Sunday, April 26, 2026
Deep cuts in services needed to deliver Refom and Tory tax cuts
Nation Cymru reports that an analysis of party manifestos undertaken by Cardiff University academics has found that tax cuts proposed by Reform UK and the Welsh Conservatives would require deep cuts in public services and would disproportionately benefit better off earners.
The news site says that the report by the university’s Wales Governance Centre states that the Welsh Conservatives propose lowering the basic rate [of income tax] by 1p in the pound, while Reform UK propose a 1p in the pound reduction across all three income tax bands. They add that both policies would be regressive:
"Under Reform UK plans, 90% of the gains would go to households in the top half of the income distribution, with 60% of the gains going to households in the top two deciles of income.
“The Welsh Conservatives propose lowering the basic rate by 1p in the pound. The latest estimates from the Welsh Government suggest this would cost £325 million in 2027-28. We project this cost would grow to £367m by 2030-31.
“Reform UK propose a 1p in the pound reduction across all three income tax bands. The manifesto promises to enact this tax cut by the end of the Senedd term; we estimate that this would cost £444m by 2030-31.
“At lower income levels, a significant share of income is not taxed due to the personal allowance, so the rate cuts apply to a lower share of income than for higher earners. Under the Conservatives’ proposals, the biggest beneficiaries relative to income would be those with a gross income of around £50,270, for whom the decrease in total tax liability as a share of income would be 0.75% (saving £377 annually).
“For Reform UK’s policy, the decrease in total tax liability as a share of income would peak at 1% for those with incomes above £125,140 (who would save £1,251 a year). Reform UK’s policy is regressive, with a typical household in the richest 10% of households gaining three times as much as a typical household in the 5th decile as a share of their income. 90% of the gains would go to households in the top half of the income distribution, with 60% going to households in the top two deciles of income.
“The Welsh Conservative policy is also broadly regressive, but to a lesser extent; the biggest relative gains would go to households in the 8th decile of income, with almost half of the gains going to households in the top two deciles of income.
“All parties propose reviews, reforms or specific reliefs for Non-Domestic Rates (NDR). NDR revenues have fallen by a fifth in real terms since 2019-20 and tax cuts would have an impact on resources available for public services.
“Reform UK and the Welsh Conservatives propose introducing a referendum requirement for council tax increases of 5% or more. Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru and Welsh Labour both promise to ‘make council tax fairer’. While carrying through the planned 2028 revaluation may fulfil this promise, the lack of further detail on what reforms both parties would implement is disappointing.
“We estimate total Welsh Conservative tax cuts could amount to approximately £705m by 2030-31, or 2.6% of day-to-day spending. On current spending projections, this would imply no real-terms growth in day-to-day spending over the next Senedd term.
“Reform UK’s explicit tax cuts could cost approximately £450m by 2030-31. … [The] fiscal outlook is highly uncertain and the underlying UK government spending plans and the economic forecasts will likely change substantially. But tax cuts on this scale would make deep cuts to some public services likely.
Neither party have said how they will finance these tax cuts, which could potentially starve key services like health, education and social care of resources. With public services in Wales struggling we need investment not cuts. These policies would be disastrous for Wales.
Saturday, April 25, 2026
An historic structure
The pier's website says that the 835ft structure cost £10,000 to complete, and its completion which was relatively late in the history of Piers, takes on many of the architectural successes learnt from other piers all over the country. They add that along with the opening of the Pier came the extension of the Mumbles Railway line from Oystermouth to the newly built Pier Terminus:
It was officially opened by Lady Jenkins, on 10th May 1898, along with the new line of the Mumbles Railway Co, an extension from Oystermouth to Mumbles Head. Local schoolchildren were given a half-day holiday in celebration of these major events. In addition to the building cost of £10,000, another £40,000 was spent on improvements such as the Skating Rink and Bandstand.
The structure is set against the backdrop of a 200 year old lighthouse, a 145 year old lifeboat station and Swansea Bay, which for some reason has been compared to the Bay of Naples.
The pier is free for the public to walk along and enjoy. At the end you can visit the new RNLI Lifeboat house and take in the breathtaking panoramic views, however it is still in the middle of continued restoration work, which is needed to secure the structure for the future.
Labels: lochist
Sunday, April 19, 2026
Majority of voters would rather rejoin the EU than compromise on deal
The news site adds that the findings come in response to the planned UK-EU reset legislation set to be part of the King’s Speech package set out by the Prime Minister on May 13 involving a new law to allow single market rules to be adopted through secondary legislation:
The Best for Britain report has used recent YouGov polling to establish that the Government’s current plan has broad but shallow support, claiming that many voters are “holding their noses” in the hopes of something better.
