Saturday, November 08, 2025
The castle that isn't
This website takes up the story:
In the late 18th century industry was booming in the area around Swansea in Wales. Ever more sophisticated machines were powering the various works, and coal was required to fuel the industry. With copper works and coal mines, John Morris was a wealthy man and lived in style at the newly-built Clasemont , a grand classical mansion. The unusual structure he had constructed to house some of his workers was also eye-catching, but within decades it was dismissed as a folly.
John Morris (1745-1819) was a partner in Lockwood, Morris & Co., the biggest of the copper smelting enterprises in the area, and the rapid expansion of the works meant further housing was needed for his workforce. On the hill called Cnap Lwyd he built a vast fortress-like structure, with four corner towers and a central courtyard, which quickly became known as Morris Castle. It provided homes for a number of families (accounts vary between 20 and 40), and was one of the earliest examples of a tenement for estate workers. Probably designed by architect John Johnson, who also designed Clasemont (or Clas Mont or Glasmount), the castle had decorative quoins and battlements made of copper slag, a by-product of the smelting process. The waste could be moulded into blocks, their darker tone and soft sheen contrasting nicely with the local building stone.
Thomas Rowlandson, The White Rock Copper Works, 1797. Image courtesy of Lowell Libson & Jonny Yarker Ltd. Morris Castle can be seen on the horizon. But whilst handsome, Morris Castle was not practical. A passer-by in 1776, only a few years after it was completed, found there was already dissent: ‘Mr Morris has built a very large house on a high hill which makes a striking appearance for the Workmen to dwell in, but they complain of clambering up to it’. By 1796 the grand hillside fort was shown to tourists as ‘Morris’s Folly’: the development had been an experiment that failed. Would the workpeople ‘go the summit of a high hill and live in “flats” … when there was plenty of space for pretty little white-washed cottages?’, queried a later writer, before concluding: ‘They would not!’.
Morris learned from his mistakes, and when he created a new town for his workers in the late 1770s, the buildings were conventional cottages and on lower ground. This planned settlement, named Morris Town or Morriston, thrived, and in 1819 the ‘houses for the poorer classes’, neatly arranged in straight lines, were considered ‘excellent and commodious’: by that date Morris Castle did not even merit a mention.
The ruins are very prominent and can be seen from large areas of Swansea. Given the name, it is not surprising that many people believe that they used to be some sort of fortification.
It is possible to walk up there, and I'm told the views are spectacular, but it isn't a feat I've attempted myself - yet!
Friday, November 07, 2025
Careless Labour ministers undermine government authority
The paper says that in a letter addressed to Keir Starmer, Nandy apologised for contravening the rules by not disclosing that David Kogan, her appointee, had previously donated to her leadership campaign.
They add that a report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, investigating Mr Kogan’s selection as chairman of the Independent Football Regulator, concluded that she had "unknowingly" committed this "error".
I know Labour party members who will put this down to a minor error, and in the great scheme of things it is. However, a pattern is starting to emerge of sheer carelessness on the part of Labour Ministers that is contributing the impression that the government is rudderless.
There is Angela Rayner resigning over a mistake with stamp duty on her new home, and Rachel Reeves failing to license the house she is renting out, and now we have Lisa Nandy and a failure to register an interest.
Throw in David Lammy not briefing the House of Commons on a mistakenly-freed prisoner because he did not have all the detail at the time, and it is beginning to look like amateur-hour.
Starmer needs to get a grip.
Thursday, November 06, 2025
Be careful who you vote for
They tell us about Phil Price, whose mother is in Grove House in Adlington, one of the homes earmarked for closure by the Reform-run council:
He said: “My mum is 93. If she finds out about this, it’ll kill her.”
He said he was disgusted at what he fears is a conflict of interest involving Reform’s cabinet member for adult social care, Graham Dalton, who owns a private care company in Lancashire.
“I’m a paid-up member of Reform and I’m disgusted with him,” said Price.
He voted for Reform knowing they planned to cut “waste”. But he said: “If there are parents who have paid into the system all their lives, worked hard for this country, if they’re ‘waste’, then we might as well just give up.” He said he would quit Reform UK if the homes closed.
