Tuesday, November 18, 2025
The futile attempt to out-Farage Farage
The paper says that the home secretary’s flurry of proposals are designed to signal purpose, but constitute a wishlist of demands that her department can’t deliver:
Currently, those fleeing persecution are given a five-year right to stay in the country and can apply for settled status after that. Ms Mahmood wants refugees to stay in the country initially only for a 30-month period, and then review their status to see whether they will be allowed to remain in the country for another 30 months. After two decades in Britain, they could apply to stay here permanently.
Denmark is held up as the model. A decade ago a centre-left government there was under pressure, with a surging populist right and immigration dominating voters’ concerns. Danish Social Democrats claimed that getting tough on refugees helped them win the election. However, the reality was messier. Copenhagen stripped Syrians of protection, yet could not remove them, leaving people stuck in “deportation centres”, unable to work or live normally. The result was a permanently marginalised population in enforced limbo.
The British government now proposes to repeat this error, only at vastly greater scale. Ms Mahmood’s Home Office aims to reassess tens of thousands of refugees every two and a half years. With around 100,000 asylum claims annually – and many from countries that have a high grant rate – the system would soon need to conduct around 70,000 reviews each year. The Refugee Council says that the Home Office would need to review the status of 1.4 million people by 2035 at a cost of £872m. Yet this is the same state that cannot currently process the 50,000 appeals already in the queue, where waits hover around a year and tribunal judges are in short supply. Building a new bureaucracy to adjudicate applicants’ status is not bold politics, but magical thinking.
Ms Mahmood indicates that she wants to change the European convention on human rights, not abandon it. It is the Conservatives and Reform UK that talk of going it alone. But meaningful change cannot be made unilaterally. Any solo attempt would be self-defeating, risking Northern Ireland’s peace and undermining the post-Brexit deal with the EU.
Labour could achieve something substantial that voters care about and close the asylum hotels. Not by 2029, but by next year. The Refugee Council says the maths is simple: 40% of hotel residents come from five countries – Sudan, Eritrea, Iran, Afghanistan and Syria – from where between 60% and 98% are granted asylum. A one-off scheme to give permission to stay for a limited period, subject to security checks, would empty hotels rapidly. Rishi Sunak did just this 2023. There would be no need to engage with a damaging arms race with the far right, which would see Labour lose progressive support. It would, however, solve the single asylum-related issue that the public cares most about.
The Labour government is attempting to out-Farage Farage. As the paper says, copying Reform UK’s cruelty on asylum lets their leader own the issue, outbid Labour and drive the debate rightward at no cost. Worse, It gifts rightwingers the advantage, while setting itself up to look cruel and incompetent.
Monday, November 17, 2025
Labour's lazy narrative
Their rationale apparently, is that protecting animals such as dormice, badgers, hedgehogs, otters and nightingales, and rare habitats such as wetlands and ancient woodlands from developers is harming growth.
However, one House of Commons committee has carried out an inquiry that has come to a contrary conclusion.
The Guardian reports that the inquiry has conccluded that nature is not a blocker to housing growth, a view in direct conflict with claims made by ministers:
Toby Perkins, the Labour chair of the environmental audit committee, said nature was being scapegoated, and that rather than being a block to growth, it was necessary for building resilient towns and neighbourhoods.
In its report on environmental sustainability and housing growth, the cross-party committee challenged the “lazy narrative”, which has been promoted by UK government ministers, that nature was a blocker or an inconvenience to delivering housing.
The report said severe skills shortages in ecology, planning and construction would be what made it impossible for the government to deliver on its housebuilding ambitions.
Perkins said: “The government’s target to build 1.5m homes by the end of this parliament is incredibly ambitious. Achieving it alongside our existing targets on climate and sustainability – which are set in law – will require effort on a scale not seen before.
“That certainly will not be achieved by scapegoating nature, claiming that it is a ‘blocker’ to housing delivery. We are clear in our report: a healthy environment is essential to building resilient towns and cities. It must not be sidelined.”
Experts say the planning and infrastructure bill – in its final stages before being passed into law – rolls back environmental law to allow developers to sidestep the need for surveys and mitigation on the site of any environmental damage by paying into a central nature recovery fund for improvements to be made elsewhere.
The paper adds that the committee had concerns that the legislation as drafted would mean the government would miss its legally defined target to halt the decline of nature by 2030 and reverse it by 2042:
The report found that local planning authorities were severely underresourced in ecological skills. It heard evidence that staff at Natural England were “stretched to their limits”, that the skills needed to deliver the ecological aspects of planning reforms “simply do not exist at the scale, quality or capacity that is needed”.
