Peter Black

The BBC reports that First Minister Rhun ap Iorwerth has promised to tackle congestion along the M4 motorway and said it needs a "roads-based solution".

They say that the Plaid Cymru leader has classed the Brynglas Tunnels in Newport as an "economic problem for Wales", which is most probably true, but so is the M4 around Port Talbot, but as most of the journalists live in the south east of Wales, it doesn't get the same attention.

Of course, ap Iorwerth did not commit to a specific scheme to address the traffic black spot, which is not surprising as the cost of the black route across the Gwent Levels is astronomical.

Of course, Welsh Labour have accused the First Minister of making an "unfunded transport promise", while Reform UK and the Welsh Conservatives are calling for the relief road to be built:

Plaid had been opposed to a proposed M4 relief road, a controversial project to build a new motorway across the Gwent levels south of Newport, when the former Labour government last ditched the scheme.

The road, also known as the black route, would have bypassed the Brynglas Tunnels, which struggle to cope with the volume of traffic the M4 attracts at peak times.

Old proposals for a relief road included colour-coded black, blue, red and purple routes, with the yellow line marking the railway

Speaking at the Urdd Eisteddfod on Anglesey on Wednesday, ap Iorwerth said it had been Plaid policy for "many, many years" that something needed to be done to "unclog that Brynglas bottleneck".

"We remain against that black route as it was called, which was unnecessary," he said, adding that a "road-based solution" was still needed alongside new railway stations proposed between Cardiff and the Severn Tunnel.

Ap Iorwerth said options could include the so-called blue route, which would involve upgrading an existing dual carriageway through the south of Newport.

"What we need to do is do the work, and we will, to find the solutions," he said.

The question of course is whether the blue route is even viable. I had a briefing on this option when I was an Assembly Member and discovered that after spending a lot of money, it would actually make little difference to the congestion, offering some relief for a short time before filling up with traffic.

The fact is that whatever road the Welsh Government builds will be inundated with traffic very quickly, as happens with every similar project, not to mention the environmental damage.

It was Robin Cook who announced that Chicken Tikka Masala is the new national dish of Britain, but as David Olusoga told a session at the Hay Literary Festival the idea that the so-called previous favourite, fish and chips, is an exclusively British dish is misplaced.

As Wikipedia recounts Fish-and-chip shops first appeared in the UK in the 1860s, and by 1910 there were over 25,000 of them across the UK. This increased to over 35,000 by the 1930s, but eventually decreased to approximately 10,000 by 2009.

They add that the British government safeguarded the supply of fish and chips during the First World War and again in the Second World War. It was one of the few foods in the UK not subject to rationing during the wars, which further contributed to its popularity. However, the tradition did not originate here:

The British tradition of eating fish battered and fried in oil was introduced to the country by the Chuts and Spanish and Portuguese Jews who lived in the Netherlands before settling in the UK. These immigrants arrived as early as the 16th century, the main immigration to London being during the 1850s. They prepared fried fish in a manner similar to pescado frito, which is coated in flour then fried in oil.

Fish fried for Shabbat for dinner on Friday evenings could be eaten cold the following afternoon for shalosh seudot, palatable this way as liquid vegetable oil was used rather than a hard fat, such as butter. Charles Dickens mentions "fried fish warehouses" in Oliver Twist and in 1845 Alexis Soyer in his first edition of A Shilling Cookery for the People, gives a recipe for "fried fish, Jewish fashion", which is dipped in a batter mix of flour and water before frying However, "fish the Jews' way" in most English cookery books usually refer not to plain fried fish, but to escabeche, fish fried, then pickled in vinegar.

The location of the first fish and chip shop is unclear. The earliest known shops were opened in London during the 1860s by Eastern European Jewish immigrant Joseph Malin, and by John Lees in Mossley, Lancashire. Fried fish and chips had existed separately for at least 50 years prior to this, so the possibility that they had been combined at an earlier time cannot be ruled out. Fish and chips became a stock meal among the working class in England as a consequence of the rapid development of trawl fishing in the North Sea,[15] and the development of railways which connected the ports to major industrial cities during the second half of the 19th century, so that fresh fish could be rapidly transported to the cities.

