Saturday, November 29, 2025
A cultural gem
There is an excellent website here, that goes into some detail as to how this historic and much-loved building became a major hub of culture in Swansea. It records that Frederick Mouillot and H. H. 'Mackenzie' Morell, two entrepreneur actor managers, seized an opportunity to build a Theatre in Swansea in 1897.
They purchased the former Drill Hall in Singleton Street from Colonel Pike, demolished the building, and employed architect William Hope of Newcastle to design the Grand Theatre. The Memorial Stone for the Theatre was laid by Adelina Patti on the 26th of July 1897:
The opening production for the Theatre was 'The Geisha', a Japanese Musical Comedy, on Thursday July 29th 1897, and was the Theatre owners' own production which they mounted to then tour the country.
Early artists to play the Grand were, Fred Terry and Julia Neilson in 'The Scarlet Pimpernel'. In 1914 Sarah Bernhardt appeared on Friday July 10th in 'Nana'. Bernard Shaw's 'Pygmalion', shocked Swansea audiences by the words 'Not Bloody Likely' uttered by Eliza Doolittle in January 1915. Frank Benson's Shakespearean company visited, as did Oscar Ashe with his wife Lily Brayton in 'Spanish Main', and there were visits by the Royal Carl Rosa Opera Company.
By the 1920's Forbes Robertson appeared in 'The passing of the 3rd floor back.' Bransby Williams appeared in 'David Copperfield, Matheson Lang in 'The Wandering Jew' and Tom Walls and Leslie Henson in 'Tons of Money. On February 8th 1924 Ivor Novello, Madelaine Seymour and Hannah Jones appeared in 'The Rat'. By 1926 the musical 'Rose Marie' played, and toward the end of the twenties, 'The Desert Song' played, and Gladys Cooper appeared in 'The Sacred Flame'.
The Grand Theatre's own website takes up the story:
During the theatre's early years (1897 - 1930), the Grand established itself as a venue for the best touring companies and star names of the time, with visits by the likes of Jessie Mathews, Ivor Novello, Forbes Robertson and the first knight of theatre, Sir Henry Irving - whose signature can still be found in the theatre today.
The Grand then entered a turbulent period in its history from 1933 to the early seventies with many successes and many failures including being turned into a Cinema for a fourteen year period, being sadly neglected, and having dwindling audiences mainly thanks to the popularity of television in the 1960's and 70's.
The then local authority (Swansea Corporation/City Council) came to the rescue and took out a long lease in May 1969 before buying the building outright in 1979. The City and County of Swansea continues to own, manage and fund the building today.
A multi-million-pound refurbishment programme from 1983 - 1987 turned the 1000 seat theatre into one of the most technically advanced and aesthetically pleasing venues in the UK at a cost of £6.5m. A further £1m in 1999 and the Grand became the proud 'owner' of a new Arts Wing (opened by Catherine Zeta Jones) that increased the space open to visitors by a third and created a new studio performance area, three exhibition areas, and a rooftop restaurant and terrace.
I attended the opening night of the refurbished Grand Theatre on 17th December 1986 to see the pantomime 'Mother Goose' starring Christopher Biggins and Les Denis. I had only been a councillor for a couple of years and remember that the renovation work was so fresh that some of the paint had not had time to dry.
It is now the home of Michael Sheen's revitalised Welsh National Theatre and as such has a bright future ahead of it.
Friday, November 28, 2025
Labour's tax grab to hit poorer households
The decision to abolish the two-child benefit cap was welcome, though it came much later than it should have done, but the increase in the tax burden on poorer households will almost certainly cancel out the rise in the minimum wage and the uplift for pensioners. For the first time, somebody whose only income is the state pension, will be paying tax on it. That has to be a regressive measure.
The Guardian has also concluded that Rachel Reeves will punish poorer households more than the better off through the freezing of income tax thresholds.
They say that more than 1.7 million workers will be dragged into either paying tax for the first time or pushed into a higher band by an additional three-year freeze on income tax and national insurance thresholds that will bring in an additional £12.4bn by 2030-31. Rachel Reeves may have conceded this measure will hit “working people” but she is wrong in my opinion in denying that it constitutes breaking the Labour manifesto.