Polling suggests 61% of people in the UK support building closer ties and establishing deeper alignment with the EU, but just 19% express strong support.
However, when faced with the options for that reset, becoming a member of the EU is the most popular choice, with 53% approval.
That is compared with other options such as joining the EU single market, negotiating a UK-EU customs union or diverging further from the EU.
“It’s plain to see little appetite exists for the halfway houses of a customs union or single market entry, relative to the resounding and deeply felt support for EU membership,” said Naomi Smith, chief executive of Best for Britain.
The report also indicated that support for the EU is highest among Labour (83%), Liberal Democrat (84%) and Green Party (82%) supporters.
Some 39% of Conservatives also support that policy, along with 18% of Reform UK voters, according to the YouGov survey.
The polling also suggests that parties advocating for EU membership actually increases support from Labour, Lib Dem and Green backers.
The YouGov data is extrapolated from two surveys of more than 4,000 voters from across the political spectrum, from September 2025 and March 2026.
This is obviously a reaction to the current situation with Trump and the Middle East, but it is also an opportunity to move closer to the EU, and it is one we should take.
Saturday, April 18, 2026
The church at the centre of Swansea and the devil that haunted it
As Wikipedia says, there has been a church on the site of St Mary's since circa 1328, which was erected by Henry de Gower, Bishop of Saint David's. It has rebuilt many times:
One Sunday morning, in 1739, the roof of the nave collapsed into the church while the congregation was waiting to enter the building. The whole structure was re-built apart from the tower. 1822 saw the church being lit by gas for the first time with thirty six lamps. The church underwent complete renovation between 1879 and 1882 by Vicar Dr Morgan. In 1896, the church was flattened and rebuilt again under the designs of Arthur Blomfield by Dean Allan Smith, though some parts of the old church survived the re-development. In February 1941 the church was extensively damaged by Bombing during the Blitz. It was not rebuilt until the 1950s.
He had his wish during World War II, when St. Mary's Church was destroyed in a bombing raid, but the devil carving remained unscathed. The original, carved devil was removed in the 1960s but later found and briefly displayed at the Quadrant Shopping Centre in the 1980s. It is now safely housed inside Swansea Museum.
Labels: lochist
Friday, April 17, 2026
Labour civil war?
The paper adds that the health secretary said that “the money has to come from somewhere” in a move interpreted as backing Labour’s former defence secretary and ex-Nato secretary general George Robertson earlier this week, but has since issued a clarification denying that he specifically wants to slash benefits to fund defence.:
However, they say that there is growing alarm at Sir Keir Starmer’s failure to decide on the UK’s defence spending, with the Defence Improvement Plan (DIP) still stuck on his desk after months of rowing between the Treasury and Ministry of Defence (MoD):
In a stark warning, Lord Jock Stirrup, the former chief of the defence staff, told The Independent the UK needs a decade to rebuild its defence capabilities and urged Sir Keir to show leadership and start the reinvestment now, in the latest intervention over the parlous state of the defence estate.
Mr Streeting, who is understood to still be hoping to replace Sir Keir as Labour leader and prime minister, is the first cabinet minister to appear to argue in favour of cutting the £334bn benefits budget to fund Britain’s military.
In so doing he risks reopening the dividing lines which saw Sir Keir forced into a humiliating U-turn by furious Labour backbenchers last year when he tried to trim the burgeoning welfare budget.
Mr Streeting has previously made it clear that money cannot be diverted from health spending following Labour’s manifesto commitment to increase it.
But asked if he would support switching funds from the welfare budget, Mr Streeting told LBC: “Well, yeah. We want to reduce the welfare budget.”
Mr Streeting was asked by LBC’s Nick Ferrari about claims of “corrosive complacency” made against Sir Keir by Lord Robertson and other military leaders last week.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, the lead of Labour’s strategic defence review, warned the military could not be properly funded with an “ever-expanding welfare budget”.
Mr Streeting said: “Yes, and we do need to put money into defence.
“We have been putting more money into defence as a government, but we will need more. That is the reality of the challenge of the world that we face.”~
But with Treasury said to be blocking increases to defence spending, including a deal for UK troops to be peacekeepers in Ukraine, the health secretary said it was up to Rachel Reeves to set out in future Budgets, adding: “I want to make sure I stay in my lane.”