Labour's commitment to the environment has never been weaker.
Sunday, November 16, 2025
Has Rachel Reeves budget turned into an omnishambles?
The Independent reports that Downing Street has been blamed for forcing Rachel Reeves to reverse Budget plans to raise income tax in what was described as “a panic move” to save Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership.
The paper says that Labour MPs, ministers and the markets were left stunned by a Financial Times report that the chancellor has now abandoned the measure despite two weeks of clear hints in public speeches that she was poised to break the party’s manifesto pledge:
Downing Street was blamed on Friday for forcing Rachel Reeves to reverse Budget plans to raise income tax in what was described as “a panic move” to save Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership.
Labour MPs, ministers and the markets were left stunned by a Financial Times report that the chancellor has now abandoned the measure despite two weeks of clear hints in public speeches that she was poised to break the party’s manifesto pledge.
With markets spooked by the sudden U-turn, the cost of borrowing for the government spiked, with 10-year gilts up 12 basis points at 4.56 per cent.
Treasury sources insisted the decision had been taken because of better-than-expected economic data, but others blamed interference from Downing Street in a bid to protect the prime minister from a potential leadership challenge.
One minister told The Independent that No 10 is “gripped by a state of panic”.
The drama unfolded after the chancellor laid the groundwork for tax hikes, including several hints that she would need to break Labour’s election pledge not to raise income taxes.
But the reversal came after the prime minister was under siege following a briefing to journalists – reportedly by Downing Street officials – that health secretary Wes Streeting was planning a leadership bid.
The chancellor is now expected to increase a handful of smaller taxes in an attempt to balance the books, despite warnings from economists that such a move could make the system “more complicated and inefficient”.
Possible measures include a gambling tax, a bank levy tax, various wealth taxes, or a mansion tax on properties valued at £2m and over.
Jim O’Neill, the former Treasury minister and Goldman Sachs boss who was brought in by the chancellor to be her economic adviser in opposition, described the developments as “bothersome”.
He said: “I’m surprised. If it means their defaulting to accumulated fringe, possibly growth-damaging taxes again, it will be bothersome.”
Stephen Millard, deputy director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), warned: “There are two dangers here. First, by resorting to smaller changes to lots of marginal taxes, the chancellor risks making the overall tax system ever more complicated and inefficient (in the sense of creating more distortions in the economy).
“Second, this would make it harder for the chancellor to build a large buffer against her fiscal rules. As we’ve seen over the past year, having a small buffer creates uncertainty and endless speculation about further tax rises, given it would only take a small downgrade in the UK’s growth prospects to wipe the buffer out.”
Tax expert Dan Neidle told The Independent that seeking to raise money from a “grab bag” of lots of different tax measures instead would be “very damaging”.
Isaac Delestre, senior tax analyst at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said: “We obviously don’t know how much she’s looking to raise, but the risks of doing something unnecessarily economically damaging increase if she is going to look to raise large amounts from smaller taxes.”
He suggested: “One other obvious option that could raise a lot of money is looking at income tax thresholds (the Labour manifesto pledge on IT, NICs and VAT only talks about rates of income tax). Although worth noting that in real terms, thresholds have already come down a lot since 2021 because they’ve been frozen in real terms.”
In normal times a chancellor ruling out income tax rise would receive acclamation, but the way tax increases have been floated and then pulled back just appears shambolic. Furthermore, the prospect of income tax thresholds being frozen until 2030 means that we will all be paying more tax anyway.
This Labour government is giving the impression of being made up of headless chickens. They have no direction and no leadership. Can Rachel Reeves rescue them on budget day? It is looking increasingly unlikely.
The paper says that Labour MPs, ministers and the markets were left stunned by a Financial Times report that the chancellor has now abandoned the measure despite two weeks of clear hints in public speeches that she was poised to break the party’s manifesto pledge:
Downing Street was blamed on Friday for forcing Rachel Reeves to reverse Budget plans to raise income tax in what was described as “a panic move” to save Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership.
Labour MPs, ministers and the markets were left stunned by a Financial Times report that the chancellor has now abandoned the measure despite two weeks of clear hints in public speeches that she was poised to break the party’s manifesto pledge.
With markets spooked by the sudden U-turn, the cost of borrowing for the government spiked, with 10-year gilts up 12 basis points at 4.56 per cent.