Deep-fried chips (slices or pieces of potato) as a dish may have first appeared in England in about the same period: the Oxford English Dictionary notes as its earliest usage of "chips" in this sense the mention in Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities (1859): "husky chips of potato, fried with some reluctant drops of oil".

The modern fish-and-chip shop ("chippy" in modern British slang) originated in the UK, although outlets selling fried food occurred commonly throughout Europe. Early fish-and-chip shops had only very basic facilities. Usually these consisted principally of a large cauldron of cooking fat, heated by a coal fire. The fish-and-chip shop later evolved into a fairly standard format, with the food served, in paper wrappings, to queuing customers, over a counter in front of the fryers.

The point of this post is that we live in a multi-cultural society, but that is not a new development. Our country has a long history of migration over many centuries and our culture incorporates many traditions. The idea that the UK is somehow special and can exist in splendid isolation as portrayed by certain parties is nonsense.

Labels: lochist

The Independent reports that Labour has challenged Nigel Farage to disclose which authorities are investigating an alleged Russian hack linked to a £5 million gift he reportedly received.

The paper says that Anna Turley, Labour’s chairwoman, has written to the Clacton MP, urging him to publicly confirm whether he has reported the suspected cyber-attack to either the police or the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). She has said that if Farage fails to respond, then the Labour Party intends to make a report itself "in the public and national interest":

Farage received £5 million from Thailand-based crypto-entrepreneur Christopher Harborne in 2024, before he stood in the general election that year.

He has previously said the money was for non-political purposes, to pay for his safety and security, and later told The Sun it was a “reward for campaigning for Brexit for 27 years”.

A party source reportedly told the Mail On Sunday that forensic analysis of Mr Farage’s phone by “counter-espionage experts” indicated that “hostile state actors, almost certainly linked to Moscow, had used ‘spear phishing’ tactics to compromise his phone, email and bank accounts”.

Mr Farage told the newspaper: “These actions by Russia are deeply concerning and highlight the threat they pose to British security.”

Former NCSC boss Professor Ciaran Martin on Monday appeared to cast doubt over Mr Farage’s analysis, saying it was “without any merit”.

According to The Guardian newspaper, he said: “An aspiring prime minister has essentially claimed that Russia has launched an unprecedentedly aggressive intervention – a malicious intervention – in British politics, and he’s not produced a shred of evidence to support that claim.”

Ms Turley said she was “very concerned to read” that Mr Farage was allegedly hacked.

“If your suspicions are correct, this would constitute a serious cybercrime and a potential hostile-state operation directed at the leader of a British political party,” she told the party leader.

“I note that public reporting does not appear to confirm that this matter has been reported either to the police or to the National Cyber Security Centre.

“Instead, the reports state that you privately commissioned analysis from unnamed ‘counter-espionage experts’, who concluded that ‘hostile state actors, almost certainly linked to Moscow, had used spear phishing tactics’ to compromise your phone email and bank accounts.

“Quite apart from the implications for you personally, the alleged crime is an incredibly serious one with potential wider implications for Britain’s national security, the integrity of our politics and public confidence in our democratic system.”

As serious as a possible hack is, in many ways it detracts from the main issue - the funding of a UK politician and his political party by an overseas businessman to the tune of millions of pounds and the failure by Farage to report the £5m gift to the Parliamentary authorities.

The more Farage changes or adds to the story behind this gift, the less credible it seems. We need to establish the facts.

The Independent reports that Andy Burnham has hit out at Sir Tony Blair suggesting the former Labour prime minister is out of touch and partly to blame for the rise of politicians like Nigel Farage.

The paper says that Burnham's rebuke comes after Sir Tony warned that Labour was “playing with fire” on the future of the country, as he urged the party not to move further to the left, saying it should instead occupy the “radical centre”:

In an interview with the Observer, Mr Burnham, who is fighting to win a parliamentary by-election to return to Westminster, a prerequisite for challenging Sir Keir Starmer for the top job, criticised the former PM, who he said did not “mention inequality once”.

