that will undermine Starmer even more.
This act by the Prime Minister is a sign of weakness, not strength.
Update: It has been pointed out that as the Manchester Mayor holds PCC functions then s/he cannot also be an MP. I have removed the section that referred to this.
Sunday, January 25, 2026
Labour Welsh First Minister snubbed by her own MPs
Nation Cymru reports that a Welsh Labour MP has argued against a major amendment to the Railways Bill which would devolve powers over the railways to Wales:
The amendment, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would remove rail transport from the list of powers reserved to Westminster and require responsibility for infrastructure, investment and the long-term strategy of Welsh railways to be transferred to the Senedd within two years.
During the Committee debate, Labour MPs clarified that they do not support devolution of Wales’s railways through the Railways Bill.
Labour MP for Wrexham, Andrew Ranger, said he was “not convinced” by including the devolution of rail as part of the Bill, urging the Committee to “work with the situation as it stands”. However, he did claim the matter was “worthy of future consideration”.
The Labour Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Keir Mather, said that the amendment would introduce “boundaries” that risk fragmentation.
“By reopening the devolution settlement and mandating the transfer of responsibilities that are already being addressed through strengthened partnership working, it risks diverting attention from implementation and delivery. The Bill already enhances joint working.”
Mr Mather continued to oppose the devolution of rail to Wales, saying that reserved powers to Westminster play “an important part” in maintaining cross-border services.
However, the amendment would put Wales on a similar footing to Scotland, who manage cross-border services between Scotland and England without issues.
It comes after criticism that English rail projects were being designated as “England and Wales” projects, such as rail links between Liverpool and Hull, Oxford and Cambridge, and the HS2 project – despite none of these having any physical tracks running into Wales.
The classification of “England and Wales” means that Wales does not receive a Barnett consequential, which is money allocated to the devolved nations in response to spending on public services in England.
Welsh Liberal Democrat David Chadwick MP, who is the party’s Westminster spokesperson, believes the debate exposed a contradiction after Labour First Minister Eluned Morgan promised “a new era of devolution”, including rail should they win the Senedd election.
He said: “Labour Ministers have now put it on the record that they do not support devolving rail to Wales. That tells you everything you need to know about how seriously Labour takes devolution when it actually matters.
“The First Minister speaks about a ‘new era of devolution’, but she can’t even get her own MPs to back her. Everything outlined in her speech is empty rhetoric unless that changes.
“Scotland already has these powers. Wales does not. Until Labour matches words with action, Wales will continue to be short-changed by billions of pounds, depriving communities of much-needed transport investment.”
If Eluned Morgan cannot convince her own colleagues to support her, what chance does she have of persuading voters?
Saturday, January 24, 2026
King Charles' forgotten Hamlet
Coed Darcy is a new estate built on the old BP works in Llandarcy. St Modwen, the developer behind the project and the owner of the entire 1,000 acre Coed Darcy site, originally announced a 25-year vision for a £1.2bn, 4000-home 'urban village' with 10,000 residents and four schools, however the development stalled and so far only has a few hundred houses, a play area and an empty shop.
The estate was meant to be a model of urban renewal, but before the development started in earnest, the company tasked with transforming the area, decided to pay homage to the then Prince Charles' interest in 'classic' architecture. The BBC even did a news piece on the hamlet fronted by Griff Rhys Jones, which can be viewed here.
Wales-on-line tells us that not far from the current community, nestled amidst green fields, scrubland and trees is a quaint little hamlet of red and grey-roofed homes. There are streets, something that looks like it could be a little school or community hall and some ponds:
The white-fronted buildings look pretty with their different coloured brightly painted doors and neat windows.
Look for any length of time, and you won't see a single person. No lights will illuminate the windows on an evening, and there won't be a sound to be heard, other than the wind or the steady thrashing of rain we've become accustomed to of late.
In fact, if you are anywhere near you will have had to traipse over rough ground, as there are no proper roads leading to this ghost community.
The houses were built on the site of the former BP oil refinery in Llandarcy, Neath, in 2013, with traditional Welsh stone and using cutting-edge construction techniques.
They were designed as a showcase for an environmentally sustainable village made up of thousands of new homes, and even had the backing of Prince Charles.
But six years since they were built, these particular homes, distant from other development on the massive old industrial site, remain empty with no infrastructure connected to them.
In fact, more than a decade on from when the plans were first submitted in 2006, just 250 homes have been built in the new village named Coed Darcy.
The original vision was for the empty houses to be part of an environmentally-sustainable urban village of 4,000 homes, similar to Prince Charles' Poundbury village in Dorset.
The Prince even visited the site himself when they were completed in 2013.
He said he was "trying to break the commercial mould with the kind of challenges the world is now facing," by backing the project.
This article is from just over six years ago and the homes are still empty, which in a housing crisis is not a good look.
Friday, January 23, 2026
Are Welsh Labour in panic mode?
The UK government has refused to devolve control of the crown estate, refused to give Wales powers over railways or reclassify rail projects like HS2 so that we get the Barnett consequentials and refused every request for extra powers including over the justice system.
In that time Eluned Morgan and her predecessors have talked up the benefits of having a Labour government at both ends of the M4 despite the fact that so far this collaboration has produced very little for Wales.
Now, with Labour tanking in the polls, she and her colleagues appear to have woken up. The BBC reports that Morgan has publicly come out to call on the Prime Minister to help stop pro-independence parties winning the next Senedd election by giving her country more powers.
The broadcaster says that the First Minister has warned that the "threat to the United Kingdom will become real" if parties wanting to leave the union were leading in both Scotland and Wales:
Speaking to the Institute for Government earlier in the day, Morgan said the most recent opinion poll gave "two pro independence parties Plaid and the Greens a majority in Wales".
"Separatism is now very much on the agenda in our nation," she said.
She said the significance of that was "not reverberating as it should".
"Support for independence tends to rise when politics feels stuck or uncertain, and it falls when people see devolution deliver."
Devolution is the "best way to lower the temperature and raise trust", she said.
"The UK government can play a leading role in helping us to resist separatism and the break up of the union. They can support us by giving us the tools to help improve life for the people in Wales."
Following her speech, Morgan said the "threat to the United Kingdom will become real" if pro-independence parties came out top in Wales as well as in Scotland, where pro-independence SNP are hoping to return to government following May's Holyrood election.
