Wednesday, January 14, 2026
The blame game and the leadership stakes
The paper says that Streeting's comments will be seen as an attack on complaints by allies of Keir Starmer that change has been constantly delayed by the number of regulations and arm’s-length bodies:
One of the prime minister’s former key aides Paul Ovenden authored a piece earlier this month about the power of a “stakeholder state”. He said campaign groups, regulators, litigators, trade bodies and well-networked organisations were hobbling any change the government wanted to pursue. Starmer himself has voiced frustration that “levers” that he could pull as prime minister often resulted in obstruction.
At the same conference, Streeting’s comments were echoed by Louise Casey, the lead non-executive director in Whitehall, who said the government needed to “just stop” complaining it was difficult to get things done. However, she also highlighted a “sense of learned helplessness and hopelessness” within the civil service and an “intransigence” in the face of change.
In his remarks, Streeting said he was angered to see his own side making similar comments to the hard right about public services’ inability to change.
He said: “The right encourage this argument. They are rolling the pitch to come in with a chainsaw and tear up public services entirely.
“Bafflingly, some on my own side of the political divide have begun to parrot the same argument. They complain about the civil service. They blame stakeholder capture.
“This excuses culture does the centre-left no favours. If we tell the public that we can’t make anything work, then why on earth would they vote to keep us in charge?”
Streeting likened the state to a shopping trolley with a “wonky wheel” which is primed towards the status quo. But he said that was no excuse for poor steering.
“We should be in no doubt that they are excuses… There’s no point complaining about the wonky wheel if you’re letting the trolley have a mind of its own, instead of steering it towards the destination you’re after.
“We are not simply at the mercy of forces outside of our control. Our fortunes are in our hands. And it is precisely because we on centre-left believe in the power of the state to transform people’s lives, that we are best placed to change it.”
Streeting said politicians should be getting on with fixing the issues without delay. “Where there aren’t levers, we build them. Where there are barriers, we bulldoze them. Where there is poor performance, we challenge it,” he said.
He said that reform of public services was “one of the greatest challenges of our age … Failure in this area has led to disaffection, cynicism, and ultimately the rise of populists.”
But he said it was also urgent because of surging demand for health and care services, including people managing multiple conditions, failures in prevention and demand for mental health and special needs services. And he said people were paying more and more but getting “a poorer service in return”.
“They rightly ask: if I can track a parcel across the world, why can’t the state tell me what’s happening with my case? Why do I have to tell my story five times? Why do I have to travel, queue, wait and chase? Unless the state modernises it will become increasingly irrelevant to the lives of its citizens.
“Failure to address these challenges is creating a national mood of cynicism and pessimism. But the most corrosive sense of all is fatalism: the idea that things can’t change.”
Starmer had told the liaison committee of MPs before Christmas of his own frustrations with the delays built into the functioning of government.
“My experience now as prime minister is of frustration that every time I go to pull a lever there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arm’s-length bodies that mean that the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be, which is among the reasons why I want to cut down on regulation, generally and within government,” he told the committee.
The Labour leadership campaign really is up and running.
Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Another one jumps to the new Tory Party
The Independent reports that the latest defector has been less than discreet in the past as to what he thinks of Nigel Farage and Reform. Everybody is entitled to change their mind, of course.
The paper says that former Tory Chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, previously said he would be “frightened” to live in a country run by the future Clacton MP and yet yesterday he insisted that Britain “really does need Nigel Farage as prime minister”:
But within minutes, contradictory statements that Mr Zahawi had made on social media about Mr Farage in previous years emerged.
Responding to Mr Farage's 2015 call to scrap much of the UK’s racial discrimination in the workplace legislation, Mr Zahawi wrote on social media: “I’m not British Born Mr @Nigel_Farage I am as British as u r. Yr comments r offensive&racist. I wld b frightened 2live in country run by U.”
“It looks like Farage was right when he said Nadhim Zahawi is ‘just about climbing that greasy pole’,” a Tory source told The Independent.
“Haunted by the spectre of his own irrelevance, Zahawi has jumped on the gravy train. But his sudden, dramatic change of heart won’t be enough to revive his failing political career.”
The 2015 post is one of several statements Mr Zahawi has previously made about the Reform UK leader.