“If you don’t get how that’s driving politics now, if you are not rooting your analysis in the fact that people are unable to live and that things that were taken for granted are no longer affordable, then you are not understanding what’s going on,” he said.

Mr Burnham also insisted it was centrists, like Sir Tony, who had failed voters and fuelled the rise of Mr Farage’s Reform UK.
The Greater Manchester mayor said his former party leader “criticises my phrase about 40 years of neoliberalism but the last 40 years has given us wide inequality – that’s what’s responsible for the abandonment of the centre”.

“People don’t think the centre has delivered for them in terms of their lives, therefore they’ve gone further to the extremes,” he added.

Mr Burnham also attacked what he described as Sir Tony’s “obsession” with universities.

When he was in office the ex-PM famously set a target for 50 per cent of young people to go on to higher education. Mr Burnham said there should be a greater focus on technical education, such as apprenticeships.

“The prioritisation of universities is a significant part of the problem that has left out too many people and has impacted on the welfare system,” he said.

Sir Tony’s scathing attack on Labour, in the form of a 5,600 essay, said the party had no clear plan for the future and warned it risked doing long-term damage to both itself and the country unless the government underwent a fundamental reset.

In a damning indictment of nearly two years of a Starmer government, he said: “We don’t have a worked-out, coherent plan for the country in a fast-changing world, and are in the wrong political position from which to devise one and win a second term.”

But he warned trying to force the prime minister out without a clear policy direction “is not a serious way of conducting ourselves”.

He called on Labour to occupy the “best political space” which he described as “the radical centre”.

As unwelcome as Tony Blair's intervention may be to those within Labour, I think John Crace in the Guardian sums it up best in his parody version:

I led the Labour party for 13 years and won three general elections. Never forget that. No other Labour politician has done that. And if I play my cards right, no other Labour politician ever will. Right now, the Labour party is in the grip of self-delusion. Which makes me the perfect person to critique it. Because no one is more self-deluded than me. ‘Tis very heaven to imagine you are being constructive when your real goal is to switch off the life support.

A 7,500 word essay from Tony Blair on the future of the UK should be nobody's idea of what we need right now.

Having just spent four days in sweltering heat in the Hay Literature Festival, I was not amused to see this article in the Guardian that predicts that it can only get worse.

Bill McGuire takes us to the last day of July 2052:

From the air, London resembles a colossal refugee camp. Streets, gardens and parks are teeming with tents and cobbled-together shelters, within which the city’s residents have spent another uncomfortable night away from the heat traps that their houses and flats have become. After six days when the temperature peaked at about 40C, another scorcher is on the way.

Half-hearted attempts to upgrade insulation across the country’s housing stock ran out of steam and cash decades earlier, and most homes still have few barriers to the infiltrating heat. Almost all the country’s electricity is now from renewables, which has brought the cost down, but the relentless onslaught of extreme weather has driven an ever-deepening economic depression across the world. Many now have air conditioning, but can’t afford to run it.

Early risers yawn and stretch as they queue at standpipes for water. A succession of dry winters and a spring drought have brought water rationing across the south-east of England, adding to the woes of those waking from another sticky, broken sleep. Ironically, there is plenty of rain now, and every day ends with an electric storm and torrential rain. Most of this, however, cascades directly into storm drains that can no longer cope, bringing surface flooding to lower-lying parts of the capital, but no end to the dearth of potable water.

Growing crowds cluster around state-run grocery stores that provide the basics at affordable prices. Failed harvests at home in the previous two years, and massively reduced food imports, as other nations stricken by extreme weather hold on to what they have, has meant the rationing of bread and other staples. Supermarkets still exist, but they are struggling to keep prices down, and so cater almost entirely to the wealthy.

The power is out again, as it has been intermittently since the start of the heatwave. The problem isn’t generation but transmission; the extreme temperatures making cables sag and break and causing transformers to overheat. The doors of houses are open to let in the relatively cool air of the night, although the temperature hasn’t fallen below 29C. Trailing cables lead to televisions that some have shifted outside to watch, when the power is on, and to laptops over which crouch office workers marooned at home by widespread transport problems. A combination of the heat and extended power outages has brought chaos to rail and tube networks, while damage to road surfaces and malfunctioning traffic lights means that getting to work by car is a lottery.