Treasury sources insisted the decision had been taken because of better-than-expected economic data, but others blamed interference from Downing Street in a bid to protect the prime minister from a potential leadership challenge.
One minister told The Independent that No 10 is “gripped by a state of panic”.
The drama unfolded after the chancellor laid the groundwork for tax hikes, including several hints that she would need to break Labour’s election pledge not to raise income taxes.
But the reversal came after the prime minister was under siege following a briefing to journalists – reportedly by Downing Street officials – that health secretary Wes Streeting was planning a leadership bid.
The chancellor is now expected to increase a handful of smaller taxes in an attempt to balance the books, despite warnings from economists that such a move could make the system “more complicated and inefficient”.
Possible measures include a gambling tax, a bank levy tax, various wealth taxes, or a mansion tax on properties valued at £2m and over.
Jim O’Neill, the former Treasury minister and Goldman Sachs boss who was brought in by the chancellor to be her economic adviser in opposition, described the developments as “bothersome”.
He said: “I’m surprised. If it means their defaulting to accumulated fringe, possibly growth-damaging taxes again, it will be bothersome.”
Stephen Millard, deputy director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), warned: “There are two dangers here. First, by resorting to smaller changes to lots of marginal taxes, the chancellor risks making the overall tax system ever more complicated and inefficient (in the sense of creating more distortions in the economy).
“Second, this would make it harder for the chancellor to build a large buffer against her fiscal rules. As we’ve seen over the past year, having a small buffer creates uncertainty and endless speculation about further tax rises, given it would only take a small downgrade in the UK’s growth prospects to wipe the buffer out.”
Tax expert Dan Neidle told The Independent that seeking to raise money from a “grab bag” of lots of different tax measures instead would be “very damaging”.
Isaac Delestre, senior tax analyst at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said: “We obviously don’t know how much she’s looking to raise, but the risks of doing something unnecessarily economically damaging increase if she is going to look to raise large amounts from smaller taxes.”
He suggested: “One other obvious option that could raise a lot of money is looking at income tax thresholds (the Labour manifesto pledge on IT, NICs and VAT only talks about rates of income tax). Although worth noting that in real terms, thresholds have already come down a lot since 2021 because they’ve been frozen in real terms.”
In normal times a chancellor ruling out income tax rise would receive acclamation, but the way tax increases have been floated and then pulled back just appears shambolic. Furthermore, the prospect of income tax thresholds being frozen until 2030 means that we will all be paying more tax anyway.
This Labour government is giving the impression of being made up of headless chickens. They have no direction and no leadership. Can Rachel Reeves rescue them on budget day? It is looking increasingly unlikely.
Saturday, November 15, 2025
A Tudor farm and a Roman fort
As the Llys Nini site records, the branch was established by animal-loving volunteers in the Swansea and Neath areas nearly 200 years ago, with its first animal centre being situated in Singleton Park, leased from Swansea Corporation in 1935, with the capacity to house 31 dogs and 18 cats.
When the lease of the old Swansea Dogs’ Home expired in the early 1990s, the branch raised enough money to buy its own premises and in 1994 bought the old Llys Nini farm in Penllergaer:
Llys Nini was special, as unlike other Welsh long houses which had the fire place in the end wall, Llys Nini had a large fire place in the centre of the building with stairs to the hay loft behind.
Llys Nini Farm is recorded as being ancient in the 1507 Quit Claim. Whether Llys Nini was in existence before that is unknown but at least one local person says that he remembers a Roman Fort on the site and if true that could have formed the basis of the later Llys or Court.
The Llys Nini RSPCA Administration Block is built on the foot print of the old house. It is possible that a Roman practice fort existed there and that it was used by Prince Einon ap Owain ap Hywel Dda, in the 10th Century’ He was the Penteulu (translated as head of the family but was probably the leader of his father’s war band) of Owain of Dinefwr, King of Deheubarth in the 960/70s. It is probable that he established a Llys (court) on the site and that it was called Llys Einon or Llys Enniaun in the Latinised form and that in the interim the name has become Llys Nini.
The quit claim of 1507 says the deceased owner was Gwilym Thuy ( probably Ddu) who was a direct descendent Gryffydd Gwyr, Lord of Gower in the 13th Century who was a a descendent of the House of Deheubarth.
There is more information on the farm here.