Morgan apparently used her speech to make a list of requests for more powers and money from Westminster, as well as a "new deal for devolution" including those elusive powers over natural resources, the Crown Estate, and policing and justice, which have mostly been rejected by the UK government.
There is a hint of panic in this long-awaited public break with the UK government. Unfortunately, it looks like it might be too little, too late.
Thursday, January 22, 2026
Is Farage too busy earning money to stick to the rules?
However, Daniel Greenberg said that following an investigation, he had concluded that the breaches were "inadvertent" and therefore would not be recommending any sanctions for the Clacton MP:
Rule five of the parliamentary code of conduct states that new MPs should register all their financial interests received in the 12 months before their election and that MPs "must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days".
Farage missed the deadline 17 times, with delays spanning from four days to as long as 120 days.
The highest payment registered was £91,200 from gold dealer Direct Bullion, for whom he works as a brand ambassador.
A Labour Party spokesperson said Farage "isn't on the side of working people - he's just lining his pockets when he should be standing up for his constituents".
Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper said: "Five Jobs Farage is spending far too much time jetting off to talk our country down in the US and cashing in from his GB News show."
Farage is boycotting Prime Minister's questions. missing key votes, is hardly seen in his constituency and spends a huge amount of time jetting off to the USA and elsewhere. No wonder he is missing deadlines, he hardly has time to do the job he was elected to.
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
Will Labour backtrack on leasehold reform?
The paper says that Rayner has intervened in a tense standoff between Steve Reed, the housing secretary, and Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, over whether to stand by Labour’s promise to limit annual charges for existing leaseholders:
The measure was part of a draft leasehold bill due to be published last year, which was delayed after Reeves became concerned that capping ground rents could deter property investors.
Government insiders say Starmer is due to decide between his warring ministers on Tuesday, as pressure mounts from Labour MPs to publish the draft bill as soon as possible.
In an article for the Guardian, Rayner writes: “Over recent decades … ordinary homeowners have increasingly been charged high and escalating amounts of ground rent, leaving them in financial distress and often unable to sell or re-mortgage their homes.”
She adds: “Labour made a promise to leaseholders that we would fix this injustice, but ministers are currently subjected to furious lobbying from wealthy investors trying to water this manifesto commitment down.
“There are those who argue we cannot act on our promise as it could risk a backlash from investors, including pension funds. It’s hardly surprising – the system works just fine for them.
“They get an annual return for doing absolutely nothing, they can raise ground rents and pile up service charges without transparency and with total impunity, regardless of the devastation it causes to families.”
Labour promised in its manifesto to “finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end”, including banning the sale of new leasehold flats. The manifesto added: “We will tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges.”
Matthew Pennycook, the housing minister, has been working on the draft bill since Labour entered government, including a measure to cap ground rents at £250 a year for current leaseholders. New leasehold properties must be sold with peppercorn, or nominal, ground rents, under legislation passed by the last Conservative government.
He was supported for much of that time by Rayner, who was also the housing and local government secretary before she left government last year after admitting to underpaying property taxes on her new property in Hove, East Sussex.
Pennycook was due to publish the draft bill in December, but the plans were postponed at the last minute after Treasury officials became concerned that the ground rent cap could hit pension funds that own freehold properties.
Labour MPs have become increasingly frustrated by the delays, given there are an estimated 5m leasehold homes in England, and have raised the issue repeatedly with the prime minister in the Commons.
The Tories bottled proper leasehold reform, we should expect better of the Labour Party. Leasehold tenure is an antiquated and unfair feudal system that should follow rentcharges into the dustbin of history.
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Reform have mutated into the Truss/Johnson Tory Party Mark II
Readers of the Independent seem to agree. The paper says that they now see the party as little more than a refuge for self-serving ex-Tories. Commenters on the paper's site have argued that high-profile figures such as Robert Jenrick, Nadhim Zahawi, and Nadine Dorries switched allegiance to protect their political careers rather than to represent constituents:
Readers criticised Reform for taking in hard-right ex-Tories and recycling discredited politicians, saying it undermines the party’s anti-establishment image.
They also highlighted past Conservative failings in public services, social care, and immigration, arguing that with so many ex-Tory MPs, Reform offers little more than a continuation of the same policies.
A small minority suggested the defections might allow the Conservatives to rid themselves of unpopular MPs and regroup.
However, the dominant view was one of cynicism, that Reform is largely a vehicle for political survival, and its MPs cannot be trusted to act in the public interest.
The extent to which Farage's party is transforming into a mark 2 version of Truss's and Johnson's Tory Party is uncanny. With thanks to the twitter feed of Reform Watch UK Exposed, here is a list of leading defectors from the Tories so far:
Leader: Nigel Farage (former Conservative)
MP: Lee Anderson (former Conservative)
MP: Sarah Pochin (former Conservative)
MP: Danny Kruger (former Conservative)
MP: Robert Jenrick (former Conservative)
MP: Andrew Rosindell (former Conservative)
MS: Laura Ann Jones (former Conservative)
Deputy Leader: Richard Tice (former Conservative)
Chair: Dr David Bull (former Conservative)
Deputy Chair: Paul Nuttalls (former Conservative)
Leader in Scotland: Malcolm Offord (former Conservative Life Peer)
Mayoral Candidate: Laila Cunningham (former Conservative)
Mayor of Lincolnshire: Andrea Jenkyns (former Conservative MP)
Leader in London: Alex Wilson (former Conservative)
Leader of Kent Council: Linden Kemkaran (former Conservative)
Leader of Derbyshire Council: Alan Graves (former Conservative)
Leader of Worcestershire Council: Jo Monk (former Conservative)
Leader of Durham Council: Andrew Husband (former Conservative)
Leader of Leicestershire Council: Dan Harrison (former Conservative)
Leader of Lancashire Council: Stephen Atkinson (former Conservative)
Leader of North Northamptonshire: Martin Griffiths (former Conservative)
Lucy Allan, former Conservative MP
Alan Amos, former Conservative MP
Sarah Atherton, former Conservative MP
Jake Berry, former Conservative MP
Ben Bradley, former Conservative MP
Michael Brown, former Conservative MP
Aidan Burley, former Conservative MP
Chris Butler, former Conservative MP
Maria Caulfield, former Conservative MP
Simon Danczuk, former Labour MP
Nadine Dorries, former Conservative MP
Chris Green, former Conservative MP
Jonathan Gullis, former Conservative MP
Adam Holloway, former Conservative MP
David Jones, former Conservative MP
Marco Longhi, former Conservative MP
Anne Marie Morris, former Conservative MP
Lia Nici, former Conservative MP
Henry Smith, former Conservative MP
Mark Reckless, former Conservative MP
Ross Thomson, former Conservative MP and MSP
Ann Widdecombe, former Conservative MP
Nadhim Zahawi, former Conservative MP
And that's just the consequential ones. It is little wonder that Farage wants to put a deadline in place after which he says he won't accept any more Tories. Reform has become the Tory party that crashed the economy. Why would anybody expect them to do any different if they got into government again.