And, as if to add insult to injury, buried in the budget is a plan to slash the Digital Services Tax, giving a multi-million pound tax cut to US tech giants and the likes of Elon Musk, cutting taxes for the world's richest man, while hiking them for millions of hard-working Britons.
The paper quotes Ruth Curtice, the chief executive of the Resolution Foundation who says that millions of low-to-middle earners would have been better off with a 1p tax rise than having their tax thresholds frozen, and it would have raised the same amount of money:
The Resolution Foundation said the chancellor delivered “a far more upbeat budget than many were expecting, with significant cost-of-living support and sensible, progressive measures that reduce some of the distortions in the tax system”.
But added: “It was far from pain-free, with major tax rises and cuts to public services coming down the line.”
It said claims by the chancellor that government departments would avoid a squeeze on spending were misplaced, saying tighter spending in the last years of the government would almost match the cuts imposed by the former Conservative chancellor George Osborne after the 2010 election.
“The departmental spending cuts announced in 2029-30, coupled with the government’s commitment to raise health and defence spending and protect per-pupil school funding, imply £6.4bn of cuts to other departments like the Home Office, justice and local government.
“Cuts of this nature would be equivalent to 88% of the average annual cuts made during the austerity years – 2009-10 to 2018-19,” it said.
And of course, this budget managed to avoid the elephant in the room, the biggest drag on growth in our economy, the single issue that leaves the chancellor of the exchequer barely managing to keep the nation's finances on an even keel, when she should be projecting future prosperity instead. That issue is of course, Brexit.
We were told that leaving the EU would save us £350m a week, but it has ended up costing us £250m a day in 2025. The extent to which Brexit is undermining our economic success is laid stark by the Best for Britain website, here.
They say that the total cost to the economy so far is between £180bn and £240bn, 70% of UK firms are reporting higher supply chain costs due to new tariffs and trade rules, while the UK government is losing £90bn in tax revenue each year.
The average decrease in GDP as a result of Brexit is between 6% and 8% or £3,700 per person, while the average food bill has increased by £250 per year, per household. It is estimated that 1.8 million jobs have been lost due to Brexit by 2023, while the health service, agriculture and the service sector are struggling to cope without labour from the EU.
Until Labour tackle this problem through a new trade deal with the EU that restores many of the benefits of being in the free trade area, then it won't just be the low paid who are barely managing, it will be the whole economy.
The paper quotes Ruth Curtice, the chief executive of the Resolution Foundation who says that millions of low-to-middle earners would have been better off with a 1p tax rise than having their tax thresholds frozen, and it would have raised the same amount of money:
The Resolution Foundation said the chancellor delivered “a far more upbeat budget than many were expecting, with significant cost-of-living support and sensible, progressive measures that reduce some of the distortions in the tax system”.
But added: “It was far from pain-free, with major tax rises and cuts to public services coming down the line.”
It said claims by the chancellor that government departments would avoid a squeeze on spending were misplaced, saying tighter spending in the last years of the government would almost match the cuts imposed by the former Conservative chancellor George Osborne after the 2010 election.
“The departmental spending cuts announced in 2029-30, coupled with the government’s commitment to raise health and defence spending and protect per-pupil school funding, imply £6.4bn of cuts to other departments like the Home Office, justice and local government.
“Cuts of this nature would be equivalent to 88% of the average annual cuts made during the austerity years – 2009-10 to 2018-19,” it said.
And of course, this budget managed to avoid the elephant in the room, the biggest drag on growth in our economy, the single issue that leaves the chancellor of the exchequer barely managing to keep the nation's finances on an even keel, when she should be projecting future prosperity instead. That issue is of course, Brexit.
We were told that leaving the EU would save us £350m a week, but it has ended up costing us £250m a day in 2025. The extent to which Brexit is undermining our economic success is laid stark by the Best for Britain website, here.
They say that the total cost to the economy so far is between £180bn and £240bn, 70% of UK firms are reporting higher supply chain costs due to new tariffs and trade rules, while the UK government is losing £90bn in tax revenue each year.
The average decrease in GDP as a result of Brexit is between 6% and 8% or £3,700 per person, while the average food bill has increased by £250 per year, per household. It is estimated that 1.8 million jobs have been lost due to Brexit by 2023, while the health service, agriculture and the service sector are struggling to cope without labour from the EU.