Every hospital is overwhelmed as the incessant heat and humidity take their toll on vulnerable people, the old and the very young, and the final death toll across the country once the heat has abated is likely to be in the tens of thousands.

McGuire says that this future has every chance of coming to life if we continue to blunder unprepared into a climatically challenging future. Rather disturbingly, he says that we can’t stop what’s coming, but we can do plenty to help us cope better:

At the top of any to-do list is the critical importance of properly insulating our entire housing stock, so that homes can become refuges from the heat rather than potential death traps. At the same time, the large-scale roll out of generously subsidised rooftop solar power, combined with battery storage, will do much to make homes at least partly independent of the grid, and able to run air conditioning during peak heat, even when the power is out. Personal rainfall harvesting, which is already big in Germany and other countries, will also help to address the predicted water deficit. While we need to seriously rethink the country’s food strategy as a whole, encouragement and incentives for as many people as possible to grow at home their own fruit and vegetables can also help to ease the burden of inevitable shortages.

While such measures will help to mitigate the worst, casting a shadow over our efforts will be the impact of a failing climate on the global economy, and the consequences for the UK – with a number of analyses forecasting significant reductions in global GDP by mid-century. Inevitably, this will translate into increased hardship for many UK citizens, compromising their ability to cope with the new conditions. At the same time, a seriously weakened national economy will leave government with less money to build the resilience the country needs to successfully prevail in a hotter world.

Bearing in mind that we continue to pump out CO2 equivalent to the weight of 800,000 Titanics every year, and fossil fuel corporations are actively planning to expand operations, it is practically impossible for emissions reductions to happen fast enough to reduce the rate at which our world is heating. Consequently, 40C-plus mid-century heat in the UK is now baked in. We need, then, to face the fact that life in the 2050s is going to be very different from today, and act now. The sooner we recognise this and begin – as a nation – to prepare and adapt accordingly, the better we will be able to meet these enormous challenges to our everyday lives.

It looks like future Hay Festivals will be just as unbearably hot even if the government does take action to mitigate th impact/

This is an article I wrote for Liberator about the Senedd elections:

It all started to go wrong for the smaller parties at the Caerphilly by-election, a first-past-the-post contest that saw Plaid Cymru hold off Reform to take the Welsh Senedd seat from Labour.

In that election, Plaid was seen as the best choice to stop the Welsh branch of Farage’s limited company from taking the seat, and from that moment all the opinion polls had the subsequent Senedd election as a two-horse race.

The only problem was that the elections on 7th May were not being conducted on the same basis. We had a new system – sixteen constituencies each electing six MSs using the closed list d’hondt method.

It was a change designed to help the two larger parties. It gave control of the lists to party apparatchiks rather than ordinary members and set a threshold of around 11-12% of the vote to even have a chance of getting elected.

The irony was that having designed the voting system, Labour plummeted in the polls and found themselves victims, rather than benefactors. The other parties suffered as well, because by this time Plaid Cymru were hammering the message that they were the only choice to stop Reform, despite the fact that even this PR system does not work that way.

The election campaign was frenetic. I have never had so many pieces of paper through the door, all promising the earth, none of them, including the Welsh Liberal Democrats, properly costed, or taking account of the projected tightening in public expenditure over the next four years.

From that perspective it was a resource-intensive election, which meant that the Welsh Liberal Democrats had to target their campaigning to what was winnable. This started off as working five of the new constituencies, but by the end we were focussing on three – Brycheiniog Tawe Nedd (incorporating Brecon and Radnorshire and Swansea East and Neath), Gŵyr Abertawe (incorporating Swansea West and Gower) and Caerdydd Ffynnon Taf (incorporating Cardiff North and Cardiff West).

Throughout the campaign, the polls had the Welsh Liberal Democrats on between 4% and 6% and projected to win between zero and three seats. Our only hope lay in intensive campaigning and getting our vote out.