Pointing out his record of running for political office multiple times, he labelled Mr Farage as “establishment as they come” in 2014.
He wrote in Conservative Home a year later: “I was born in Baghdad but am deeply proud to call myself British. My parents chose to make Britain their home because this was a place where belonging was about what you put in, rather than where you came from.
“What’s frightening is that in Farage’s Britain people like me could be lawfully discriminated against and British businesses would be encouraged to bin our CVs.”
Asked in 2014 about his political allegiances, he wrote on X (then Twitter): “Been a Conservative all my life and will die a Conservative.”
Meanwhile, another article in the Independent claims that Zahawi defected after apparently unsuccessfully “begging” Kemi Badenoch to be nominated for a peerage.
This has, of course, raised question marks about the motivations of the man who was sacked as a minister for breaching the ministerial code over his tax affairs. The claim has echoes of Nadine Dorries’ defection after her nomination for a peerage by Boris Johnson was blocked during Rishi Sunak’s government.
It seems that Zahawi and Reform deserve each other.
Monday, January 12, 2026
Labour MPs step up campaign to ban cryptocurrency political donations
The paper says that the committee chairs – Liam Byrne, Emily Thornberry, Tan Dhesi, Florence Eshalomi, Andy Slaughter, Chi Onwurah and Matt Western – called on the government to introduce a full ban in the forthcoming elections bill amid concern that cryptocurrency could be used by foreign states to influence politics:
Government sources told the Guardian last year that ministers are looking at ways to ban political donations made with cryptocurrency but the crackdown is not likely to be ready for the elections bill due early this year.
Byrne said the committee chairs are concerned political finance “must be transparent, traceable and enforceable” but crypto donations undermine all three.
“Crypto can obscure the true source of funds, enable thousands of micro donations below disclosure thresholds, and expose UK politics to foreign interference,” he said. “The Electoral Commission has warned that current technology makes these risks exceptionally hard to manage.
“Other democracies have already acted. The UK should not wait until a scandal forces our hand. This is not about opposing innovation. It is about protecting democracy with rules that work in the real world.”
The government increasingly believes that donations made with cryptocurrency pose a risk to the integrity of the electoral system, not least because the source can be hard to verify.
However, the complex nature of cryptocurrency means officials do not believe a ban will be workable by the time of the elections bill, due to be published shortly, which is set to lower the voting age to 16 and reduce loopholes in political finance.
The government’s ambition to ban crypto donations will be a blow to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, which became the first to accept contributions in digital currency this year. It is believed to have received its first registrable donations in cryptocurrency this autumn and the party has set up its own crypto portal to receive contributions, saying it is subject to “enhanced” checks.
Pat McFadden, then a Cabinet Office minister, first raised the idea in July, saying: “I definitely think it is something that the Electoral Commission should be considering. I think that it’s very important that we know who is providing the donation, are they properly registered, what are the bona fides of that donation.”
The Electoral Commission provides guidance on crypto donations but ministers accept any ban would probably have to come from the government through legislation.
Campaign groups have highlighted risks of allowing donations in cryptocurrency. Susan Hawley, the executive director of Spotlight on Corruption, said the prospective ban was welcome but that the government must “come forward with a criminal offence that makes it much harder for foreign money to get into UK politics and make sure that the police are properly resourced to investigate it”.
“Crypto donations present real risks to our democracy,” she added. “We know that bad actors like Russia use crypto to undermine and interfere in democracies globally, while the difficulties involved in tracing the true source of transactions means that British voters may not know everyone who’s funding the parties they vote for.”
The sooner the government acts on this, the better.
Sunday, January 11, 2026
Is Starmer poised for yet another u-turn?
Turner told the paper that MPs would be “going stark raving mad” if the Tories had proposed the much-criticised plans and called for a meeting with the prime minister:
“We are absolutely seething with the government, with the prime minister and with David Lammy and I've said to the prime minister I want to see him face to face on this single issue and I expect him to instruct Lammy to stop and think again,” told Times Radio.
“People are cheesed off. It's not in the manifesto. If this was the Tory government doing this, Labour MPs would be going absolutely stark raving mad including Keir Starmer and including David Lammy.”