Until Labour tackle this problem through a new trade deal with the EU that restores many of the benefits of being in the free trade area, then it won't just be the low paid who are barely managing, it will be the whole economy.
Thursday, November 27, 2025
Labour press ahead with dismantling our democratic justice system
Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.
Now that he is in charge of Justice, he has changed his tune. As I stated in my blog on 21 November, the government has set itself on a course whereby jury trials for all except the most serious crimes such as rape, murder and manslaughter are set to be scrapped in England and Wales. It now looks like this is going ahead.
As the Guardian reports, in proposals that drew a swift backlash from senior lawyers, who said that they would not reduce court backlogs and could “destroy justice as we know it”, the justice secretary has proposed that juries will only pass judgment on public interest offences with possible prison sentences of more than five years:
Lone judges would preside over trials of other serious offences meriting sentences of up to five years, he suggested, removing the ancient right of thousands of defendants to be heard before a jury.
The Ministry of Justice said no final decision had been taken by the government, but sources confirmed the proposals had been circulated throughout Whitehall in preparation for an announcement in the new year.
Lammy’s proposals, which would create a new tier of court in which most criminal offences would be tried by judges alone, go well beyond the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson, who was commissioned to review the criminal courts and reported in July. And they exceed the courts minister Sarah Sackman’s interview with the Guardian last week, where she set out a plan to stop criminals “gaming the system”.
The MoJ document, circulated in Whitehall earlier this month, reports that crown courts in England and Wales are facing record backlogs, with more than 78,000 cases waiting to be completed.
Leveson recommended the government should end jury trial for many serious offences that could be dealt with by a judge alone or sitting with two magistrates. The former judge suggested they would preside over a new intermediate tier of criminal court, which has been called the crown court bench division (CCBD).
The deputy prime minister’s decision, according to the leaked MoJ document, is to “go further than Sir Brian’s to achieve maximum impact”.
The principle of abolishing trial by jury is bad enough, effectively dismantling our democratic justice system and putting unprecedented power into the hands of judges, but those in the know also believe that it will not work:
The Law Society of England and Wales’s president, Mark Evans, who represents thousands of solicitors, said the proposals were an “extreme measure” that go “far beyond” Leveson’s recommendations.
“This is a fundamental change to how our criminal justice system operates and it goes too far. Our society’s concept of justice rests heavily on lay participation in determining a person’s guilt or innocence.
“We have not seen any real evidence that expanding the types of cases heard by a single judge will work to reduce the backlogs,” he said.
Riel Karmy-Jones KC, the chair of the Criminal Bar Association, which represents criminal barristers, said: “What they propose simply won’t work – it is not the magic pill that they promise.
“The consequences of their actions will be to destroy a criminal justice system that has been the pride of this country for centuries, and to destroy justice as we know it.
“Juries are not the cause of the backlog. The cause is the systematic underfunding and neglect that has been perpetrated by this government and its predecessors.”
Every politician wants a magic pill that will solve the huge problems facing them, but if such a thing exists at all then there is a cost and in this case that cost is unacceptable. This so-called reform should be strongly opposed.
Wednesday, November 26, 2025
Letting down carers
They say that the independent review of carer’s allowance benefit overpayments identified “systemic issues” at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and said carers could not be blamed for falling foul of unclear and confusing benefit rules:
The review was triggered after a Guardian investigation revealed how carers had been hit with draconian penalties of as much as £20,000 after unwittingly and unfairly running up overpayments of the carer’s allowance.
Liz Sayce, a disability rights expert and the author of the review, said problems with carer’s allowance led to injustice and poor use of public money and had affected carers’ health, finances and careers. She blamed repeated failures by top DWP officials over a decade to fix the problems.
“Overpayments over many years at this scale and impact, with missed opportunities to resolve them, are entirely unacceptable. They are an inappropriate use of taxpayers’ money, which has involved using public money for a purpose not intended, and then incurring further cost to attempt to recover it,” she wrote.
She added: “The prevalence of overpayment related to earnings has been caused not by widespread individual error by carers in reporting their earnings but by systemic issues preventing them from fulfilling their responsibility to report.”