A source close to Mr Streeting later clarified: “The government’s position is to increase defence spending and reform welfare. Wes didn’t link those two positions, and he robustly defended the abolition of the two-child limit, for which he was a strong advocate. Wes is a product of the welfare system, so knows the value of it, and the need to reform it, better than most.”
There was a furious backlash from charities and Labour MPs to the health secretary’s intervention.
Evan John, policy adviser at Sense, said: “It’s extremely concerning that the government seems to be laying the groundwork for further cuts to disability benefits, fuelling anxiety among disabled people already struggling as the cost of living rises.”
Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who led the welfare rebellion last year, warned: “I am clear that we have to provide household security and national security. It is a false choice to play one off against another. People supported by the Department for Work and Pensions are already struggling to make ends meet. The government must not contemplate such moves.”
With this sort of controversy within Labour, it is no wonder Starmer doesn't seem able to make a decision.
Thursday, April 16, 2026
Call for ban on ‘abusive’ lawsuits against media outlets to be in King’s Speech
The news site says that the calls are part of a “day of action” aimed at highlighting the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation (Slapps) on both local newspapers and wider society:
s Slapps, described by critics as “lawfare”, involve the rich and powerful using defamation and privacy laws to intimidate and shut down scrutiny, threatening to tie up their targets in costly legal action.
Organised by the UK Anti-Slapp Coalition, Wednesday’s campaign calls for the Government to include legislation curbing the practice in next month’s King’s Speech.
The call has been backed by MPs from a range of parties, including Tory grandee Sir David Davis, Labour’s Lloyd Hatton and Liberal Democrat justice spokeswoman Jess Brown-Fuller.
Sir David said Slapps were “a grave threat to free speech here in the UK” and cost the justice system “millions of pounds”.
Mr Hatton said they were “abusive tactics” that prevented “journalists, whistleblowers and campaigners from shining a light on suspected corruption or foul play”, while Ms Brown-Fuller said the Government must legislate if it is “serious about protecting victims”.
The UK Anti-Slapp Coalition has pointed to small media outlets, including student papers, being threatened with legal action over their reporting at a time when economic challenges made them less able to deal with the potential costs.
Coalition co-chair Nik Williams said: “Local journalism is the lifeblood of democracy, and if an outlet feels unable to cover a story because of legal threats, issues of real public importance can disappear from scrutiny altogether.”
Justice Secretary David Lammy was a vocal supporter of tougher laws against Slapps while in opposition.
But since coming to power Labour has shied away from introducing standalone legislation to end the practice, so far only activating provisions passed by the previous government to tackle the issue in 2023.
Justice sources have stressed the need to strike a balance between access to justice and freedom of speech.
Coalition founder Susan Coughtrie said: “Despite leading the charge in opposition to bring forward universal anti-Slapp legislation, press reports imply the Government has now shelved plans to legislate, which if true is extremely disappointing particularly given the significant cross-party support.
Anything that threatens the ability of the media and others to carry out their job is a threat to civil liberties and democracy. The government needs to act. “The longer the delay to take action, the longer the system will remain open for abuse.”
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
UK reaps consequences of brexit as steel exports to EU at risk
Thry add that the decision by EU lawmakers and member states after late night talks on Monday, will reduce duty-free quotas by 47%, with exact country allocations have yet to be determined:
Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein will not be subject to tariffs as member of the European Economic Area, but the UK will, highlighting the economic disadvantages of Brexit.
The European steel industry said the radical new measures would help pull the industry “back from the brink” of collapse.
Axel Eggert, the director general of the European Steel Association, Eurofer, said the measures would help by “curbing unsustainable import pressure … and creating a gap for EU manufacturers to produce 15m extra tonnes of steel to meet local demand”.
The latest data showed imports grew to record levels at the end of 2025, to 9.9m tonnes in the final quarter from 7.4m tonnes year on year.
The new measures, which will come into force in July, will cap imports of steel in the EU to 18.7m tonnes a year, with country quotas to be negotiated across 28 discrete product types.
But with the EU now the UK’s largest market, with 1.8m tonnes of exports a year or 10% of the new quota, the pressure is mounting on Keir Starmer to ensure duty-free quotas to match UK sales into the bloc.
UK Steel, the British industry body, said it was “crucial that the UK and EU reach a sensible agreement regarding access to each other’s quota systems”.
The UK has a strong card in negotiations, having also announced it plans to impose 50% tariffs on imports from third countries from 1 July with quotas cut by 60%, higher than the EU’s 47% reduction.