“I am absolutely confident that if they're daft enough to put this legislation forward in the shape of the courts bill, which will probably be the second half of this year, I'm confident we'll defeat it.”
A number of Labour MPs have privately told The Independent that they believe the plan to restrict jury trials to the most serious crimes is going to be “quietly dropped”.
It follows revelations earlier this week, first carried by The Independent, that Rachel Reeves plans to ditch plans to end business rates relief on pubs.
The plans announced last year by deputy prime minister David Lammy were meant to be designed to help end the backlog in the courts which has been in place since the covid pandemic lockdown.
It was based on recommendations by retired judge Sir Brian Leveson and would include interim “swift courts” with judge made decisions and greater use of magistrates courts.
Only the most severe offences, like murder and rape, would retain mandatory jury trials.
Cases with likely jail terms under three years would move to judge-only trials, estimated to be faster. Long fraud and financial cases would also move to judge-only, freeing jurors.
But the plans have caused a backlash including among Labour MPs.
Now the government has postponed any vote on the plans until October at the earliest after the next King’s speech in May.
One MP said: “It looks like the whole thing will be quietly ditched.”
Another senior MP said: “I would be amazed if they actually follow through with the attacks on jury trial. My understanding is any legislation on this is earmarked for October and that’s a long way away in political terms. I presume they’ll dump it - quietly or otherwise.”
The issue has echoes of the welfare rebellion last summer when plans to slash the bill by £5bn were ditched to prevent defeat in the Commons by angry Labour backbenchers.
Ministers were defending the proposals in an opposition day debate last week called by the Tories but opposition was again voiced by Labour MPs including Mr Turner who pointed out he has never rebelled before.
A u-turn or a defeat on this wholly illiberal measure would be very welcome, however what does this say about Starmer's government? His administration is rapidly becoming one of u-turns, so much so that it would be surprising if they can still walk in a straight line.
Saturday, January 10, 2026
From ruins to a cultural centre
As the centre's website relates, the Old Guildhall (as it was known) looked quite different to today:
Built by Thomas Bowen, between 1825-1829, from designs by architect John Collingwood, the building originally had sweeping grand staircases either side of the main entrance and the building housed court rooms and smaller offices.
Beautiful as the structure was, the doubling in size of the borough through the Municipal Corporations Act (1835) meant that the building could not function to the capacity needed. Thus the decision was made to enlarge the site in 1848, with the newer version of the Guildhall completed in 1852 by William Richards to plans by architect Thomas Taylor.
As well as a more spacious building, the façade was embellished and the courtyard to the front contained a statue of the MP and industrialist John Henry Vivian, as well as two Russian canons captured during the Battle of Balaclava in the Crimean War.
The building functioned as the Guildhall until 1934 when the decision was taken to build an entirely new civic centre (which includes the Brangwyn Hall) near Sandfields and St Helen’s cricket ground.
In the late 1930s, following this move, the Old Guildhall became a place of education and training:
Its first role was as a juvenile employment centre; briefly interrupted when the building was requisitioned by the army for recruitment purposes during the Second World War.
From 1949 to 1969 the building returned to its former role in education: one section of the Old Guildhall was occupied by the Youth Employment Bureau and another part of the building became Swansea Technical School. Later, the space would house the College of Further Education (1960-1971) and was finally the annexe to Dynevor School (1970-1982) until the building closed in 1982.
I first came across it in the mid-1990s, when Swansea was bidding to become the city of literature. I was a non-voting member of the company board set up to organise this festival, and one of our first tasks was to establish a literature centre. When it became clear that a new build was not possible, the then West Glamorgan County Council offered us the old Guildhall.
By then the building had been uninhabited for over a decade. It was covered in graffiti and was being used as a shelter by a number of homeless people. It was also listed, so the renovation had to be carried out very carefully, essentially keeping the facade and demolishing and rebuilding everything behind it.
It re-opened in 1995 as Tŷ Llên (‘the house of literature’), the major venue for the UK Year of Literature with the ceremony being performed by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter – himself a fan of Dylan Thomas’s work.
In October 2014, the Centre launched the permanent "Love the Words" exhibition which explores Dylan's life and work through a variety of media and including letters, books, worksheets and photographs, made possible with support of nearly £1 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund.