Ministers have announced hundreds of thousands of unpaid carers who ran up overpayments as a result of unsafe decisions will have their cases reassessed and in many cases their debts cancelled or reduced. It described the scandal as a “mess inherited from the previous government”.
But there is disappointment from many carers that the review did not recommend compensation for those whose lives were turned upside down and health destroyed after being penalised for massive overpayments they were unaware they had incurred.
The review highlighted the stress, shame and humiliation experienced by carers caught up in the system, and treatment at the hands of DWP staff that “made them feel degraded, like a criminal or cheat trying to game the system”.
Sayce added: “This shame is experienced as the polar opposite of the recognition carer’s allowance aims to offer to unpaid carers who are regularly described by the government as ‘unsung heroes’.”
The review also highlighted how the flawed “cliff edge” design of carer’s allowance penalties resulted in carers rapidly and unwittingly building up big overpayments. Sayce urged “quick, imaginative and fair solutions” to the problem.
Unpaid carers who look after loved ones for at least 35 hours a week are entitled to £83.30 a week carer’s allowance, as long as their weekly earnings from part-time jobs do not exceed £196. But if they exceed this limit, even by as little as 1p, they must repay that entire week’s carer’s allowance.
Under the “cliff edge” earnings rules, this means someone who oversteps the threshold by as little as 1p a week for a year must repay not 52p but £4,331.60, plus a £50 civil penalty.
Top officials and previous government ministers were criticised in the report for a failure to “grip” the problem of overpayments. “The … DWP has failed to demonstrate the ministerial and senior focus needed to resolve these persistent injustices and reform carer’s allowance to implement its core purposes in the modern world,” it said.
Problems with changes introduced by DWP in 2020 to modify the way carers were allowed to average their earnings from part-time jobs to avoid overpayments were also highlighted. These changes, ostensibly to make the system clear for claimants, were in effect unlawful and resulted in more carers falling foul of the system.
While carers were expected by the DWP to report changes to their circumstances, such as if they earned more than earnings limits, confusing rules meant they “have no way of knowing exactly what they need to report and when”, the review found.
This is a complete mess and it is carers who are being left to suffer. The government needs to put in place a compensation process for the victims of this fiasco.
Tuesday, November 25, 2025
The past comes back to haunt Farage
The Guardian says that they have spoken to 20 of Farage's contemporaries while at Dulwich College in south London who tell them that these accusations are true, more than half of them on the record, and they outline the testimony of all twenty in some detail here.
Now, Farage is facing calls to explain why he repeatedly aired tropes and conspiracy theories associated with antisemitism during interviews.
Now, Farage is facing calls to explain why he repeatedly aired tropes and conspiracy theories associated with antisemitism during interviews.
The Guardian says that in appearances on US TV shows and podcasts earlier in his political career, Farage discussed supposed plots by bankers to create a global government, citing Goldman Sachs, the Bilderberg group and the financier George Soros as threats to democracy:
These included six guest slots on the web TV show of the disgraced far-right US conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Jones was successfully sued by bereaved parents after claiming the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre was faked.
During one interview with Jones in 2018, Farage argued that “globalists” were trying to engineer a war with Russia “as an argument for us all to surrender our national sovereignty and give it up to a higher global level”.
Farage also appeared six times on the web radio show of Rick Wiles, a far-right, antisemitic American pastor. Here, topics included whether central bankers would soon start to appoint leaders of the UK and US – an idea Farage did not challenge.
When the Guardian first reported these discussions in 2019, groups including the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Community Security Trust, a charity providing support to the Jewish community in the UK, called on Farage to repudiate such ideas, many of which are associated with far-right and antisemitic conspiracy theories.
However, Farage never commented. The only response came from a spokesperson for the Brexit party, which Farage led at the time, calling the criticisms “manufactured” and “pathetic”.
In the wake of testimony from 20 people who claim they either witnessed or were victims of abusive or racist behaviour by Farage at Dulwich college in the late 1970s and early 1980s, MPs and others have called on Farage to explain his subsequent statements, which date from 2009 to 2018.
School contemporaries of Farage said he used racist terms of abuse, made comments such as like “Hitler was right”, and “Gas them”, and sang racist songs.