The paper says that Lancashire’s Reform-run council has been accused of “selling off the family silver” through its plans to save £4m a year by closing five council-run care homes and five day centres and moving residents into the private sector:
At the same time questions are also being asked about a potential conflict of interest involving Reform’s cabinet member for social care in Lancashire, who owns a private care company with his wife, Dalton, a nurse, insisted he was not conflicted:
He told the committee he was a part owner of 1st for Care GB. The company, based in Lancaster, offers private care, including 24-hour complex care and respite care.
But he said he had “no pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest” in the care home closures.
He was challenged by councillors including Liz McInnes, a former Labour MP who now sits on Rossendale borough council.
She said: “I’m fairly sure that on our council if someone was part-owner of a care service that would at least be counted as a non-pecuniary interest because they could potentially benefit from care homes closing.”
On Wednesday evening the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey, said on X: “If this is what happens when Reform runs a council, just imagine [Nigel] Farage running the country – care homes closed and vulnerable people abandoned. We cannot let Trump’s America become Farage’s Britain.”
This is why it is important to establish that whoever you vote for has detailed policies and some idea of how they will deliver on them, something lacking for Nigel Farage's party at present, at any level.
Wednesday, November 05, 2025
Farage outlines his real agenda
The paper says that Farage rejected suggestions he had been forced to break manifesto promises in order to gain economic credibility, suggesting the proposal had only ever been an “aspiration”. However, the substance of his speech suggests that Reform's real agenda is to cut benefits, cut the minimum wage, raise retirement age, and means test pensions:
Reform’s manifesto committed the party to tax cuts worth about a third of the NHS budget, but economists said the plans – along with £50bn of spending commitments and £150bn of cuts – were “problematic” and cost far more than claimed.
Reform has yet to set out any detailed plans on spending cuts, although it has signalled there will be big reductions on welfare benefits, net zero policies, support for asylum seekers, foreign aid and the Whitehall civil service.
In his speech, Farage said: “I cannot tell you what the state of the economy will be as the next general election approaches. If I’m right, and that election comes in 2027 then the economy will be in an even worse state than any of us in this room could even relate.
“So how can anybody project on pensions or thresholds or any of those things between now and then … They were only ever aspirations. I think what you’re seeing today is us being realistic about the state of the economy.”
Reform is also understood to be looking at changes to public sector pensions, leading to suggestions that it could cut the future incomes of millions of nurses, teachers and police. Farage said he was focusing on “exorbitant” management fees paid by pension funds.
This is the man who sold Brexit to the country, undermining our economy and enabling the hundreds of small boats in the English channel that he now wants to exploit for his own political gain.
This is the man who stands by Sarah Pochin and her venal race comments, while raking in fees from Nomad Capitalist, a consultancy that provides strategies for high-net-worth-individuals to avoid paying tax by moving their lives and businesses offshore.
None of this serves the interest of the UK or of ordinary voters.
Tuesday, November 04, 2025
Protecting the fat cats
The site says that the axing comes following pressure from corporate lobbyists who objected to leading companies and their directors being put on the 'naughty step' over issues such as ballooning executive pay because it harmed their reputation:
In 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May ordered the Investment Association (IA), a trade body that represents fund managers, to keep track of quoted firms where at least a fifth of investors had rebelled at their annual meeting.
The list was meant to improve transparency for shareholders, staff and public by pressuring quoted firms to curb executive excess, as protest votes generally are themselves not binding.
But in a surprise move Business Minister Blair McDougall has told the IA to drop the register 'to remove duplication' as part of a series of 'pro-growth' measures designed to cut red tape for firms.
The IA confirmed the register was no longer being updated.
'This is another small but significant nail in the coffin of our reputation for high standards of corporate governance,' said Catherine Howarth of campaign group ShareAction.
'For the last year, corporate lobbyists have been chipping away all too successfully at standards and structures which protect the investing public, both retail investors and the UK's vast number of pension savers.'
The decision was 'disappointing from a government displaying a concerning pattern of disregard for shareholder rights,' she said.
Corporate governance expert Tom Powdrill said: 'It is a bit odd to see Labour scrap an initiative intended to restrain executive pay by taking a position less radical than the Conservatives who introduced it.'
What are Labour playing at?
Monday, November 03, 2025
Tory-Reform pact on ECHR won't stop the boats
Now, they're at it again, claiming that the answer to all of our problems lie in us joining Putin's Russia outside the European Convention on Human Rights, as if further isolation from the rest of the World is going to make us stronger.