The Dylan Thomas Centre was also home to a year-round programme of literary events, including book launches, plays, poetry evenings, changing exhibitions and science talks and hosted the annual Dylan Thomas Festival held between Dylan’s birth and death dates, 27 October to 9 November.
Friday, January 09, 2026
Where does Farage stand on Russia and UK security?
The paper refers to the statement by Britain and France that they would be ready to send troops to Ukraine after a peace deal, and that the Reform UK leader said he would vote against any such move to put boots on the ground:
Farage’s comments cast doubt on his commitment to the UK’s national security, the cabinet minister Pat McFadden said. He accused the politician of taking a pro-Russia stance on the issue, which he said should give voters “pause for thought”.
“This guarantee is not just for Ukraine, it’s for the whole of Europe,” he said. “It’s in the British national interest that we do that, and that’s why it’s so concerning to me to see some politicians, like Mr Farage, for example, immediately come out [and] parrot the Kremlin line and say that he wouldn’t support this.”
Farage faced criticism for “not really [being] an MP at all” on Wednesday after choosing to appear on Times Radio instead of attending prime minister’s questions in the Commons. During the broadcast he criticised Starmer’s Ukraine policy and said he would vote against any proposal to deploy troops to the country.
“It would be a very interesting vote. I would vote against,” said Farage, who is one of five Reform MPs. “We neither have the manpower nor the equipment to go into an operation that clearly has no ending timeline.”
...
Farage’s stance on Russia has become a key Labour attack line against Reform, in particular since the jailing of the party’s former leader in Wales Nathan Gill in last November for taking bribes to make statements in favour of Russia when he was an MEP.
In the past, Farage has spoken of his admiration for Putin as a political operator and repeatedly warned the west against “poking the Russian bear with a stick”, accusing the EU of provoking the war in Ukraine in 2024. After criticism, he wrote in the Telegraph that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was “immoral, outrageous and indefensible” but added: “[I]f you have neither the means nor the political will to face him down, poking a bear is obviously not good foreign policy.”
A Labour spokesperson said Farage’s comments were the “behaviour of Putin’s puppet”. They said: “Nigel Farage’s equivocation on support for Ukraine is an insult to those who have fought to defend freedom.
“When Farage shrugs at support for Ukraine, a country that has been brutally invaded, people are entitled to ask who he is really speaking for, because this is not patriotism, it’s the behaviour of Putin’s puppet.”
Farage and Reform's attitude towards Putin and Russia needs to be scrutinised much more closely and publicised widely.
Thursday, January 08, 2026
Labour turn the screw on higher education
The Guardian quotes the the Institute for Fiscal Studies who say that universities that relied on fees from international students have also been hit by the last government’s visa changes, which set off a steep fall in the numbers coming to study in the UK. A freeze on tuition fees has not helped either.
Of course, those who might have expected that a Labour government might relax the visa regime. enabling higher education instititions to recover some of the overseas student market, were predictably disappointed when their ministers made it clear that they were not prepared to do that.
Effectively, public funding has contracted and other sources of income have been stretched thinner and thinner, while academic careers have become increasingly precarious as permanent jobs have disappeared. However, things may well get worse as this Guarduan editorial makes clear:
If the sector looked forward to better treatment under a Labour government, its hopes have been dashed. No sooner had Bridget Phillipson announced plans to change the law so that tuition fees will in future rise with inflation, than another decision wiped out the modest gains from this one. From 2028, universities must pay a new flat tax or “levy” of £925 for every international student that they recruit. Coming on top of tighter visa restrictions, which have already made such recruitment harder, some universities will find it increasingly difficult to balance their books. As students and academics return to campuses this month, 24 institutions are regarded by their regulator, the Office for Students, as being at risk of collapse within 12 months. More could exit the market in the next few years.
Further strikes, cuts and closures are likely. But judging by the plans published so far, ministers are ill-prepared for what is coming. The white paper published in the autumn said that universities should work more closely with further education providers. It also promised reform of the research excellence framework and a new power for the Office for Students to cap numbers. But while such problem-solving measures are fine in themselves, they do not add up to an overall strategy, or explain what the promised “change of approach” is meant to achieve.