Monday, January 19, 2026
Greenland crisis should push the UK closer to the EU
They report that the EU and the UK are in emergency talks on how to face Trump’s latest threat of a 10 per cent tariff on goods from eight countries unless Greenland is sold to the US, with the tariffs set to rise to 25 per cent on 1st June.
What Trump doesn't appear to understand is that if he smashes Nato, the US will be vulnerable to the very threats from China and Russia that he claims he wants to protect against by bringing Greenland into the US:
Britain has stood by its Nato commitment and sent one officer as a token presence on a token European military mission to Greenland. As the UK has negotiated 10 per cent tariffs with Trump vs the EU’s 15 per cent, it has a little more to lose in a decline in UK-US trade.
But it has a huge amount to gain economically, culturally, and now in terms of its security, if the crisis caused by Trump is seized as an opportunity for Britain to rejoin the EU on terms that bind the UK to the mainland. This would make both parties safer – and stop Putin from dancing a happy jig around the Kremlin.
Last year the UK and the EU failed to agree terms for Britain to join the Security Action for Europe (Safe) programme. This is a €150bn loan mechanism to boost the EU’s defence industrial capacity in the face of Russia’s threat against Europe and invasion of Ukraine.
Britain was asked to stump up €4-6bn as the price of membership. Canada only had to pay $20m, but the UK would have been a full partner, not a “third-party” country with limited access to the funds.
Britain would have been able to benefit enormously from cherry-picking this EU facility without having to go for political integration – which is why the EU set the fee so high
.
But that was years ago in Trump time. Last December on our calendars.
The EU needs Britain’s arms industry. And Britain needs the EU economic and security blanket.
The UK’s armed forces are small and impoverished, with their chiefs saying they face a £28bn funding shortfall.
According to a recent report by the Centre for Economic Policy: “By 2025, we estimate that UK GDP per capita was 6–8 per cent lower than it would have been without Brexit. Investment was 12–18 per cent lower, employment 3–4 per cent lower, and productivity 3–4 per cent lower.”
Other estimates put Britain’s losses at lower levels, but there can be no doubt that Brexit has been a strategic economic failure.
The Europeans are not having an easy run either. Per capita GDP growth for the UK from 2016 has been 4.5 per cent, Germany has almost flatlined at 3.6 per cent. France’s is only 7.5 per cent.
The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, said US tariffs would hit both sides of the Greenland debate but were a distraction from the "core task" of ending Russia's war in Ukraine.
"China and Russia must be having a field day. They are the ones who benefit from divisions among allies," Kallas said on X.
"Tariffs risk making Europe and the United States poorer and undermine our shared prosperity. If Greenland’s security is at risk, we can address this inside Nato," she added.
The EU needs help from the UK to do that. Britain has much to give the EU: its armed forces and military industries would accelerate and improve the bloc’s security.
If the UK Government was so minded, and they should be, this crisis could get them much more favourable terms to rejoin the EU. It would certainly benefit our security and our economy if we did that.
Sunday, January 18, 2026
A lobbying imbalance
The paper says that its investigation has found that Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and Elon Musk’s X, whose Grok AI image generator has sparked outrage with its sexualised images of women and children, were among the US tech companies holding hundreds of meetings with people at the heart of government:
Google, the $4tn California company, had the greatest access, with more than 100 ministerial meetings, according to an analysis of meeting records for the two years to October 2025, which campaigners said showed the tech industry’s “capture” of government. The industry lobbying group Tech UK met ministers at the rate of more than once every eight working days.
X attended 13 meetings, a small proportion of the overall number, but still more than the child safety campaign group the NSPCC or the Molly Rose Foundation, founded by the family of 14-year-old Molly Russell who killed herself after viewing harmful online content.
“The frequency of meetings between government and big tech and their advocates is astounding and points to the incredible power imbalance at stake when it comes to protecting children online,” said Andy Burrows, the chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation.
The government defended its position, saying “regular engagement with technology companies is vital to delivering economic growth and transforming public services”. Campaigners said the government should stop “bending the knee to US big tech companies” and that the figures revealed an “incredible power imbalance” when it came to protecting children online.
There has been growing controversy over X’s Grok AI tool, and a resurgence in the campaign for the government to follow Australia and ban social media for under-16s, which is opposed by tech companies. In the UK, 84% of people are concerned ministers will prioritise tech company partnerships over the public interest when it comes to AI regulation.
Dame Chi Onwurah, the Labour chair of the science and technology select committee, said the findings underscored “the reality that these firms have turnovers larger than the GDP of many countries, and their ability to influence stands in stark contrast to that of their users, our constituents, or those campaigning to make the internet safer”.
She said it was “crucial for big tech to be accountable to parliament – something that the disturbing recent news about ‘nudification’ tools has only underlined further”.
The technology companies and their lobbyists attended at least 639 meetings with ministers compared with just 75 meetings attended by the organisations and campaigners fighting for greater protections for children online, such as the NSPCC.
The tech firms’ access was also more than three times greater than that of organisations and campaigners seeking to protect creatives’ copyrighted works from being mined to build AI models, a development that figures including Elton John and Kazuo Ishiguro have said risks giving away artists’ “lifeblood”.
Ed Newton-Rex, a campaigner for creators’ rights, called the figures “shocking” and said they explained why ministers had launched their consultation on AI and copyright “with a ‘preferred option’ that read like a wishlist from big tech”.
“It is imperative that the government stop bending the knee to US big tech companies – which, as the recent Grok debacle has shown, don’t have the interests of the British people at heart,” he said.
As important as technology is, these figures are shocking. Government should be putting the safety of women and children ahead of the big tech companies and that should be reflected in the activities of ministers and their actions.