Spokespeople for Farage and Reform rejected the claims as completely untrue, saying the passage of time made accurate recollections impossible, and questioned why people were making the allegations now.
The Liberal Democrats vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, Christine Jardine, is absolutely right when she says that Farage has aspirations for high office, and therefore it is simply not good enough that he fails to explain his past choice of words, especially when the allegations that have surfaced this week only serve to underline concerns about his outlook.
It is time for Farage to come clean about his past behaviour so that everybody knows what they would be supporting if they gave their vote to Reform.
These included six guest slots on the web TV show of the disgraced far-right US conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Jones was successfully sued by bereaved parents after claiming the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre was faked.
During one interview with Jones in 2018, Farage argued that “globalists” were trying to engineer a war with Russia “as an argument for us all to surrender our national sovereignty and give it up to a higher global level”.
Farage also appeared six times on the web radio show of Rick Wiles, a far-right, antisemitic American pastor. Here, topics included whether central bankers would soon start to appoint leaders of the UK and US – an idea Farage did not challenge.
When the Guardian first reported these discussions in 2019, groups including the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Community Security Trust, a charity providing support to the Jewish community in the UK, called on Farage to repudiate such ideas, many of which are associated with far-right and antisemitic conspiracy theories.
However, Farage never commented. The only response came from a spokesperson for the Brexit party, which Farage led at the time, calling the criticisms “manufactured” and “pathetic”.
In the wake of testimony from 20 people who claim they either witnessed or were victims of abusive or racist behaviour by Farage at Dulwich college in the late 1970s and early 1980s, MPs and others have called on Farage to explain his subsequent statements, which date from 2009 to 2018.
School contemporaries of Farage said he used racist terms of abuse, made comments such as like “Hitler was right”, and “Gas them”, and sang racist songs.
Spokespeople for Farage and Reform rejected the claims as completely untrue, saying the passage of time made accurate recollections impossible, and questioned why people were making the allegations now.
The Liberal Democrats vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, Christine Jardine, is absolutely right when she says that Farage has aspirations for high office, and therefore it is simply not good enough that he fails to explain his past choice of words, especially when the allegations that have surfaced this week only serve to underline concerns about his outlook.
It is time for Farage to come clean about his past behaviour so that everybody knows what they would be supporting if they gave their vote to Reform.
Monday, November 24, 2025
Is the proscription of Palestine Action undermining government anti-terrorism programmes?
The paper reports the official as saying that there is already confusion among counter-terrorism police, officials and in schools and hospitals as a result of the proscription of the direct action group, which makes being a member of, or showing support for it, a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act:
They expressed concern about people involved in Palestine advocacy but not supportive of Palestine Action being wrongly labelled as extremist and people who have expressed support for Palestine Action being referred to Prevent when they do not pose any threat.
The homeland security official, who works closely with Prevent, and requested anonymity as they are not allowed to speak to the press, said: “I’m concerned about a surge in referrals to the Prevent system that might have a link to Palestine advocacy in light of the fact that this very high profile group is now proscribed, and the confusion there might be on the frontline in schools and healthcare settings and all the other places that are expected to make Prevent referrals.
“I’ve heard senior counter-terrorism police people say that they are already seeing on the frontline concerns about this come up and I’m aware of testimonies from Prevent leads at local authorities where they are also concerned about the impact of this on their area and confusion about whether certain cases should be referred to Prevent or not.”
The Prevent duty requires specified authorities such as education, health, and local authorities to report concerns about a person being vulnerable to radicalisation.
Figures published earlier this month showed the number of referrals to the anti-terrorism programme were up by 27% in the year to March 2025 compared with the previous 12 months and was the highest since records began.
The homeland security group official said that while it was early days in the proscription of Palestine Action (the ban took effect on 5 July) they feared Prevent could be “overwhelmed” when it was already under “unprecedented” pressure after the Southport attacks and the concerns they raised about people who are obsessed with violence but without a clear terrorist ideology.
“We have already seen police officers, let alone frontline Prevent practitioners, mistakenly arrest or interfere with people for supporting Palestine, not supporting Palestine Action.