Despite all their difficulties, universities remain an enormous and irreplaceable national asset. As well as educating millions of people, they generate about £24bn in export earnings, which is about 1% of GDP – more than aircraft manufacturing and legal services combined, as a recent study of public attitudes to higher education pointed out. It was right for ministers to make skills policy a priority. Reform of the options for school leavers and adult learners was long overdue. But ministers cannot continue to ignore the impossible situation that universities have been placed in by successive governments. They need a policy of their own.
So much for Labour's commitment to higher education.
Wednesday, January 07, 2026
The pylons marching across Wales
The news site says that Dr Jonathan Dean, a trustee of the countryside charity CPRW, has written a lengthy submission to the Independent Advisory Group on Future Electricity Grid for Wales in which he argues that a new transmission grid from north to south Wales is wholly unnecessary:
He states: “In our experience, the main issue the public have with overhead electricity lines is pylons. The public just don’t like them. The bigger they are, the more they dislike them.
“The subject has been extensively studied in the academic literature. There are even books on the topic, and a study into the Hinckley C connection by Matthew Cotton and Patrick Devine-Wright in the Journal of Environmental Planning and Management reached the following interesting conclusions:
* The findings show how potential health effects from electric and magnetic fields (EMF) and visual impacts are perceived to industrialise rural places,disrupt place attachments and provoke local opposition.
* The findings challenge the ‘not-in-my- back-yard’ assumption that citizens are selfish place-protectionists that lack the technical sophistication necessary to take a strategic viewpoint on transmission system development.
* They also reveal how decision making under the … Planning Inspectorate … presents a challenge to procedural justice, as front-loaded developer-led consultation practices curtail citizen input to key decisions on alternative technologies (for example, underground or undersea lines). This is likely to exacerbate public mistrust of transmission system operators and provoke further organised protest.
“So in brief, people don’t like them due to health worries and visual amenity loss, it’s wrong to brand them NIMBYs and things won’t change unless the planning process does.”
Dr Dean points out that there is a presumption in favour of pylons as the default technology, but that offshore wind, and any associated infrastructure is deemed a Critical National Priority, with the highest level of support in the planning system.
He states: “The stage seems set for more public opposition as the plans for progressing to net zero, in the long term, and clean power, in the short term, get revealed.”
Pylons are used by both the transmission grids and distribution grids. For pylons carrying a voltage higher than 132 kV, the development of overhead lines is consented via the Planning Act 2008, with applications examined by the Planning Inspectorate and decided by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband.
132 kV is the highest distribution voltage and consented the same as transmission, except for the cases of lines serving Welsh generators that are totally in Wales, in which case they are examined by the Welsh Government’s planning body PEDW and decided by Welsh Ministers.
Dr Dean states that lines of under 132 kV are typically on wooden poles or double poles, and are far less controversial with the public. It is the 132 kV and 400 kV lines that cause the majority of issues, and most of these are consented by the Secretary of State.
He continues: “Wales has committed to be globally responsible by hosting enough renewables to at least meet its own electricity needs by 2035.
“It is entirely feasible for Wales to generate the equivalent of 100% of its electricity demand by 2035 using only offshore wind power. This would have a dramatic impact on the requirements of the transmission and distribution grids.
“It is our opinion that the reason this is not happening is because the Welsh Government has failed to secure sufficient development leases from the Crown Estate, either under the previous UK government or the current one. This may be due to the constant confusion between a need for more offshore capacity and the desire for the Crown Estate to be devolved.
“It would be entirely possible for Wales to have far more offshore wind power irrespective of the status of the Crown Estate. While CPRW does support devolution of the Crown Estate in Wales, this should not be seen, or used, as a means of delaying the building of more offshore wind capacity, particularly in the Irish Sea which is shallow and able to be developed using conventional fixed base turbines (like the North Sea).”
There appears to be two issues here. Firstly, the need to concentrate more on off-shore wind, but secondly if the Crown Estates was devolved to the Welsh Government, it would make it much easier for them to advance that agenda.
In the meantime, there needs to be a clear policy to underground cables rather than rely on pylons to better protect our landscapes.