Saturday, January 17, 2026
The huge Roman villa unearthed in Margam
The footprint of the villa is 572 square metres, surrounded by fortifications, and according to the BBC, has been described by Dr Alex Langlands. the co-director of Swansea University's Centre for Heritage Research and Training, as a "really impressive and prestigious" building, likely to have been finely decorated with statues and mosaic floors:
The location, in a historical deer park, is significant because the land has not been ploughed or built on, meaning the villa's remains - less than a metre below the surface - look to be well preserved.
Those involved from Swansea University, Neath Port Talbot council and Margam Abbey Church said the discovery offered "unparalleled information about Wales' national story".
'''
"We've got what looks to be a corridor villa with two wings and a veranda running along the front," he explained.
"It's around 43m (141ft) long and looks to have six main rooms [to the front] with two corridors leading to eight rooms at the rear.
"Almost certainly you've got a major local dignitary making themselves at home here," he added.
"This would have been quite a busy place - the centre of a big agricultural estate and lots of people coming and going."
As a standalone structure, it is the largest villa yet to have been discovered in Wales.
Most of the known Roman remains in Wales are from military camps and forts, while grandiose estates like this are less commonly found.
The discovery would force experts to "rewrite the way we think about south Wales in the Romano-British period", Langlands said.
"This part of Wales isn't some sort of borderland, the edge of empire - in fact there were buildings here just as sophisticated and as high status as those we get in the agricultural heartlands of southern England."
It also showed that Margam - "a place that may even have lent its name to the historic region of Glamorgan" - was "one of the most important centres of power in Wales".
Further details of the team's findings will be shared at an open day at Margam Abbey Church today.
Friday, January 16, 2026
Another move by Labour towards suppressing free speech
The paper says that advocates for free speech and animal rights have warned that the move by home secretary Shabana Mahmood sets a dangerous precedent towards clamping down on basic freedoms, while activists staging round-the-clock vigils at a Cambridgeshire site breeding beagles for laboratory tests have vowed to risk arrest to continue protesting:
In a change to the law that was not part of a Bill before Parliament, Labour has amended the Public Order Act to categorise animal-testing facilities, including universities and laboratories, as “key infrastructure”, alongside airports, power stations and motorways.
Police will have stronger powers to stop protests, with penalties of up to a year in jail or an unlimited fine.
It means “Camp Beagle” demonstrators holding up placards outside a centre near Huntingdon that breeds dogs for laboratory testing could be prosecuted.
Anyone breaching the new ban may now face prison or an unlimited fine.
Cruelty Free International, which campaigns to end animal testing, branded the move “illiberal, draconian, unnecessary and almost certainly unlawful” and called on the Lords to reject it.
“This measure is an unjustified attack on democratic rights, and risks setting a dangerous precedent towards an ever-growing restriction of peaceful protest,” a spokesman said.
John Curtin, an organiser at Camp Beagle, told The Independent he and fellow members were prepared to be arrested.
“I’m not going to change my my actions one little bit, and we’ll just wait for the police to come along,” he said.
“They’re changing the law because we operate legally and peacefully.
“We’ve said the camp’s not going until this place is shut down. It’s business as usual. This is a disgusting act by the Labour Party who promised to get rid of animal testing. They’ll never live this down.”
Tens of thousands of people wrote to their MPs and members of the House of Lords to express their anger at the proposal before the vote.
But the government managed to pass the amendment by 301 votes to 110 after the Tories appeared to abstain on the issue, having previously tried to introduce the same measure before the election.
Nevertheless, 26 Labour MPs rebelled in another challenge to prime minister Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership.
One rebel MP pointed out: “We voted against this as the Labour Party when the Tories tried to do this in government; now our leadership is doing the same as the Tories.”
Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan is quite right when he warned of a slide against “the right to free assembly that began under the last government”:
“Shielding the powerful from dissent only strengthens our opponents. By curtailing the right to protest, we risk laying the foundations for a more authoritarian and less democratic state. That’s not the job of the Labour Party,”
I wonder if Labour ministers have thought that one of the reasons for the backlog of cases in the courts is because they keep prosceuting people for expressing their democratic opinion.
Thursday, January 15, 2026
Is the latest u-turn the final straw for Labour MPs?
The paper says that the government has reversed course on policy issues at least 11 times so far, including by raising the inheritance tax relief threshold for farmers after months of protest and scrapping a raft of benefits cuts under the threat of a backbench revolt.
They add that the latest decision comes amid growing concern over the direction of Sir Keir’s beleaguered Labour government in the face of disastrous approval ratings, with the prime minister facing mounting questions about his position:
Sir Keir last year said Labour would introduce a digital ID system that would be voluntary in most cases but mandatory for right-to-work checks. However, these plans were thrown into confusion on Tuesday night after it emerged that ministers were looking at rowing back on the compulsory element, allowing other digital documents to be used for right-to-work checks.
The U-turn, which has sparked a fresh wave of criticism from Labour backbenchers who believe the prime minister’s position is at risk, came just hours after health secretary Wes Streeting told a conference in London that the government should aim to “get it right first time”.
One despairing minister told The Independent: “Nobody knows what is going to happen next or what we are even doing.”
A senior Labour backbencher added: “It just feels like the government is in freefall at the moment. It is a complete shambles. It feels like this government is just holding on until May, and hoping that they can get through the moment of danger and things somehow turn around.”
Another MP said: “I keep being told to wait until the local elections in May, but increasingly I wonder what the point of that is.”
“It’s quite obvious No 10 have totally lost touch with reality,” another MP said of the U-turn. “One might have thought they were learning on the job. But their decision-making and policy development strategy is going from really bad to alarmingly inadequate.”
The MP expressed their belief that the prime minister will “fall on his sword” after what is expected to be a disastrous result for Labour at the local elections.
“A leadership contest has been on the cards for some time now. It’s widely accepted within the [parliamentary Labour Party] now. However, it’s a political game of chess – who makes the next move.”
Meanwhile, there has been vocal criticism of the attempt to revive Sir Tony Blair’s failed mandatory ID policy.
Norwich South MP Clive Lewis said: “This is the sort of thing a government tries to do at the height of its powers, not when it is struggling in the polls. If people trusted it on foreign policy and the economy, then it might have been able to say, ‘We are doing this in your best interests.’
“But these were badly designed plans in the first place. An unnecessary fight. And of course, it was always going to trigger the libertarian right.”