This has not stopped Badenoch's Tories casting one last desperate throw of the dice by joining Farage's Reform in wanting to ditch Winston Churchill's great legacy, which he designed to form a bulwark to future dictatorships. History is not a strong suit for the political right wing.
The Independent has news for these popularist wannabes. They report that nearly 300 organisations have issued a rallying cry for a “full-throated defence” of the European Convention on Human Rights, accusing politicians of using it as a scapegoat with devastating effects.
They say that groups ranging from Liberty to Refuge, health charity Parkinson's UK and the Centre for Military Justice have warned that the ECHR protects “the rights of ordinary people every day up and down the country from victims of sexual violence to LGBT+ service personnel, public interest journalists to mental health patients”:
They have accused politicians of “using our human rights as a scapegoat…. [and] escalating, irresponsible rhetoric targeting migrant and minoritised communities, which has devastating real-world consequences”.
Sam Grant, director of external affairs at Liberty, which organised the statement from 292 organisations, said: “There are people in powerful positions who want us to believe that we would be better off without the ECHR – don’t believe them.
“For decades our human rights laws have underpinned all of our daily lives by giving us the ability to speak freely, love who we want, and live in peace. These rights were hard-won and we must not allow governments now or in the future to take them away.”
The statement, which has been signed by organisations including Ben and Jerry's, Shelter, Mind, Disability Action and the Centre for Women's Justice, argues the ECHR “is fundamental to our democracy and enables ordinary people, of all backgrounds, to hold the state and public bodies accountable”.
Developed after the Second World War, with the UK playing a leading role, the ECHR and the Human Rights Act (HRA), which incorporates it into British law, “have protected the rights of ordinary people every day up and down the country; from victims of sexual violence to LGBT+ service personnel, public interest journalists to mental health patients and victims of serious injustice (from Hillsborough to Windrush)”, the groups said.
“The ECHR helped bring peace finally in Northern Ireland, through the Good Friday Agreement, and has improved the quality of public services. We reject the narrative that human rights are not in the interests of the public – everyone in our society would be much worse off without these key protections”.
Attacks on the ECHR, they say, have “often been based on myths, over-simplifications, inaccuracies, and scaremongering, particularly around migration.”
Leaving the convention would not solve problems like the backlog of asylum cases or migrants taking dangerous small boats across the Channel, they said, “but would bring about years of legal uncertainty, undermine our international position, and cause harm to the rights of both migrants in the UK and our wider communities”.
They called on politicians to stop “using our human rights as a scapegoat, level with the British public about the significant costs of ECHR withdrawal (such as the impact on the Good Friday Agreement) and end the escalating, irresponsible rhetoric targeting migrant and minoritised communities, which has devastating real-world consequences for people who are often already made vulnerable by wider social and economic marginalisation and stigmatisation.”
They also call on Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour government “to make the positive case for our human rights protections and how they empower ordinary people across the UK” adding “Now is the time for a full-throated defence of the ECHR and HRA.”
It took votes by the Liberal Democrats to block Nigel Farage's Ten Minute Rule bill to leave the ECHR, after the Labour front bench abstained, a shocking decision that defines the spinelessness of this government. It is time all parties of the centre and left stood up to this disgraceful Tory-Reform alliance to tell them that enough is enough.
This has not stopped Badenoch's Tories casting one last desperate throw of the dice by joining Farage's Reform in wanting to ditch Winston Churchill's great legacy, which he designed to form a bulwark to future dictatorships. History is not a strong suit for the political right wing.
The Independent has news for these popularist wannabes. They report that nearly 300 organisations have issued a rallying cry for a “full-throated defence” of the European Convention on Human Rights, accusing politicians of using it as a scapegoat with devastating effects.
They say that groups ranging from Liberty to Refuge, health charity Parkinson's UK and the Centre for Military Justice have warned that the ECHR protects “the rights of ordinary people every day up and down the country from victims of sexual violence to LGBT+ service personnel, public interest journalists to mental health patients”:
They have accused politicians of “using our human rights as a scapegoat…. [and] escalating, irresponsible rhetoric targeting migrant and minoritised communities, which has devastating real-world consequences”.
Sam Grant, director of external affairs at Liberty, which organised the statement from 292 organisations, said: “There are people in powerful positions who want us to believe that we would be better off without the ECHR – don’t believe them.
“For decades our human rights laws have underpinned all of our daily lives by giving us the ability to speak freely, love who we want, and live in peace. These rights were hard-won and we must not allow governments now or in the future to take them away.”