One question that is consistently posed to our representatives by the Welsh media is why we are not doing as well in Wales as in England? This is a complex question, but essentially our support has never really recovered following the coalition.

One reason for that much of the output of our party is so English-focused, aimed at soft Tories in the home counties, which does not help those of us in a six-party system in a left of centre country.

I would argue as well that despite being a federal party, most of those in charge do not understand what that means, or how they should deal with policy and issues in the new landscape, and often they do not understand devolution. I have lost count of the number of statements from spokespeople that imply they are speaking for all of the UK, when in fact the issue is devolved. I do not except the leadership in that judgement.

The difficulty caused by Ed Davey was over a controversy that arose about our Welsh leader’s previous work as a social worker. Jane Dodds was accused of committing a “grave error of judgement” while working as a senior manager in the Church of England, because she failed for months to arrange a crucial meeting involving the sexual abuse of a young man by a Bishop.

Jane worked for the Church of England for a year from 2015 as part of a central team advising and supporting case managers throughout the country. At the time of the error, the bishop in question was already deceased.

Jane apologised for her error, but unfortunately, Ed Davey jumped in with both feet and, instead of leaving the matter to be dealt with by the Welsh Party, as should have been the case, he called for Jane’s resignation.

For too long Ed Davey's default position in any crisis has been to call for his opponent to resign. This is not a position he, himself, ever took over the Post Office scandal, and quite rightly, as he was one of a dozen ministers duped by the post office management into supporting their position.

It was not Davey's place to tell the Welsh Party what to do, nor to insist that Jane resign. His highly performative foot-in-mouth moment galvanised even sceptics to back the Welsh leader, with the result that Jane didn't go, and it put the party in an almost impossible position during the Senedd election campaign.

It was quite clear that if Ed Davey came to Wales, the entire visit would have been dominated by questions over his relationship with Jane Dodds. As a result, the federal leader’s involvement in our campaign was limited to a private meeting with activists. No media were invited and Jane Dodds found other campaigning work to do.

To be fair to the federal party they did provide substantial funding for the Welsh campaign, however it was not enough for us to get over the line as we would have wished to. In all 16 seats, our support was squeezed by the incessant two-horse race argument being promoted by Plaid and Reform.

Many long-standing Welsh Liberal Democrat voters in held wards went over to the Welsh nationalists to stop Reform. As a result, although our vote in the two target areas we missed out on was twice that of our national average, we failed to win a seat.

This left Jane Dodds in Brycheiniog Tawe Nedd. She secured the fifth seat with 11.8% of the vote and remains the only Welsh Liberal Democrat in the Senedd.

The new Senedd now has 43 Plaid Cymru members (35.4% of the national vote), 34 Reform MSs (29.3% of the vote), 9 Labour members (11.1% of the vote), 7 Conservatives (10.7%), 2 Greens (6.7%) and one Liberal Democrat (4.5%).

Forty-nine seats are required for a majority, so it is likely that Plaid Cymru will form a minority administration. This means that they will be looking to make deals to get every piece of legislation and every budget passed.

Meanwhile, Labour in a particular face an existential crisis. They have dominated Welsh politics for over a century, have never secured fewer that 26 seats in the former 60 seat Senedd, and have led the Welsh Government for 27 years.

Their appalling record in managing public services, especially the health service, and the economy has caught up with them, as has the massive unpopularity of Keir Starmer and his government.

In many ways things could have been much worse for the Welsh Liberal Democrats. We have taken a small step back from the precipice but remain in jeopardy. The need to rebuild organisation and support remains, but there are upsides.

Despite a small membership and activist base, the level of activity and enthusiasm the party managed to generate for this campaign was extraordinary. Even in the most hopeless of seats, members were out delivering leaflets, speaking to voters, attending debates and recruiting new workers.

Activity was mostly focused on key wards, providing a good base for tackling next year’s council elections. If we can maintain that work rate over the next 12 months, then there is a real chance that we can grow our local government base.

For now, however, there are by-elections to fight. Of the 96 people elected to the Senedd, some are already councillors and need to resign from the council to take up their place in Cardiff Bay. The campaigning goes on.