Friday, November 14, 2025
Labour to reject amendments to planning bill that protect nature
The paper says that the amendment, which was passed with a large majority in the House of Lords, restricts the most controversial part of the draft bill by removing protected animals such as dormice, badgers, hedgehogs, otters and nightingales, and rare habitats such as wetlands and ancient woodlands, from new rules which allow developers to sidestep environmental laws to speed up house building:
Under the draft legislation proposed by Labour, developers will be able to pay into a national “nature recovery fund” and go ahead with their project straight away, instead of having to carry out an environmental survey and to first avoid, then mitigate damage, before putting spades into the ground.
Experts say this is a regression on decades-old environmental law and it has been criticised as “cash to trash” by ecologists and environmental groups.
The Lords’ amendment would mean the nature recovery fund is restricted to impacts from water and air pollution, meaning developers would still have to take the usual measures to mitigate damage to wildlife and habitats.
Reed has recommended rejecting the amendment when the bill returns to the Commons on Thursday for the final stages before being passed into law.
In a letter to MPs some of the UK’s biggest nature charities, including the Wildlife Trusts and RSPB, say the government rollback of environmental law “lacks any rigorous scientific or ecological justification.
“There is no credible, published, or well established evidence that this model can simply be scaled or replicated for multiple species nationwide without risking serious ecological harm, legal uncertainty, and increased costs for both developers and land managers,” the letter reads.
The Guardian revealed this week how the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and housing minister Matthew Pennycook have met scores of developers in the past year over the planning bill. Reeves has not met a single environmental organisation or the body for professional ecologists, while Pennycook has had just four meetings with such groups, compared with 16 with leading developers.
Who would have guessed that a Labour government could out-Tory the Tories on destroying our environment?
Thursday, November 13, 2025
Labour pile one crisis onto another
The Guardian reports that there is growing pressure over the future of Morgan McSweeney after the prime minister’s chief of staff was blamed for No 10’s pushback against a possible leadership challenge.
The paper adds that a series of ministers and Labour MPs are pointing the finger at McSweeney for the pre-emptive operation that particularly targeted Wes Streeting, the health secretary, who has responded with undisguised fury:
The Guardian reported on Tuesday that Downing Street had launched an operation to protect Starmer against a leadership challenge his allies believe could come from Streeting after this month’s budget or the May local elections.
Starmer’s closest allies said he would fight any “reckless” attempt to oust him, which they warned would affect the markets and the UK’s international relationships.
On Wednesday morning, Streeting vehemently denied such plotting and said the “self-defeating” attacks on him were indicative of a toxic culture inside No 10.
Badenoch began prime minister’s questions by asking: “This morning on the BBC, the health secretary said there is a toxic culture in Downing Street that needs to change. He’s right, isn’t he?”
Starmer replied: “My focus, each and every day, is on rebuilding and renewing our country. Let me be absolutely clear: any attack on any member of my cabinet is completely unacceptable.”
He praised Streeting’s record as health secretary, adding: “He is doing a great job, as is all of my cabinet.”
Starmer went on: “Let me be clear, I have never authorised attacks on cabinet members. I appointed them to their posts because they’re the best people to carry out their jobs.”
Badenoch later lambasted Starmer over his record on unemployment and the economy more widely, before returning to the No 10 infighting. She ended her questions by saying: “Isn’t it the case that this prime minister has lost control of his government, he has lost the confidence of his party and lost the trust of the British people.”
Starmer responded: “They [the Conservatives] broke the economy and now they’ve got this unserious idea that they can find £47bn of cuts, without saying where they’re going to come from. Meanwhile, we’re rebuilding the country.”
Speaking to the BBC earlier on Wednesday, Streeting said the attacks on him showed that Lucy Powell, the newly elected Labour deputy leader, “was right about the culture of No 10”.
Powell has called for a culture change inside No 10 and said she has been a target of negative briefings from the prime minister’s team, singling out McSweeney for criticism.
Streeting said: “I can tell you without having even spoken to the prime minister what he thinks of briefing, what his reaction will be to the front pages and the broadcast bulletins overnight, and the words I’m sure he would use are not suitable for a family show.”
If anything Starmer's advisors have made things worse. The government are now not just unpopular, but also perceived as in disarray.
Wednesday, November 12, 2025
Are Labour's u-turns too little too late?
In scrapping the winter fuel allowance, making cuts to benefits, refusing to abandon the two-child allowance cap, and ignoring the very real case for compensating WASPI women, a cause they campaigned for in opposition, Labour have alienated key constituencies, while undermining their own USP amongst Labour voters. It's little wonder that the Greens, with their new socialist identity are snapping at their heels.