The statement, which has been signed by organisations including Ben and Jerry's, Shelter, Mind, Disability Action and the Centre for Women's Justice, argues the ECHR “is fundamental to our democracy and enables ordinary people, of all backgrounds, to hold the state and public bodies accountable”.
Developed after the Second World War, with the UK playing a leading role, the ECHR and the Human Rights Act (HRA), which incorporates it into British law, “have protected the rights of ordinary people every day up and down the country; from victims of sexual violence to LGBT+ service personnel, public interest journalists to mental health patients and victims of serious injustice (from Hillsborough to Windrush)”, the groups said.
“The ECHR helped bring peace finally in Northern Ireland, through the Good Friday Agreement, and has improved the quality of public services. We reject the narrative that human rights are not in the interests of the public – everyone in our society would be much worse off without these key protections”.
Attacks on the ECHR, they say, have “often been based on myths, over-simplifications, inaccuracies, and scaremongering, particularly around migration.”
Leaving the convention would not solve problems like the backlog of asylum cases or migrants taking dangerous small boats across the Channel, they said, “but would bring about years of legal uncertainty, undermine our international position, and cause harm to the rights of both migrants in the UK and our wider communities”.
They called on politicians to stop “using our human rights as a scapegoat, level with the British public about the significant costs of ECHR withdrawal (such as the impact on the Good Friday Agreement) and end the escalating, irresponsible rhetoric targeting migrant and minoritised communities, which has devastating real-world consequences for people who are often already made vulnerable by wider social and economic marginalisation and stigmatisation.”
They also call on Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour government “to make the positive case for our human rights protections and how they empower ordinary people across the UK” adding “Now is the time for a full-throated defence of the ECHR and HRA.”
It took votes by the Liberal Democrats to block Nigel Farage's Ten Minute Rule bill to leave the ECHR, after the Labour front bench abstained, a shocking decision that defines the spinelessness of this government. It is time all parties of the centre and left stood up to this disgraceful Tory-Reform alliance to tell them that enough is enough.
Sunday, November 02, 2025
'Most sane people would run a mile' from politics
The BBC quotes Kirsty as saying that the online abuse she and other politicians had received was "unforgivable", and it was this level of trolling that forced her to leave politics:
Speaking to politician Lee Waters - who has said he will step down next year - on the Fifth Floor podcast, she said the way she was targeted "badly" affected her children.
She added that when she told them about her new role as chairwoman of the Cardiff and Vale health board, her daughters told her "don't do it, we can't go through this again".
"I didn't realise how badly it affected my family," she said, adding that once news of her new role was made public the "pack" were back online "telling everybody what a terrible person I am".
Williams said that being a politician was "no worse or better than many other jobs that people do".
"Most sane people would run a mile from putting themselves into that environment," she said, referring to the level of criticism received.
"I'm worried that it's baked in now. People who go for that job accept that this is how they're going to have to live their lives.
"It's not pleasant."
She was speaking to Waters, who was Welsh Labour's former deputy minister for climate change and who previously received "insults and abuse" for the introduction of the 20mph law.
Kirsty Williams was speaking to politician Lee Waters, who said he received "insults and abuse" for the introduction of the 20mph law
Williams feared the wrong type of person would be able to sustain a life in politics because "you have to have a certain kind of personality" to put up with abuse.
"And I'm not convinced that the people who can put up with that, and ignore it, are perhaps not the people that you need in the political environment getting things done," she said.
She described that as "probably the greatest threat to liberal democracy".
As somebody who served with Kirsty in the Welsh Assembly for seventeen years, I know what a talented and capable politician she was. We are fortunate that she continues to serve the public in other roles since standing down in 2021, but she is absolutely right, this level of abuse is unacceptable and undermines the whole democratic process. It is sad and deeply regrettable that it continues to this day.
Saturday, November 01, 2025
Remembering a disaster
The entire crew of The Mumbles Lifeboat, Edward, Prince of Wales, lost their lives in attempting to rescue the crew of the SS Samptampa which came to grief on rocks close to Sker Point, Porthcawl. There is also a memorial in Rest Bay, Porthcawl, pictured below, which was unveiled almost exactly a year ago.
In hurricane-force winds, in a powerful tidal surge, just 30 miles from its destination, the vessel broke apart on Sker Point. All 39 crew members were stranded, with no hope of rescue from land due to the ferocious conditions.