As the UK and the EU were “each other’s largest export markets” there was “a clear, mutually beneficial deal to be had” to stop the “real bad actors”, UK Steel added.
This is precisely the sort of bad impact on the UK economy that many warned about in 2016. The so-called easy-deal with the EU never emerged and we are left playing catch-up.
Tuesday, April 14, 2026
Founder of Starmer's legal chambers spells out opposition to plan to abolish jury trials
The Guardian reports that the founder of Keir Starmer’s barristers’ chambers has condemned the planned restriction of jury trials in England and Wales as “a betrayal of the values for which Labour purports to stand”.
The paper says that Geoffrey Robertson KC, founding head of Doughty Street Chambers, where the attorney general, Richard Hermer KC, and the justice secretary, David Lammy, also had their professional homes, has written a more than 9,000-word polemic to coincide with the committee stage of the courts and tribunals bill:
In the document, published on the Bar Council’s website on Monday night, Robertson questions the principle and efficacy of seeking to reduce the court backlog by using the bill to slash the number of jury trials by about half, calling the proposals a “cure worse than the disease”.
He says: “Attacking juries must be regarded a betrayal of the values for which Labour purports to stand.
“How have they come to betray a principle that has been so important over the centuries for those who have dissented or stood for progress?
“Given its record of support for progressive causes, for free speech and peaceful political protests, the bill does seem a betrayal of Labour traditions and values. MPs who vote in favour will be on the wrong side of their party’s own history.”
He says trial by jury is a much-admired part of English heritage, trusted by the public, and has a constitutional importance in allowing lay people to stand up independently against the state and extend mercy to defendants who deserve it.
Tracing the history, Robertson says Clive Ponting, who was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act for passing documents to a Labour MP about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands war, would not have been entitled to a jury trial under the proposals. Jurors cleared Ponting despite the judge directing them to convict and ignore his defence that he was acting in the public interest.
Robertson writes that Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, if ever prosecuted in relation to the Epstein files, could lose their right to jury trial under the changes because their hypothetical trials would be “lengthy” and probably “complex”.
He says: “The determination, by 12 citizens, of evidence tested by prosecution and defence, is a surer guide to the right result, reflecting common sense and common values, than the personal view of a judge or a bench of magistrates.
“A jury trial (always under the supervision of a professional judge) is much superior to a trial before lay magistrates, a group of amateurs with the time and money to devote to punishing those from a different class.”
He says judges “are not representative of the public, come from an upper middle class and may lack understanding of contemporary social and moral attitudes”.
This is a compelling argument that exposes how dangerous the proposal to abolish juries is. The government needs to take notice of this article. The human rights lawyer, who, joked that “Doughty Street has become Labour’s equivalent of Eton for the Tory cabinet”, claims that the proposals would place additional burdens on court time. Extra hearings would be needed to determine whether cases qualified for jury trial, including an analysis of the likely sentence, and judges would have to produce detailed written reasonings, he argues. He describes claims that the criminal justice system could collapse if jury trials are not limited as exaggerated. He says the backlog resulted from spending cuts and could be tackled with greater efficiency by addressing other factors such as delays in getting defendants to court. The proposals would do nothing to curtail the investigation process involving police and prosecutors, including the decision to charge, which involves “some of the worst delays”, he adds.
The paper says that Geoffrey Robertson KC, founding head of Doughty Street Chambers, where the attorney general, Richard Hermer KC, and the justice secretary, David Lammy, also had their professional homes, has written a more than 9,000-word polemic to coincide with the committee stage of the courts and tribunals bill:
In the document, published on the Bar Council’s website on Monday night, Robertson questions the principle and efficacy of seeking to reduce the court backlog by using the bill to slash the number of jury trials by about half, calling the proposals a “cure worse than the disease”.
He says: “Attacking juries must be regarded a betrayal of the values for which Labour purports to stand.
“How have they come to betray a principle that has been so important over the centuries for those who have dissented or stood for progress?
“Given its record of support for progressive causes, for free speech and peaceful political protests, the bill does seem a betrayal of Labour traditions and values. MPs who vote in favour will be on the wrong side of their party’s own history.”
He says trial by jury is a much-admired part of English heritage, trusted by the public, and has a constitutional importance in allowing lay people to stand up independently against the state and extend mercy to defendants who deserve it.
Tracing the history, Robertson says Clive Ponting, who was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act for passing documents to a Labour MP about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands war, would not have been entitled to a jury trial under the proposals. Jurors cleared Ponting despite the judge directing them to convict and ignore his defence that he was acting in the public interest.