Having realised that these betrayals are causing them irreparable harm, Labour Ministers have started to u-turn. They have reinstated some form of winter fuel allowance, ensuring that they are better targetted, something they should have done in the first place. They are rethinking many of the benefit cuts in the light of a rebellion by Labour MPs. And now, both the prime minister and the chancellor are dropping hints that she is prepared to scrap the two child benefit cap after all.
On top of this, the Independent reports that the government is to re-open its controversial decision to not award compensation to up to 3.8 million women affected by changes to the state pension age, after new evidence came to light.
The paper says that in an extraordinary turn of events the Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden told the Commons that ministers would look again at denying compensation to the women born in the 1950s, whose state pension age was raised so it would be equal with men:
He said “evidence” which was not shown to his predecessor Liz Kendall when she made the decision last December had since emerged and had to be considered.
Labour came under fire after it refused compensation despite a recommendation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) that the women should be paid up to £2,950 each, at a total potential cost of £10.5 bn, because poor communication meant they had lost out on the chance to properly plan for their retirement.
Ministers were accused of presiding over a “day of shame” for the government after they announced that up to 3.8 million women affected by changes to the state pension age, from 60 to 65, would not receive compensation.
The then work and pensions secretary Ms Kendall rejected calls for individuals affected to be awarded between £1,000 and £2,950 each, while claiming she understood their unhappiness.
The party had backed the Waspi women’s campaign when Jeremy Corbyn was leader.
The latest move in the saga comes after court proceedings led to the rediscovery a 2007 Department for Work and Pensions evaluation. The document led to a halt in automatic pension forecast letters being sent out.
Labour's problem is that their original decisions have already entered the public consciousness and helped to form a general opinion of Labour that has contributed to their plummeting in the polls. It may take more than half-measure u-turns to correct that impression.
Having realised that these betrayals are causing them irreparable harm, Labour Ministers have started to u-turn. They have reinstated some form of winter fuel allowance, ensuring that they are better targetted, something they should have done in the first place. They are rethinking many of the benefit cuts in the light of a rebellion by Labour MPs. And now, both the prime minister and the chancellor are dropping hints that she is prepared to scrap the two child benefit cap after all.
On top of this, the Independent reports that the government is to re-open its controversial decision to not award compensation to up to 3.8 million women affected by changes to the state pension age, after new evidence came to light.
The paper says that in an extraordinary turn of events the Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden told the Commons that ministers would look again at denying compensation to the women born in the 1950s, whose state pension age was raised so it would be equal with men:
He said “evidence” which was not shown to his predecessor Liz Kendall when she made the decision last December had since emerged and had to be considered.
Labour came under fire after it refused compensation despite a recommendation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) that the women should be paid up to £2,950 each, at a total potential cost of £10.5 bn, because poor communication meant they had lost out on the chance to properly plan for their retirement.
Ministers were accused of presiding over a “day of shame” for the government after they announced that up to 3.8 million women affected by changes to the state pension age, from 60 to 65, would not receive compensation.
The then work and pensions secretary Ms Kendall rejected calls for individuals affected to be awarded between £1,000 and £2,950 each, while claiming she understood their unhappiness.
The party had backed the Waspi women’s campaign when Jeremy Corbyn was leader.
The latest move in the saga comes after court proceedings led to the rediscovery a 2007 Department for Work and Pensions evaluation. The document led to a halt in automatic pension forecast letters being sent out.
Labour's problem is that their original decisions have already entered the public consciousness and helped to form a general opinion of Labour that has contributed to their plummeting in the polls. It may take more than half-measure u-turns to correct that impression.
Tuesday, November 11, 2025
What exactly is the BBC biased against?
The Guardian reports that Tim Davie, the BBC’s director general, and the head of BBC News, Deborah Turness, have resigned after a former adviser to the corporation accused it of “serious and systemic” bias in its coverage of issues including Donald Trump, Gaza and trans rights.
They add that the BBC chairman, Samir Shah, is also expected to apologise for the way the speech by Donald Trump was edited for Panorama, which is fair enough, but is this affair sufficient justification to provoke a sustained witch hunt against the corporation led by the head of a foreign state and sustained by leading politicians in our own country? Is the BBC doing its job too well in provoking such a response?
Huff Post carries a useful article on why Trump's legal threats could be just hot air. They say legal experts believe that his chances of success are slim:
Media lawyer Mark Stephens told BBC Breakfast: “There are more than a few legal tripwires between President Trump and a legal victory against the BBC.
“One, a UK defamation claim is already out of time. He had one year from Monday, October 28 2024, when Panorama aired, so he’s 14 days or so out of time for a defamation claim in the UK.