It came after former Labour home secretary David Blunkett fiercely criticised the U-turn, arguing that the government had been forced to abandon the scheme because it had failed to convince people of why it was a good idea after announcing it last year.
The u-turn is, of course, welcome, but one has to ask why it was proposed in the first place when there was no support for it, and how much money has been wasted on it already?
I think it is also the case that the proposal as it now stands is not even worth the paper it is written on and should be abandoned altogether before more public money is wasted,
Wednesday, January 14, 2026
The blame game and the leadership stakes
The paper says that Streeting's comments will be seen as an attack on complaints by allies of Keir Starmer that change has been constantly delayed by the number of regulations and arm’s-length bodies:
One of the prime minister’s former key aides Paul Ovenden authored a piece earlier this month about the power of a “stakeholder state”. He said campaign groups, regulators, litigators, trade bodies and well-networked organisations were hobbling any change the government wanted to pursue. Starmer himself has voiced frustration that “levers” that he could pull as prime minister often resulted in obstruction.
At the same conference, Streeting’s comments were echoed by Louise Casey, the lead non-executive director in Whitehall, who said the government needed to “just stop” complaining it was difficult to get things done. However, she also highlighted a “sense of learned helplessness and hopelessness” within the civil service and an “intransigence” in the face of change.
In his remarks, Streeting said he was angered to see his own side making similar comments to the hard right about public services’ inability to change.
He said: “The right encourage this argument. They are rolling the pitch to come in with a chainsaw and tear up public services entirely.
“Bafflingly, some on my own side of the political divide have begun to parrot the same argument. They complain about the civil service. They blame stakeholder capture.
“This excuses culture does the centre-left no favours. If we tell the public that we can’t make anything work, then why on earth would they vote to keep us in charge?”
Streeting likened the state to a shopping trolley with a “wonky wheel” which is primed towards the status quo. But he said that was no excuse for poor steering.
“We should be in no doubt that they are excuses… There’s no point complaining about the wonky wheel if you’re letting the trolley have a mind of its own, instead of steering it towards the destination you’re after.
“We are not simply at the mercy of forces outside of our control. Our fortunes are in our hands. And it is precisely because we on centre-left believe in the power of the state to transform people’s lives, that we are best placed to change it.”
Streeting said politicians should be getting on with fixing the issues without delay. “Where there aren’t levers, we build them. Where there are barriers, we bulldoze them. Where there is poor performance, we challenge it,” he said.
He said that reform of public services was “one of the greatest challenges of our age … Failure in this area has led to disaffection, cynicism, and ultimately the rise of populists.”
But he said it was also urgent because of surging demand for health and care services, including people managing multiple conditions, failures in prevention and demand for mental health and special needs services. And he said people were paying more and more but getting “a poorer service in return”.
“They rightly ask: if I can track a parcel across the world, why can’t the state tell me what’s happening with my case? Why do I have to tell my story five times? Why do I have to travel, queue, wait and chase? Unless the state modernises it will become increasingly irrelevant to the lives of its citizens.
“Failure to address these challenges is creating a national mood of cynicism and pessimism. But the most corrosive sense of all is fatalism: the idea that things can’t change.”
Starmer had told the liaison committee of MPs before Christmas of his own frustrations with the delays built into the functioning of government.
“My experience now as prime minister is of frustration that every time I go to pull a lever there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arm’s-length bodies that mean that the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be, which is among the reasons why I want to cut down on regulation, generally and within government,” he told the committee.
The Labour leadership campaign really is up and running.
Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Another one jumps to the new Tory Party
The Independent reports that the latest defector has been less than discreet in the past as to what he thinks of Nigel Farage and Reform. Everybody is entitled to change their mind, of course.
The paper says that former Tory Chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, previously said he would be “frightened” to live in a country run by the future Clacton MP and yet yesterday he insisted that Britain “really does need Nigel Farage as prime minister”:
But within minutes, contradictory statements that Mr Zahawi had made on social media about Mr Farage in previous years emerged.
Responding to Mr Farage's 2015 call to scrap much of the UK’s racial discrimination in the workplace legislation, Mr Zahawi wrote on social media: “I’m not British Born Mr @Nigel_Farage I am as British as u r. Yr comments r offensive&racist. I wld b frightened 2live in country run by U.”
“It looks like Farage was right when he said Nadhim Zahawi is ‘just about climbing that greasy pole’,” a Tory source told The Independent.
“Haunted by the spectre of his own irrelevance, Zahawi has jumped on the gravy train. But his sudden, dramatic change of heart won’t be enough to revive his failing political career.”
The 2015 post is one of several statements Mr Zahawi has previously made about the Reform UK leader.
Pointing out his record of running for political office multiple times, he labelled Mr Farage as “establishment as they come” in 2014.
He wrote in Conservative Home a year later: “I was born in Baghdad but am deeply proud to call myself British. My parents chose to make Britain their home because this was a place where belonging was about what you put in, rather than where you came from.
“What’s frightening is that in Farage’s Britain people like me could be lawfully discriminated against and British businesses would be encouraged to bin our CVs.”
Asked in 2014 about his political allegiances, he wrote on X (then Twitter): “Been a Conservative all my life and will die a Conservative.”
Meanwhile, another article in the Independent claims that Zahawi defected after apparently unsuccessfully “begging” Kemi Badenoch to be nominated for a peerage.
This has, of course, raised question marks about the motivations of the man who was sacked as a minister for breaching the ministerial code over his tax affairs. The claim has echoes of Nadine Dorries’ defection after her nomination for a peerage by Boris Johnson was blocked during Rishi Sunak’s government.
It seems that Zahawi and Reform deserve each other.
Monday, January 12, 2026
Labour MPs step up campaign to ban cryptocurrency political donations
The paper says that the committee chairs – Liam Byrne, Emily Thornberry, Tan Dhesi, Florence Eshalomi, Andy Slaughter, Chi Onwurah and Matt Western – called on the government to introduce a full ban in the forthcoming elections bill amid concern that cryptocurrency could be used by foreign states to influence politics:
Government sources told the Guardian last year that ministers are looking at ways to ban political donations made with cryptocurrency but the crackdown is not likely to be ready for the elections bill due early this year.
Byrne said the committee chairs are concerned political finance “must be transparent, traceable and enforceable” but crypto donations undermine all three.