The Mumbles Lifeboat Edward Prince of Wales launched, battling extreme winds, tidal spray, and oil slicks. Despite their efforts, all eight volunteer lifeboat crew and the crew of the Samtampa were lost.
The Samtampa was a 'Liberty ship' built in America in 1943 and was on her way to Newport from Middlesborough when she ran aground on the rocky ledges of the Sker Point near Porthcawl. The total death toll for the disaster was 47.
Friday, October 31, 2025
Will Labour's planning bill put EU trade deal at risk?
The Guardian reports that EU ambassador Pedro Serrano is said by the Guardian’s sources to have visited the environment secretary, Emma Reynolds this week and warned her that the planning and infrastructure bill going through the House of Lords could jeopardise the trade deal currently being negotiated between the UK and the European Commission:
Access to the EU’s energy markets is also imperilled by the bill, representatives of the EU warned the government. This would be very difficult for the UK, which imports 16% of its electricity from Europe. The UK government estimates the deal will add £9bn to the UK economy by 2040.
The bill, which the government hopes will boost economic growth, removes EU-derived nature protections and instead allows developers to build on wildlife areas if they pay money into a “nature recovery fund” and commit to improve the environment within 10 years.
The EU believes its protections, which the UK used to follow, are stronger as they involve not harming habitats in the first place, and quickly replacing what is lost rather than making a vague long-term commitment.
EU negotiators have also noticed there are provisions in the bill for the Treasury to claw back the money from the nature recovery fund in some instances, meaning it is not fully ringfenced to protect wildlife.
The ambassador is understood to have warned Reynolds that the bill as it stands could flout the “level playing field” rules that underpin the free trade agreement. These rules state that the UK cannot regress on its environmental rules in a way that would give it a competitive advantage over the EU. The bloc believes this bill does exactly that.
EU representatives also raised this concern at a meeting with government officials earlier this month.
It has been noted by the EU that all the ministerial speeches about the bill have been about removing red tape to boost economic growth. EU officials say it will be hard for the government to argue the bill does not give it a competitive advantage in light of this.
When contacted for comment, the EU Delegation said that it does not comment on ongoing discussions with the UK. The European Union remains fully committed to strengthening its close partnership with the United Kingdom, in accordance with the agreements reached at the EU-UK Summit of 19 May.
The issue for the government is whether they want to get some economic growth by compromising their commitment to tackling climate change and protecting nature, or whether they want to do a deal with the EU and get some real growth, something that has been missing in our economy as a result of Brexit.
Thursday, October 30, 2025
Are Labour's housebuilding targets in ruins?
Back then, I said 'If Labour are serious about providing homes where they are most needed then they will need to provide significant amounts of public subsidy and ensure that local councils and housing associations are sufficiently resourced to build the social housing that is required. They will also need to invest in infrastructure. This target cannot be met on the cheap.'
I repeated that view in October 2024, and in December, I suggested that there a feeling is developing that the government has bitten off more than it can chew with an overly ambitious target.
The Independent reports that the warning by housebuilders was conveyed in a letter to the budget watchdog and is a fresh blow to Rachel Reeves ahead of what is expected to be a difficult budget in November. The HBF say that the government's forecasts for economic growth from house building are too optimistic:
The organisation’s chief executive, Neil Jefferson, said the OBR’s numbers would only be achievable if ministers gave more help to first-time buyers to stimulate demand and slashed planned taxes on new homes, which he said were making many sites “unviable”.
The private warning, seen by The Times, is likely to harm prospects for the watchdog upgrading its forecast for economic growth from construction. In a worst case scenario, it could even result in a downgrade.
In its manifesto, Labour pledged to begin work on 1.5 million new homes over the course of the Parliament, to expand homeownership to more Britons. But house builders have repeatedly sounded the alarm over the pledge, arguing it is too ambitious.
MP Chris Curtis, chair of the Labour Growth Group, said his party is “at risk of not hitting our targets because reform has been too slow”.
“The House of Lords has been holding up legislation, and the government hasn’t been strong enough in standing up to opposition,” he told The Times.
“That’s why we now need to go further, by reforming the building safety regulator, fixing the broken approach to nature regulation, and swiftly getting on with the New Towns programme.”
My hunch is that they will make significant progress, but the target is too high. We won't know of course until the end of the decade.