“A claim in Florida would be within time, it’s a two-year limitation there, but the problem for President Trump’s lawyers is that panorama wasn’t broadcast in the USA, and BBC iPlayer isn’t available in the USA. So it’s not clear that any US court would have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
“And once you get over those procedural impediments, there are other rather ticklish problems for President Trump’s lawyers.
“Trump’s reputation has already been battered by nine judicial findings, some congressional hearings, global coverage of January 6, and he faces ongoing civil lawsuits in Washington itself, and also a special counsel report alleging a criminal scheme to make or to have civil insurrection.
“So proving that Panorama caused additional serious harm is a bit of a stretch. If it can be shown by the BBC that his reputation was already in tatters on this issue, blaming the BBC for the wreckage of that is a bit of a tough sell.”
The prospect of licence payers money being paid out to Trump to placate him is a real one, but it should not happen. The BBC should stand up to the US President and invite him to see them in court,
Meanwhile, the political response in the UK is hostile, with only one party leader prepared to stand up to Trump's bluster and defend the BBC. Sky News reports that Liberal Democrats leader, Ed Davey has argued that seeing the White House take credit for Mr Davie's downfall - and attacking the BBC - "should worry us all".
He has called on the PM and all British political leaders to stand united in "telling Trump to keep his hands off it".
Despite this leading Tory politicians and Nigel Farage (of course) have all laid into the BBC, while the response of Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandy is described as 'muted'.
What are they all afraid of and why is the BBC being portrayed as some trendy, left wing monolith when the opposite is true? If the BBC is biased, it is in promoting and featuring Farage and Reform at every opportunity, in failing to be even-handed in reporting on Brexit and in failing to reflect the balance of parties in Parliament in its current affairs coverage. That is the malaise that needs to be tackled within the corporation.
It would be good if the new director-general and head of news turned out to be people with journalistic experience, who are willing and capable of moving the organisation away from these right wing positions to one of political neutrality in which genuine news stories get prominence, irrespective of who they upset, and are properly defended for that.
He has called on the PM and all British political leaders to stand united in "telling Trump to keep his hands off it".
Despite this leading Tory politicians and Nigel Farage (of course) have all laid into the BBC, while the response of Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandy is described as 'muted'.
What are they all afraid of and why is the BBC being portrayed as some trendy, left wing monolith when the opposite is true? If the BBC is biased, it is in promoting and featuring Farage and Reform at every opportunity, in failing to be even-handed in reporting on Brexit and in failing to reflect the balance of parties in Parliament in its current affairs coverage. That is the malaise that needs to be tackled within the corporation.
It would be good if the new director-general and head of news turned out to be people with journalistic experience, who are willing and capable of moving the organisation away from these right wing positions to one of political neutrality in which genuine news stories get prominence, irrespective of who they upset, and are properly defended for that.
Monday, November 10, 2025
Ministers lose environmental plot on planning bill
The paper says that the government published its planning and infrastructure bill in March, but before and after the bill’s publication the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and housing minister Matthew Pennycook met dozens of developers in numerous meetings. However, the body representing professional ecologists, has not met one minister despite requests to do so:
The Guardian can reveal the scale of the lobbying by developers in face-to-face meetings with the chancellor and other ministers that has been going on for months, while professional ecologists have found it hard to gain any audience.
“Access to ministers has been difficult,” said Sally Hayns, the chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. “We asked for a meeting early on, and were initially turned down. We asked again in July and finally had a meeting in the autumn with civil servants. We haven’t had a face-to-face meeting with a minister at all.”
In contrast, just a week into her tenure Reeves hosted high-level discussions with housebuilders Berkeley, Barratt and Taylor Wimpey and has continued to have a string of meetings with housing developers, according to the Treasury register of ministerial meetings.
Reeves has repeatedly trumpeted the virtues of slashing nature rules to make it easier for homes to be built, and maligned the bats, newts and spiders that might get in the builders’ way.
She recently boasted to a tech conference hosted by US bank JP Morgan that she had unblocked a development of 20,000 homes that were being held up by a rare snail after she was approached by a developer. These homes had initially been blocked by Natural England because the Sussex area was at risk of running out of water.
Housing minister Matthew Pennycook has also recorded many meetings with developers including Vistry, Berkeley, Barratt, and Taylor Wimpey. He has recorded 16 meetings up to May this year with property developers, on housing supply and planning reform.