“Crypto can obscure the true source of funds, enable thousands of micro donations below disclosure thresholds, and expose UK politics to foreign interference,” he said. “The Electoral Commission has warned that current technology makes these risks exceptionally hard to manage.
“Other democracies have already acted. The UK should not wait until a scandal forces our hand. This is not about opposing innovation. It is about protecting democracy with rules that work in the real world.”
The government increasingly believes that donations made with cryptocurrency pose a risk to the integrity of the electoral system, not least because the source can be hard to verify.
However, the complex nature of cryptocurrency means officials do not believe a ban will be workable by the time of the elections bill, due to be published shortly, which is set to lower the voting age to 16 and reduce loopholes in political finance.
The government’s ambition to ban crypto donations will be a blow to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, which became the first to accept contributions in digital currency this year. It is believed to have received its first registrable donations in cryptocurrency this autumn and the party has set up its own crypto portal to receive contributions, saying it is subject to “enhanced” checks.
Pat McFadden, then a Cabinet Office minister, first raised the idea in July, saying: “I definitely think it is something that the Electoral Commission should be considering. I think that it’s very important that we know who is providing the donation, are they properly registered, what are the bona fides of that donation.”
The Electoral Commission provides guidance on crypto donations but ministers accept any ban would probably have to come from the government through legislation.
Campaign groups have highlighted risks of allowing donations in cryptocurrency. Susan Hawley, the executive director of Spotlight on Corruption, said the prospective ban was welcome but that the government must “come forward with a criminal offence that makes it much harder for foreign money to get into UK politics and make sure that the police are properly resourced to investigate it”.
“Crypto donations present real risks to our democracy,” she added. “We know that bad actors like Russia use crypto to undermine and interfere in democracies globally, while the difficulties involved in tracing the true source of transactions means that British voters may not know everyone who’s funding the parties they vote for.”
The sooner the government acts on this, the better.
Sunday, January 11, 2026
Is Starmer poised for yet another u-turn?
Turner told the paper that MPs would be “going stark raving mad” if the Tories had proposed the much-criticised plans and called for a meeting with the prime minister:
“We are absolutely seething with the government, with the prime minister and with David Lammy and I've said to the prime minister I want to see him face to face on this single issue and I expect him to instruct Lammy to stop and think again,” told Times Radio.
“People are cheesed off. It's not in the manifesto. If this was the Tory government doing this, Labour MPs would be going absolutely stark raving mad including Keir Starmer and including David Lammy.”
“I am absolutely confident that if they're daft enough to put this legislation forward in the shape of the courts bill, which will probably be the second half of this year, I'm confident we'll defeat it.”
A number of Labour MPs have privately told The Independent that they believe the plan to restrict jury trials to the most serious crimes is going to be “quietly dropped”.
It follows revelations earlier this week, first carried by The Independent, that Rachel Reeves plans to ditch plans to end business rates relief on pubs.
The plans announced last year by deputy prime minister David Lammy were meant to be designed to help end the backlog in the courts which has been in place since the covid pandemic lockdown.
It was based on recommendations by retired judge Sir Brian Leveson and would include interim “swift courts” with judge made decisions and greater use of magistrates courts.
Only the most severe offences, like murder and rape, would retain mandatory jury trials.
Cases with likely jail terms under three years would move to judge-only trials, estimated to be faster. Long fraud and financial cases would also move to judge-only, freeing jurors.
But the plans have caused a backlash including among Labour MPs.
Now the government has postponed any vote on the plans until October at the earliest after the next King’s speech in May.
One MP said: “It looks like the whole thing will be quietly ditched.”
Another senior MP said: “I would be amazed if they actually follow through with the attacks on jury trial. My understanding is any legislation on this is earmarked for October and that’s a long way away in political terms. I presume they’ll dump it - quietly or otherwise.”
The issue has echoes of the welfare rebellion last summer when plans to slash the bill by £5bn were ditched to prevent defeat in the Commons by angry Labour backbenchers.
Ministers were defending the proposals in an opposition day debate last week called by the Tories but opposition was again voiced by Labour MPs including Mr Turner who pointed out he has never rebelled before.
A u-turn or a defeat on this wholly illiberal measure would be very welcome, however what does this say about Starmer's government? His administration is rapidly becoming one of u-turns, so much so that it would be surprising if they can still walk in a straight line.
Saturday, January 10, 2026
From ruins to a cultural centre
As the centre's website relates, the Old Guildhall (as it was known) looked quite different to today:
Built by Thomas Bowen, between 1825-1829, from designs by architect John Collingwood, the building originally had sweeping grand staircases either side of the main entrance and the building housed court rooms and smaller offices.
Beautiful as the structure was, the doubling in size of the borough through the Municipal Corporations Act (1835) meant that the building could not function to the capacity needed. Thus the decision was made to enlarge the site in 1848, with the newer version of the Guildhall completed in 1852 by William Richards to plans by architect Thomas Taylor.
As well as a more spacious building, the façade was embellished and the courtyard to the front contained a statue of the MP and industrialist John Henry Vivian, as well as two Russian canons captured during the Battle of Balaclava in the Crimean War.
The building functioned as the Guildhall until 1934 when the decision was taken to build an entirely new civic centre (which includes the Brangwyn Hall) near Sandfields and St Helen’s cricket ground.
In the late 1930s, following this move, the Old Guildhall became a place of education and training:
Its first role was as a juvenile employment centre; briefly interrupted when the building was requisitioned by the army for recruitment purposes during the Second World War.
From 1949 to 1969 the building returned to its former role in education: one section of the Old Guildhall was occupied by the Youth Employment Bureau and another part of the building became Swansea Technical School. Later, the space would house the College of Further Education (1960-1971) and was finally the annexe to Dynevor School (1970-1982) until the building closed in 1982.
I first came across it in the mid-1990s, when Swansea was bidding to become the city of literature. I was a non-voting member of the company board set up to organise this festival, and one of our first tasks was to establish a literature centre. When it became clear that a new build was not possible, the then West Glamorgan County Council offered us the old Guildhall.
By then the building had been uninhabited for over a decade. It was covered in graffiti and was being used as a shelter by a number of homeless people. It was also listed, so the renovation had to be carried out very carefully, essentially keeping the facade and demolishing and rebuilding everything behind it.