“There is a risk that what’s now the crime of support for Palestine Action might lead to the Prevent system becoming an unwitting sort of gateway for people to mistakenly be criminalised, especially young people who don’t know the law and they don’t know the consequences of expressing what might sound like – or may actually be – support for a group that, overnight, has become proscribed.”
In similar comments, in a pre-proscription debate in the House of Lords discussing the proposals to ban Palestine Action, the independent Prevent reviewer, David Anderson KC said it would mean “anyone who is young and foolish enough to say that its heart is in the right place, or that the government should listen to it, is committing a very serious offence for which they could be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned as a terrorist”.
The official who spoke to the Guardian said he worried that the ban had harmed the credibility of vital counter-terrorism work.
“The proscription has damaged trust in the government more widely and Prevent specifically – so potentially eroding Prevent’s effectiveness to tackle the real issues even further,” they said.
This is actually very serious. The last thing that those charged with identifying threats need is for the government to create confusion amongst the public, agencies and law officers that is going to hamper their work.
Surely it is time for ministers to properly justify the proscription of Palestine Action and to clarify what exactly that involves or to rethink the decision to ban supporting the organisation altogether.
Sunday, November 23, 2025
The Russian connection
On the Nation Cymru website, Martin Shipton discusses the significance of former Welsh UKIP leader, Nathan Gill's imprisonment and its implication for Reform at the Senedd elections next year.
His view that, while those who are enraptured by what they see as Nigel Farage’s charisma are likely to remain loyal to his personality cult, more level-headed voters will pause to consider the implications of Gill’s criminality, is certainly one that is worth exploring. My concern though, is that it will be mostly be old news by the time people come to vote in six months time.
He writes that, despite Reform’s hierarchy seeking to downplay Gill's significance in their movement, it can’t be denied. He points out that the latest iteration of Farage's party is part of a continuum running from the Europhobic Tendency of the Conservative Party in the time of John Major, through to UKIP when it had success in European Parliament elections. The Brexit Party, formed in the wake of Leave’s victory in the 2016 referendum to “Get Brexit Done”, is the most extreme variant of these cults, and Gill was a member and as close to Farage as it was possible to be:
He was not just an uber-sycophant in ideological terms, happy to do Farage’s bidding without question, but also often physically adjacent to his master like the most obedient of puppies, as many photographs taken when they were MEPs together attest.
I first met Gill in 2011 when I participated in a BBC TV debate broadcast from Aberystwyth during the often overlooked referendum to grant what are now the Senedd primary lawmaking powers. My book on the first 10 years of the National Assembly had just been published and I’d been invited to go on the panel as someone in favour of letting the institution make its own laws.
Gill was on the other side, partnered – and he won’t thank me for mentioning this – by Cardiff Labour councillor Russell Goodway.
Gill’s contribution to the debate was unimpressive. He seemed more interested in re-running old arguments about whether the then National Assembly should exist at all rather than addressing the issue of now that it was in existence whether it should be able to make its own laws or not. His response to questions was robotic, as if he couldn’t or wouldn’t deviate from a script.
Three years later he was elected as a UKIP MEP for Wales – a position he could not have attained without the patronage of Farage. Farage has a notorious tendency to fall out with people he’s working with who don’t follow his line in all respects, but there was never a hint of that with Gill.
He couldn’t be described as bright, although he was good at exploiting the European Parliament’s expenses system, driving all the way from Anglesey to Strasbourg when the Parliament was sitting there to take advantage of the exceptionally generous mileage allowance available to MEPs.
Farage appreciated his puppy-like devotion and was happy to keep him in close proximity as a kind of mascot. Later, for the same reasons, he appointed Gill Reform UK’s leader in Wales.
Guilt by association is not a way of judging people that I normally subscribe to, but in the case of Gill and Farage I can understand the attraction of the concept.
I am not of course suggesting that Farage is guilty of crimes akin to those of Gill. But given the nature of Gill’s relationship with Farage and dependence on him in his role as an MEP it seems inconceivable that Oleg Voloshyn, the pro-Russian Ukrainian politician who corrupted Gill made merely a random and isolated connection with him.