In contrast, his engagement with wildlife and nature groups is less intense. Pennycook has recorded four meetings over the past year with nature groups, three with Wildlife and Countryside Link and the other with a range of groups including the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the RSPB (the Royal Society for the protection of Birds). Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) have held roundtables with environmental NGOs, but the bill’s oversight is being led by Pennycook’s department.
Vistry, which is building 1,200 homes outside Newton Abbot in Devon, sent bulldozers to within feet of a 2,000 year-old protected ancient wetland last month. They want planning conditions protecting the site lifted, and have said they are in contact with Labour housing ministers, seeking help to sort out the “current blockages” and expedite the project.
Hayns said ecologists from her group worked closely with developers, and were key contributors to helping projects go ahead but were not being properly consulted. “There is a very low level of ecological literacy being displayed by ministers,” she said.
“Nothing I have seen or heard gives me comfort that Rachel Reeves understands the importance of nature to economic and social wellbeing, nothing,”
Hayns said nature was being treated as expendable. “I believe this will come back to bite them in the local elections,” she said. “Nature and protecting it is an issue that people care about.”
It's almost as if the Tories were still in charge.
Sunday, November 09, 2025
Government in turmoil
The paper says that the plot has its origins in the despair about the party’s poll ratings and concern that the government may break Labour’s manifesto promise not to raise income tax to fill a hole in the public finances, suggesting that there is mounting discontent among Labour backbenchers:
While a challenge against the prime minister is not thought to be imminent, a number of MPs, cabinet ministers and party strategists told The i Paper that conversations around Sir Keir’s future have increased in recent weeks, before a backdrop of continued turmoil in the government.
The latest warnings come after a new poll from More in Commons put Labour in third place behind Reform and the Tories, dropping three points to just 18 per cent support.
The Conservatives leapfrogged Sir Keir’s party, moving ahead of Labour with 19 per cent backing, while Reform was out in front with 31 per cent backing.
Speaking the morning after Sir Keir addressed a meeting of the parliamentary Labour Party last week, one minister said he and colleagues were “talking about the who and the how and the when to replace him”.
Meanwhile, a Labour backbencher accused the PM of being in denial about the fragility of his position, saying: “It’s a mix of everything. It’s the botched reshuffle. It’s all the poll ratings.
“It’s having to break the manifesto commitment to raise income tax in the Budget. It’s Peter Mandelson. It’s a belief among the PLP that the prime minister and Downing Street don’t really like them or respect them. Eventually, that feeling becomes mutual.”
Is it only a matter of time before this discontent breaks out into a leadership challenge?
Saturday, November 08, 2025
The castle that isn't
This website takes up the story:
In the late 18th century industry was booming in the area around Swansea in Wales. Ever more sophisticated machines were powering the various works, and coal was required to fuel the industry. With copper works and coal mines, John Morris was a wealthy man and lived in style at the newly-built Clasemont , a grand classical mansion. The unusual structure he had constructed to house some of his workers was also eye-catching, but within decades it was dismissed as a folly.
John Morris (1745-1819) was a partner in Lockwood, Morris & Co., the biggest of the copper smelting enterprises in the area, and the rapid expansion of the works meant further housing was needed for his workforce. On the hill called Cnap Lwyd he built a vast fortress-like structure, with four corner towers and a central courtyard, which quickly became known as Morris Castle. It provided homes for a number of families (accounts vary between 20 and 40), and was one of the earliest examples of a tenement for estate workers. Probably designed by architect John Johnson, who also designed Clasemont (or Clas Mont or Glasmount), the castle had decorative quoins and battlements made of copper slag, a by-product of the smelting process. The waste could be moulded into blocks, their darker tone and soft sheen contrasting nicely with the local building stone.
Thomas Rowlandson, The White Rock Copper Works, 1797. Image courtesy of Lowell Libson & Jonny Yarker Ltd. Morris Castle can be seen on the horizon. But whilst handsome, Morris Castle was not practical. A passer-by in 1776, only a few years after it was completed, found there was already dissent: ‘Mr Morris has built a very large house on a high hill which makes a striking appearance for the Workmen to dwell in, but they complain of clambering up to it’. By 1796 the grand hillside fort was shown to tourists as ‘Morris’s Folly’: the development had been an experiment that failed. Would the workpeople ‘go the summit of a high hill and live in “flats” … when there was plenty of space for pretty little white-washed cottages?’, queried a later writer, before concluding: ‘They would not!’.