It re-opened in 1995 as Tŷ Llên (‘the house of literature’), the major venue for the UK Year of Literature with the ceremony being performed by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter – himself a fan of Dylan Thomas’s work.
In October 2014, the Centre launched the permanent "Love the Words" exhibition which explores Dylan's life and work through a variety of media and including letters, books, worksheets and photographs, made possible with support of nearly £1 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund.
The Dylan Thomas Centre was also home to a year-round programme of literary events, including book launches, plays, poetry evenings, changing exhibitions and science talks and hosted the annual Dylan Thomas Festival held between Dylan’s birth and death dates, 27 October to 9 November.
Friday, January 09, 2026
Where does Farage stand on Russia and UK security?
The paper refers to the statement by Britain and France that they would be ready to send troops to Ukraine after a peace deal, and that the Reform UK leader said he would vote against any such move to put boots on the ground:
Farage’s comments cast doubt on his commitment to the UK’s national security, the cabinet minister Pat McFadden said. He accused the politician of taking a pro-Russia stance on the issue, which he said should give voters “pause for thought”.
“This guarantee is not just for Ukraine, it’s for the whole of Europe,” he said. “It’s in the British national interest that we do that, and that’s why it’s so concerning to me to see some politicians, like Mr Farage, for example, immediately come out [and] parrot the Kremlin line and say that he wouldn’t support this.”
Farage faced criticism for “not really [being] an MP at all” on Wednesday after choosing to appear on Times Radio instead of attending prime minister’s questions in the Commons. During the broadcast he criticised Starmer’s Ukraine policy and said he would vote against any proposal to deploy troops to the country.
“It would be a very interesting vote. I would vote against,” said Farage, who is one of five Reform MPs. “We neither have the manpower nor the equipment to go into an operation that clearly has no ending timeline.”
...
Farage’s stance on Russia has become a key Labour attack line against Reform, in particular since the jailing of the party’s former leader in Wales Nathan Gill in last November for taking bribes to make statements in favour of Russia when he was an MEP.
In the past, Farage has spoken of his admiration for Putin as a political operator and repeatedly warned the west against “poking the Russian bear with a stick”, accusing the EU of provoking the war in Ukraine in 2024. After criticism, he wrote in the Telegraph that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was “immoral, outrageous and indefensible” but added: “[I]f you have neither the means nor the political will to face him down, poking a bear is obviously not good foreign policy.”
A Labour spokesperson said Farage’s comments were the “behaviour of Putin’s puppet”. They said: “Nigel Farage’s equivocation on support for Ukraine is an insult to those who have fought to defend freedom.
“When Farage shrugs at support for Ukraine, a country that has been brutally invaded, people are entitled to ask who he is really speaking for, because this is not patriotism, it’s the behaviour of Putin’s puppet.”
Farage and Reform's attitude towards Putin and Russia needs to be scrutinised much more closely and publicised widely.
Thursday, January 08, 2026
Labour turn the screw on higher education
The Guardian quotes the the Institute for Fiscal Studies who say that universities that relied on fees from international students have also been hit by the last government’s visa changes, which set off a steep fall in the numbers coming to study in the UK. A freeze on tuition fees has not helped either.
Of course, those who might have expected that a Labour government might relax the visa regime. enabling higher education instititions to recover some of the overseas student market, were predictably disappointed when their ministers made it clear that they were not prepared to do that.
Effectively, public funding has contracted and other sources of income have been stretched thinner and thinner, while academic careers have become increasingly precarious as permanent jobs have disappeared. However, things may well get worse as this Guarduan editorial makes clear:
If the sector looked forward to better treatment under a Labour government, its hopes have been dashed. No sooner had Bridget Phillipson announced plans to change the law so that tuition fees will in future rise with inflation, than another decision wiped out the modest gains from this one. From 2028, universities must pay a new flat tax or “levy” of £925 for every international student that they recruit. Coming on top of tighter visa restrictions, which have already made such recruitment harder, some universities will find it increasingly difficult to balance their books. As students and academics return to campuses this month, 24 institutions are regarded by their regulator, the Office for Students, as being at risk of collapse within 12 months. More could exit the market in the next few years.
Further strikes, cuts and closures are likely. But judging by the plans published so far, ministers are ill-prepared for what is coming. The white paper published in the autumn said that universities should work more closely with further education providers. It also promised reform of the research excellence framework and a new power for the Office for Students to cap numbers. But while such problem-solving measures are fine in themselves, they do not add up to an overall strategy, or explain what the promised “change of approach” is meant to achieve.
Despite all their difficulties, universities remain an enormous and irreplaceable national asset. As well as educating millions of people, they generate about £24bn in export earnings, which is about 1% of GDP – more than aircraft manufacturing and legal services combined, as a recent study of public attitudes to higher education pointed out. It was right for ministers to make skills policy a priority. Reform of the options for school leavers and adult learners was long overdue. But ministers cannot continue to ignore the impossible situation that universities have been placed in by successive governments. They need a policy of their own.
So much for Labour's commitment to higher education.
Wednesday, January 07, 2026
The pylons marching across Wales
The news site says that Dr Jonathan Dean, a trustee of the countryside charity CPRW, has written a lengthy submission to the Independent Advisory Group on Future Electricity Grid for Wales in which he argues that a new transmission grid from north to south Wales is wholly unnecessary:
He states: “In our experience, the main issue the public have with overhead electricity lines is pylons. The public just don’t like them. The bigger they are, the more they dislike them.
“The subject has been extensively studied in the academic literature. There are even books on the topic, and a study into the Hinckley C connection by Matthew Cotton and Patrick Devine-Wright in the Journal of Environmental Planning and Management reached the following interesting conclusions:
* The findings show how potential health effects from electric and magnetic fields (EMF) and visual impacts are perceived to industrialise rural places,disrupt place attachments and provoke local opposition.
* The findings challenge the ‘not-in-my- back-yard’ assumption that citizens are selfish place-protectionists that lack the technical sophistication necessary to take a strategic viewpoint on transmission system development.
* They also reveal how decision making under the … Planning Inspectorate … presents a challenge to procedural justice, as front-loaded developer-led consultation practices curtail citizen input to key decisions on alternative technologies (for example, underground or undersea lines). This is likely to exacerbate public mistrust of transmission system operators and provoke further organised protest.
“So in brief, people don’t like them due to health worries and visual amenity loss, it’s wrong to brand them NIMBYs and things won’t change unless the planning process does.”