As long ago as 2014, the Guardian published an article that began: “Nigel Farage’s near monthly appearances on state-owned Russia Today have come under scrutiny after his expression of admiration for Vladimir Putin this week.
“In one of his 17 appearances on the channel seen by the Guardian and transmitted since December 2010, he claims Europe is governed not by elected democracies but instead ‘by the worst people we have seen in Europe since 1945’.
“The UKIP leader has appeared so frequently that he is cited in literature for the TV station Russia Today as one of their special and ‘endlessly quotable’ British guests. ‘He has been known far longer to the RT audience than most of the British electorate,’ Russia Today claims.
“The UKIP leader did not issue a word of criticism of Russian democracy in any of the Russia Today interviews viewed by the Guardian.”
From Farage and Reform’s point of view, it is certainly an unfortunate perception that Farage’s past association with Russia Today (later RT) indicated a sympathy towards Russia that Gill took in a criminal direction.
Gill's imprisonment is significant in Wales because, as Martin Shipton says, Reform will be a major player in the 2026 Senedd election. Had Gill not been found out, prosecuted and jailed, it is more than likely that he would have been heading back to the Senedd next May. Instead, other Reform candidates will be doing so, most likely in large numbers.
However, we have no idea at the moment who those candidates are, how they will be selected or what their history is. Martin Shipton is most probably right when he says they will not be selected in Wales. That will be organised at party headquarters in London. And with all the delays that have happened, it’s looking doubtful that any candidates will be announced before Christmas.
Are these selections being left so late to prevent Reform's opponents and journalists having time to find dirt on those who do get chosen? Given the party and its predecessor's issues with vetting candidates in the past, it would be hardly surprising if they don't want too much scrutiny.
Saturday, November 22, 2025
An unlikely connection
The plaque is located on the promenade wall near the Hole in the Wall Café — a spot the philosopher is believed to have walked past many times during his visits to the area.
Born in Vienna in 1889, Wittgenstein is widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the modern era.
During these years, Wittgenstein often stayed at guest houses in Langland and Uplands, spending time walking the Gower coastline and developing ideas that would shape his later work.
It’s believed these summers spent in Swansea had a profound influence on Wittgenstein’s thinking.
Wittgenstein is best-known for his work in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of the mind, and the philosophy of language.
Sometimes, we come across the most unlikely connections.
Update: Wiigenstein was of course immortalised in Monty Python's Bruces' Philosophers Song, sung by The Bruces, stereotypical "ocker" Australians of the period. The Bruces are kitted out in khakis, slouch hats and a cork hat, and are faculty members of the Philosophy Department at the fictional University of Woolamaloo (Woolloomooloo is an inner suburb of Sydney, although there is no university there):
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
Hobbes was fond of his dram
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Friday, November 21, 2025
Trial by jury should remain a fundamental right
The Guardian reports that the courts minister has promised to enact radical changes to limit jury trials by the next election, because, she says that criminals are“gaming the system” by choosing trial by jury in order to increase the chances of proceedings collapsing.
According to the paper, Sarah Sackman claims that drug dealers and career criminals are “laughing in the dock” knowing cases can take years to come to trial. She believes that that inaction will be a road to “chaos and ruin”:
Ministers will legislate to remove the right to trial by jury for thousands of cases in one of the biggest and most controversial overhauls of the justice system in England and Wales in generations – promising the changes will significantly shrink the court backlog by 2029.
The Ministry of Justice is braced for a backlash from barristers and the judiciary as it presses ahead with the measures to tackle a backlog of nearly 80,000 cases, which will create a proposed new judge-only division of the crown court to hear some cases.
Sackman said the “stakes are incredibly high” as she prepared to announce early next month that vast numbers of cases will now be heard by judges and magistrates rather than juries, a response to recommendations in a review by Sir Brian Leveson.
Speaking at Wood Green crown court, Sackman said victims of severe sexual assault were routinely told it could take four years for their cases to come to court.
However, the paper adds that changes to jury trials are opposed by 90% of the Criminal Bar Association, which has warned that ending the right would be an unacceptable price to pay and undermine what is a fundamental principle for British justice. They argue that the British public have a deep faith in the jury system and that changes risk a loss of trust.
