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.
Sunday, November 30, 2025
The unelected power of the ultra-rich
The report claims that unelected influence has increased over the past two decades, driven by the growing political clout of the ultra-rich and the institutions that enable it:
Priya Sahni-Nicholas, the co-executive director of the trust, said: “Our new Concentration of Power Index shows that wealth concentration aligns with power. Our index rises almost exactly in step with increases in the top 1% share of wealth. This correlation is strong and statistically significant.”
The study – Money, Media and Lords: How the ultra-rich are shaping Britain – argues that unelected power in Britain has risen sharply at the same time as an increasing amount of money is spent on political access and influence.
“These trends move in lockstep with wealth concentration at the top and are increasingly embedded within the country’s political and media systems,” said Sahni-Nicholas.
The report shows how the appointments system for the House of Lords, the scale of political donations and the concentration of media ownership each function as “conduits for unelected power”.
Unelected membership of the Lords, the report highlights, has expanded from 676 to 803 in the past 20 years – the same period that political donations above £250,000 have jumped from £7.6m to more than £47m.
Seven peers in the House of Lords last week behaved in a way critics said was “all but unconstitutional” by in effect blocking a bill passed by the House of Commons after years of public debate.
The Guardian’s own analysis has found that one in 10 peers were paid for political advice in the 2019 to 2024 parliament.
The trust’s report also shows how media ownership has become dramatically more concentrated, with the share controlled by the UK’s three biggest news conglomerates rising from 71% to about 90%.
“This is structural corruption,” Sahni-Nicholas argued. “It is a legal, slow-moving operation where institutions adapt to serve concentrated wealth.”
The UK government is drawing up media amendments allowing foreign states to own up to a 15% stake in British newspapers and magazines.
The Guardian view on the peers lobbying scandal: Lords reform is a vital step for restoring trust in democracy
This has caused anxiety among critics who are already concerned that Google commands 93% of UK search engine use, while Meta and Google together account for three-fifths of all UK advertising spend.
The trust recommends prohibiting private donations of more than £5,000, putting limits on political appointments and patronage, encouraging ownership diversity and investing in and funding independent local media to dilute the dominance of a few large actors.
There are already calls for an investigation into Russian influence on British politics. This report outlines the very conditions that allows a hostile player like Russia to use, abuse and disrupt the system. That inquiry is desperately needed.