Robertson writes that Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, if ever prosecuted in relation to the Epstein files, could lose their right to jury trial under the changes because their hypothetical trials would be “lengthy” and probably “complex”.
He says: “The determination, by 12 citizens, of evidence tested by prosecution and defence, is a surer guide to the right result, reflecting common sense and common values, than the personal view of a judge or a bench of magistrates.
“A jury trial (always under the supervision of a professional judge) is much superior to a trial before lay magistrates, a group of amateurs with the time and money to devote to punishing those from a different class.”
He says judges “are not representative of the public, come from an upper middle class and may lack understanding of contemporary social and moral attitudes”.
This is a compelling argument that exposes how dangerous the proposal to abolish juries is. The government needs to take notice of this article. The human rights lawyer, who, joked that “Doughty Street has become Labour’s equivalent of Eton for the Tory cabinet”, claims that the proposals would place additional burdens on court time. Extra hearings would be needed to determine whether cases qualified for jury trial, including an analysis of the likely sentence, and judges would have to produce detailed written reasonings, he argues. He describes claims that the criminal justice system could collapse if jury trials are not limited as exaggerated. He says the backlog resulted from spending cuts and could be tackled with greater efficiency by addressing other factors such as delays in getting defendants to court. The proposals would do nothing to curtail the investigation process involving police and prosecutors, including the decision to charge, which involves “some of the worst delays”, he adds.
Monday, April 13, 2026
Is the UK moving closer to the EU?
The paper says that they understand that ministers are bracing to face down opposition to a “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.
After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy, help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.
A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.
The move is possible under so-called Henry VIII powers, named after the 1539 law that allowed the monarch to rule by decree, which allow ministers to approve laws without full scrutiny from parliament using secondary legislation.
The bill will enable deals the government is negotiating on food and drink and emissions trading to come into force, and allow it to follow future EU changes in these areas.
But the Guardian understands that if the new bill – expected to be introduced before the summer – is passed, negotiators could seek to adopt EU rules on everything from cars to farming using secondary legislation.
Parliament can either approve or reject secondary legislation, but cannot amend it, which would probably mean MPs will “rubber-stamp” new deals rather than debate and vote on every one. Any blocking votes would be likely to cause issues with the EU, and could spark retaliatory action. A source said: “We are clear parliament will have a role for new deals and on new EU laws applying under those deals.”
Thia is interesting and very welcome. With Trump increasingly out of control, our destiny lies with Europe and it is pleasing that the UK government has started to recognise that.
Sunday, April 12, 2026
Police review Reform UK energy prize draw
However, Nigel Farage has said he is “not in the least bit worried” electoral rules may have been broken by holding the competition after footage online showed him and Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick visiting the winners:
In a video posted on X, the pair could be seen handing a bunch of flowers and a large cheque for £1,758 to a couple, said to be Reform UK supporters, in Wigan on Thursday.
Asked whether he was worried the party may have broken electoral rules with the stunt, Mr Farage told reporters on Friday: “No, I’m not in the least bit worried.”
Party sources said many members had entered the competition so it was no surprise that a supporter won and that there was video evidence of the randomised draw taking place for legal purposes. It is understood the draw was open to both members and non-members.
A spokesperson for Greater Manchester Police said: “We have received a report and are currently reviewing the matter.”
This is not the same as launching an investigation and it is unclear what potential offence is being looked at.
An ICO spokesperson said: “All political parties collecting personal information, including information for political campaigning, need to comply with data protection law.
“We’re in regular contact with political parties about how they use people’s data. We have spoken with Reform about this competition and improving transparency in how they handle people’s personal information.
“People who are concerned about how their information is being used by any political party can raise those concerns with the party, and if they remain dissatisfied can make a complaint to the ICO.”
The Electoral Commission said some activity designed to “incentivise voter behaviour” may be considered an offence, including “bribery and treating”.
“It would be for the police to consider the facts of any allegations made to them, in order to determine if an offence has been committed,” the watchdog said.
“Treating occurs if food, drink, entertainment or other provisions are directly or indirectly given to voters to corruptly influence how they vote.
“Bribery occurs when money is given, directly or indirectly, to induce a voter to vote or not vote. Any allegations should be reported directly to the police.”
Perhaps the police should also review this article, which reports that Reform are also offering “cash prizes” to its Welsh branches as a sweetener to entice members to canvas during the Senedd election campaign. Paying canvassers is also illegal. Is that what this is?