Racial equality groups have also expressed concern at the reforms, and at the unrepresentative nature of the judiciary against juries:
Judicial diversity statistics show that ethnic minorities make up 12% of judges in England and Wales, while the representation of black judges has remained unchanged at 1% for a decade. Criminal justice charities have said they expect a reduction in jury trials to lead to more convictions and potential miscarriages of justice.
The Institute for Government’s Cassia Rowland said in a recent report the government and Leveson’s report had thus far failed to make the case for the changes and that many of the issues identified by Leveson would be solved by increased court productivity – fewer trials are being scheduled, but more are being cancelled at the last minute.
Labour's authoritarian tendencies are once more in evidence in these proposals. They would rather remove fundamental rights than put in place the investment that is needed to try and fix the system.
According to the paper, Sarah Sackman claims that drug dealers and career criminals are “laughing in the dock” knowing cases can take years to come to trial. She believes that that inaction will be a road to “chaos and ruin”:
Ministers will legislate to remove the right to trial by jury for thousands of cases in one of the biggest and most controversial overhauls of the justice system in England and Wales in generations – promising the changes will significantly shrink the court backlog by 2029.
The Ministry of Justice is braced for a backlash from barristers and the judiciary as it presses ahead with the measures to tackle a backlog of nearly 80,000 cases, which will create a proposed new judge-only division of the crown court to hear some cases.
Sackman said the “stakes are incredibly high” as she prepared to announce early next month that vast numbers of cases will now be heard by judges and magistrates rather than juries, a response to recommendations in a review by Sir Brian Leveson.
Speaking at Wood Green crown court, Sackman said victims of severe sexual assault were routinely told it could take four years for their cases to come to court.
However, the paper adds that changes to jury trials are opposed by 90% of the Criminal Bar Association, which has warned that ending the right would be an unacceptable price to pay and undermine what is a fundamental principle for British justice. They argue that the British public have a deep faith in the jury system and that changes risk a loss of trust.
Racial equality groups have also expressed concern at the reforms, and at the unrepresentative nature of the judiciary against juries:
Judicial diversity statistics show that ethnic minorities make up 12% of judges in England and Wales, while the representation of black judges has remained unchanged at 1% for a decade. Criminal justice charities have said they expect a reduction in jury trials to lead to more convictions and potential miscarriages of justice.
The Institute for Government’s Cassia Rowland said in a recent report the government and Leveson’s report had thus far failed to make the case for the changes and that many of the issues identified by Leveson would be solved by increased court productivity – fewer trials are being scheduled, but more are being cancelled at the last minute.
Labour's authoritarian tendencies are once more in evidence in these proposals. They would rather remove fundamental rights than put in place the investment that is needed to try and fix the system.
Thursday, November 20, 2025
Is digital ID in trouble?
The paper says that MPs were told that the Government's the policy has been so badly botched that it is now "irrecoverable, warning that "no one really believes" the controversial roll-out is designed to tackle illegal working:
Supporters claim this will be essential in tackling small boats - and say Britain has fallen behind other nations. But Silki Carlo, director of pressure group Big Brother Watch, told the cross-party Home Affairs Select Committee: "I don't think anyone in this room genuinely believes that the mandatory digital ID is about illegal working. Which begs the question, what is it really about, and what will the other uses be?"
And she continued: "I think that, it's likely that the way that this announcement has been managed makes it irrecoverable for this government and potentially for the next five to 10 years."
A petition calling for the proposal to be scrapped has been signed by over 2.9million people. Ms Carlo told the committee: "Your constituents are up in arms about it and I think it is because of the way that it's been introduced, the fact that no one really believes it's about immigration, that it might be about something else."
Keir Starmer has vowed to plough ahead with the proposals, saying it will make the UK's borders more secure and make it easier to prove your identity. MPs were told system - which would be free for users - would "put citizens in control of their own data".
But critics warned about the possibility of abuse and data leaks. James Baker, program manager at Open Rights Group, said: "Imagine the person you disagree with most in politics...
"Imagine what they could do with this type of system if you didn't have the right safeguards in place." And he continued: "This is what worries me about introducing this in a country like the UK is we we don't have a written constitution that has privacy protections."
This policy is going to be hard to sell and it is unlikely that Starmer has the political capital to see it through.