With all the controversy over Reform's alleged links with Russia, with Nigel Farage saying he admires Vladmir Putin, and the party's opposition to the support offered by the Welsh Government to Ukrainian refugees, now is not the best time for the party's leader in Wales to reinforce people's perceptions about Reform's sympathy towards Putin over his invasion of Ukraine.

And yet, as the BBC report, Dan Thomas has backed calls from one of his Senedd members for the Ukrainian flag outside the Welsh Parliament to be removed.

For once the Welsh Tories are on the side of common sense, with Welsh Conservative Senedd leader Darren Millar saying the flag was a "visible sign of the Senedd's resolute opposition to Russia's illegal invasion".

Still it is less than a month since the Senedd elections and already,Reform are promoting an agenda that would make Putin proud.

It is a sure sign that the government is getting too obsessed with social media when the Speaker of the House of Commons scolds Labour ministers for making major announcements on TikTok before Parliament.

The Guardian reports that, speaking in the House of Commons yesterday, ahead of Rachel Reeves' cost of living plan announcement, Lindsay Hoyle criticised ministers for announcing policies on social media before updating MPs:

The chancellor received a dressing down from deputy speaker Judith Cummins as she prepared to set out measures to mitigate the economic impact of the Iran war, several of which had already been briefed to the media.

The Ministerial Code, which governs how ministers should behave, states that policy announcements should be made first in Parliament.

After stressing the importance of the code, Sir Lindsay said: “ We've had the last three days of this announcement being drip-fed to the media. That is not in line with the government's own rules, and it is unacceptable.”

“ These backbenchers of either side are elected to this House to hear it first, not to be outside a Morrisons petrol station, not to be on a bus, not doing it to TikTok.”

At least Ministers arent showing off their dance moves on Tik Tok,

The Mirror reports that Dame Emily Thornberry, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, has voiced her frustration about the amount of information being redacted about Peter Mandelson's appointment, accusing Ministers of putting "obstacles" in the way of the truth over the former Ambassador's appointment.

The paper says that one of Keir Starmer's top aides was confronted by senior MPs who accused the Government of changing the goalposts over which documents it plans to release. This is despite the fact that the PM has committed to releasing all relevant files and messages around the decision to name Mandelson as ambassador to the US:

Thousands of pages of documents will be published after the next Parliamentary recess, which ends on June 1. But ministers face calls to explain why some files have been redacted or withheld.

Darren Jones, the PM's chief secretary, told the Commons that details such as junior officials' names, emails, and phone numbers - and data about third parties - were rightly being removed. And he said raw data around vetting, such as bank account and relationship details, would never be released as this would undermine the process.

But Tory Sir Jeremy Wright, a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) - which is overseeing the release of documents - accused the Government of finding new reasons for withholding information. He said that while ministers agreed documents would be redacted to avoid compromising national security or international relations, other reasons are now being used to do so.

He said: "We cannot accept that the government is entitled to ignore or to unilaterally alter the terms of the humble address (the Parliamentary motion demanding the documents are released)."

The Government is under intense pressure after it emerged UK Security Vetting (UKSV) had not recommended giving Mandelson security clearance before he was sent to Washington. This was overruled by the Foreign Office without the PM or his team being told.

Mandelson was sacked as the UK's 'Trump whisperer' in September last year as new details emerged about his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. He was arrested in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office following claims he shared senstive information with Epstein. This is alleged to have included details of an EU bailout following the 2008 economic crash. He denies wrongdoing.

Dame Emily Thornberry, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, told MPs: "I am disappointed at the answers that the Government has given.

"It seems to me that one of the questions in relation to the Mandelson appointment is why it is that when the UKSV document had two red boxes ticked - which included this man should not be appointed - that somehow or other that was translated into he should be appointed.

"And it is very important that the public know and understand that we are learning from the mistakes that were clearly made, and we cannot know that those lessons have been learned unless they are checked.

"And the committees in this House, my committee and the ISC are trying our best to get to the truth of this, and we are having obstacles put in our way."

This is not a good look for Keir Starmer's government nor will it help to win back public confidence.