Dr Dean points out that there is a presumption in favour of pylons as the default technology, but that offshore wind, and any associated infrastructure is deemed a Critical National Priority, with the highest level of support in the planning system.
He states: “The stage seems set for more public opposition as the plans for progressing to net zero, in the long term, and clean power, in the short term, get revealed.”
Pylons are used by both the transmission grids and distribution grids. For pylons carrying a voltage higher than 132 kV, the development of overhead lines is consented via the Planning Act 2008, with applications examined by the Planning Inspectorate and decided by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband.
132 kV is the highest distribution voltage and consented the same as transmission, except for the cases of lines serving Welsh generators that are totally in Wales, in which case they are examined by the Welsh Government’s planning body PEDW and decided by Welsh Ministers.
Dr Dean states that lines of under 132 kV are typically on wooden poles or double poles, and are far less controversial with the public. It is the 132 kV and 400 kV lines that cause the majority of issues, and most of these are consented by the Secretary of State.
He continues: “Wales has committed to be globally responsible by hosting enough renewables to at least meet its own electricity needs by 2035.
“It is entirely feasible for Wales to generate the equivalent of 100% of its electricity demand by 2035 using only offshore wind power. This would have a dramatic impact on the requirements of the transmission and distribution grids.
“It is our opinion that the reason this is not happening is because the Welsh Government has failed to secure sufficient development leases from the Crown Estate, either under the previous UK government or the current one. This may be due to the constant confusion between a need for more offshore capacity and the desire for the Crown Estate to be devolved.
“It would be entirely possible for Wales to have far more offshore wind power irrespective of the status of the Crown Estate. While CPRW does support devolution of the Crown Estate in Wales, this should not be seen, or used, as a means of delaying the building of more offshore wind capacity, particularly in the Irish Sea which is shallow and able to be developed using conventional fixed base turbines (like the North Sea).”
There appears to be two issues here. Firstly, the need to concentrate more on off-shore wind, but secondly if the Crown Estates was devolved to the Welsh Government, it would make it much easier for them to advance that agenda.
In the meantime, there needs to be a clear policy to underground cables rather than rely on pylons to better protect our landscapes.
Tuesday, January 06, 2026
The empty rhetoric of Reform
The paper says that in addition, a 5% council tax rise has not been ruled out by leaders at Reform-led Lancashire and Kent county councils, as well as in Warwickshire:
The increase in council tax in Derbyshire is expected to raise about £29m this financial year and will coincide with a new round of cuts worth £22m, according to its budget saving proposals.
The savings do not appear to include significant job cuts, despite council leader, Alan Graves, pledging to do so after claiming the local authority was 20% overstaffed.
The budget proposals report blames inflation, rising demand and the government’s new local government funding formula as having contributed to budgetary pressures.
It states the council “being a rural shire county has suffered as a result of the reforms” and in order to “maintain funding levels there will be a need to set increases in council tax at the maximum permitted level”.
The proposed increase in council tax has attracted criticism from opposition councillors in Derbyshire who accuse the party of “empty rhetoric”.
Conservative opposition leader, Alex Dale, said: “It is now painfully clear that Reform’s promise to ‘cut your taxes’, plastered across leaflets and campaign material right across the county in last year’s elections, was nothing more than empty rhetoric.
“Residents were sold a simple slogan, but the reality is that those promises were as worthless as the paper they were printed on.”
Gez Kinsella, the leader of the Green group at the council, said the party had promised to “cut taxes and improve services”, adding: “Reform’s ‘moon on a stick’ promises are turning out to be as true as the previous Conservative administration fantasy economics.”
Kinsella shared leaflets and letters she said Reform had distributed in Derbyshire before the local elections which pledged to “cut your taxes” and criticised rising council tax bills amid cuts to services.
In March this year, Derbyshire councillor Martin Bromley also posted an image on Facebook which included the statement: “Say no to Labour … say no to increased council tax.”
Reform UK said it never promised to freeze or reduce council tax during the election campaign and any pledges to reduce taxes were in relation to national policy.
Similar criticisms have also been raised at other Reform-led councils.
Leicestershire county council leader, Dan Harrison, declared the party would be able to “cut council tax” after the May local elections. However, just six months later, Harrison conceded that, although “a council tax freeze is our aspiration … conditions are unlikely to allow this for next year”.
The so-called disruptors turn out to be nothing of the sort. Quel surprise!
Monday, January 05, 2026
Is rejoining the EU in the UK's future?
The paper says that the YouGov survey, carried out in six European countries, shows 50 per cent of voters in the UK would vote to be an EU member if there was a referendum now, compared to 45 per cent and 46 per cent in France and Italy. The numbers were higher in Germany (62 per cent) Denmark (75 per cent) and Spain (66 per cent):
It also found that in Britain, just 31 per cent of people said they would vote to be outside the EU – far fewer than the 52 per cent who backed Brexit nearly a decade ago. In France, that figure was 30 per cent, Italy 28 per cent, Germany 20 per cent, Denmark 14 per cent and Spain 13 per cent.
The findings will put pressure on Keir Starmer days after No 10 said he would stick to his EU “red lines”, despite an interview in which Wes Streeting appeared to back a customs union with the bloc.
In what was seen as a direct challenge to Sir Keir, his health secretary said a “deeper trading relationship” with Europe would boost UK economic growth.
The Labour leader has pledged a “reset” of UK-EU relations but has rejected calls to rejoin the group or become part of its single market or customs union.
Despite Sir Keir’s stance, Labour ministers have begun to talk up the economic costs of Brexit more.
Last month, it was reported that Baroness Shafik, Sir Keir’s chief economic adviser, privately recommended rejoining the customs union in the run-up to November’s Budget, arguing it would cut costs for businesses and increase exports.
The deputy prime minister, David Lammy, also suggested that rejoining the union could increase economic growth, although he stressed it was not government policy.
It comes after an analysis seen by The Independent revealed that Brexit is costing the UK up to £90bn a year in lost tax revenues.
Lib Dem Europe spokesperson Al Pinkerton said: "The British people are tired of the economic self-harm imposed by the Conservatives’ broken Brexit deal. The government must stop burying their heads in the sand and listen to the clear majority of voters who are crying out for closer relations with our neighbours.”
Surely, it is time that Starmer started listening, the UK's economy depends on it.