Tuesday, January 06, 2026
The empty rhetoric of Reform
The paper says that in addition, a 5% council tax rise has not been ruled out by leaders at Reform-led Lancashire and Kent county councils, as well as in Warwickshire:
The increase in council tax in Derbyshire is expected to raise about £29m this financial year and will coincide with a new round of cuts worth £22m, according to its budget saving proposals.
The savings do not appear to include significant job cuts, despite council leader, Alan Graves, pledging to do so after claiming the local authority was 20% overstaffed.
The budget proposals report blames inflation, rising demand and the government’s new local government funding formula as having contributed to budgetary pressures.
It states the council “being a rural shire county has suffered as a result of the reforms” and in order to “maintain funding levels there will be a need to set increases in council tax at the maximum permitted level”.
The proposed increase in council tax has attracted criticism from opposition councillors in Derbyshire who accuse the party of “empty rhetoric”.
Conservative opposition leader, Alex Dale, said: “It is now painfully clear that Reform’s promise to ‘cut your taxes’, plastered across leaflets and campaign material right across the county in last year’s elections, was nothing more than empty rhetoric.
“Residents were sold a simple slogan, but the reality is that those promises were as worthless as the paper they were printed on.”
Gez Kinsella, the leader of the Green group at the council, said the party had promised to “cut taxes and improve services”, adding: “Reform’s ‘moon on a stick’ promises are turning out to be as true as the previous Conservative administration fantasy economics.”
Kinsella shared leaflets and letters she said Reform had distributed in Derbyshire before the local elections which pledged to “cut your taxes” and criticised rising council tax bills amid cuts to services.
In March this year, Derbyshire councillor Martin Bromley also posted an image on Facebook which included the statement: “Say no to Labour … say no to increased council tax.”
Reform UK said it never promised to freeze or reduce council tax during the election campaign and any pledges to reduce taxes were in relation to national policy.
Similar criticisms have also been raised at other Reform-led councils.
Leicestershire county council leader, Dan Harrison, declared the party would be able to “cut council tax” after the May local elections. However, just six months later, Harrison conceded that, although “a council tax freeze is our aspiration … conditions are unlikely to allow this for next year”.
The so-called disruptors turn out to be nothing of the sort. Quel surprise!
Monday, January 05, 2026
Is rejoining the EU in the UK's future?
The paper says that the YouGov survey, carried out in six European countries, shows 50 per cent of voters in the UK would vote to be an EU member if there was a referendum now, compared to 45 per cent and 46 per cent in France and Italy. The numbers were higher in Germany (62 per cent) Denmark (75 per cent) and Spain (66 per cent):
It also found that in Britain, just 31 per cent of people said they would vote to be outside the EU – far fewer than the 52 per cent who backed Brexit nearly a decade ago. In France, that figure was 30 per cent, Italy 28 per cent, Germany 20 per cent, Denmark 14 per cent and Spain 13 per cent.
The findings will put pressure on Keir Starmer days after No 10 said he would stick to his EU “red lines”, despite an interview in which Wes Streeting appeared to back a customs union with the bloc.
In what was seen as a direct challenge to Sir Keir, his health secretary said a “deeper trading relationship” with Europe would boost UK economic growth.
The Labour leader has pledged a “reset” of UK-EU relations but has rejected calls to rejoin the group or become part of its single market or customs union.
Despite Sir Keir’s stance, Labour ministers have begun to talk up the economic costs of Brexit more.
Last month, it was reported that Baroness Shafik, Sir Keir’s chief economic adviser, privately recommended rejoining the customs union in the run-up to November’s Budget, arguing it would cut costs for businesses and increase exports.
The deputy prime minister, David Lammy, also suggested that rejoining the union could increase economic growth, although he stressed it was not government policy.
It comes after an analysis seen by The Independent revealed that Brexit is costing the UK up to £90bn a year in lost tax revenues.
Lib Dem Europe spokesperson Al Pinkerton said: "The British people are tired of the economic self-harm imposed by the Conservatives’ broken Brexit deal. The government must stop burying their heads in the sand and listen to the clear majority of voters who are crying out for closer relations with our neighbours.”
Surely, it is time that Starmer started listening, the UK's economy depends on it.