Morris learned from his mistakes, and when he created a new town for his workers in the late 1770s, the buildings were conventional cottages and on lower ground. This planned settlement, named Morris Town or Morriston, thrived, and in 1819 the ‘houses for the poorer classes’, neatly arranged in straight lines, were considered ‘excellent and commodious’: by that date Morris Castle did not even merit a mention.
The ruins are very prominent and can be seen from large areas of Swansea. Given the name, it is not surprising that many people believe that they used to be some sort of fortification.
It is possible to walk up there, and I'm told the views are spectacular, but it isn't a feat I've attempted myself - yet!
Friday, November 07, 2025
Careless Labour ministers undermine government authority
The paper says that in a letter addressed to Keir Starmer, Nandy apologised for contravening the rules by not disclosing that David Kogan, her appointee, had previously donated to her leadership campaign.
They add that a report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, investigating Mr Kogan’s selection as chairman of the Independent Football Regulator, concluded that she had "unknowingly" committed this "error".
I know Labour party members who will put this down to a minor error, and in the great scheme of things it is. However, a pattern is starting to emerge of sheer carelessness on the part of Labour Ministers that is contributing the impression that the government is rudderless.
There is Angela Rayner resigning over a mistake with stamp duty on her new home, and Rachel Reeves failing to license the house she is renting out, and now we have Lisa Nandy and a failure to register an interest.
Throw in David Lammy not briefing the House of Commons on a mistakenly-freed prisoner because he did not have all the detail at the time, and it is beginning to look like amateur-hour.
Starmer needs to get a grip.
Thursday, November 06, 2025
Be careful who you vote for
They tell us about Phil Price, whose mother is in Grove House in Adlington, one of the homes earmarked for closure by the Reform-run council:
He said: “My mum is 93. If she finds out about this, it’ll kill her.”
He said he was disgusted at what he fears is a conflict of interest involving Reform’s cabinet member for adult social care, Graham Dalton, who owns a private care company in Lancashire.
“I’m a paid-up member of Reform and I’m disgusted with him,” said Price.
He voted for Reform knowing they planned to cut “waste”. But he said: “If there are parents who have paid into the system all their lives, worked hard for this country, if they’re ‘waste’, then we might as well just give up.” He said he would quit Reform UK if the homes closed.
The paper says that Lancashire’s Reform-run council has been accused of “selling off the family silver” through its plans to save £4m a year by closing five council-run care homes and five day centres and moving residents into the private sector:
At the same time questions are also being asked about a potential conflict of interest involving Reform’s cabinet member for social care in Lancashire, who owns a private care company with his wife, Dalton, a nurse, insisted he was not conflicted:
He told the committee he was a part owner of 1st for Care GB. The company, based in Lancaster, offers private care, including 24-hour complex care and respite care.
But he said he had “no pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest” in the care home closures.
He was challenged by councillors including Liz McInnes, a former Labour MP who now sits on Rossendale borough council.
She said: “I’m fairly sure that on our council if someone was part-owner of a care service that would at least be counted as a non-pecuniary interest because they could potentially benefit from care homes closing.”
On Wednesday evening the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey, said on X: “If this is what happens when Reform runs a council, just imagine [Nigel] Farage running the country – care homes closed and vulnerable people abandoned. We cannot let Trump’s America become Farage’s Britain.”
This is why it is important to establish that whoever you vote for has detailed policies and some idea of how they will deliver on them, something lacking for Nigel Farage's party at present, at any level.
Wednesday, November 05, 2025
Farage outlines his real agenda
The paper says that Farage rejected suggestions he had been forced to break manifesto promises in order to gain economic credibility, suggesting the proposal had only ever been an “aspiration”. However, the substance of his speech suggests that Reform's real agenda is to cut benefits, cut the minimum wage, raise retirement age, and means test pensions:
Reform’s manifesto committed the party to tax cuts worth about a third of the NHS budget, but economists said the plans – along with £50bn of spending commitments and £150bn of cuts – were “problematic” and cost far more than claimed.
Reform has yet to set out any detailed plans on spending cuts, although it has signalled there will be big reductions on welfare benefits, net zero policies, support for asylum seekers, foreign aid and the Whitehall civil service.
In his speech, Farage said: “I cannot tell you what the state of the economy will be as the next general election approaches. If I’m right, and that election comes in 2027 then the economy will be in an even worse state than any of us in this room could even relate.
“So how can anybody project on pensions or thresholds or any of those things between now and then … They were only ever aspirations. I think what you’re seeing today is us being realistic about the state of the economy.”
Reform is also understood to be looking at changes to public sector pensions, leading to suggestions that it could cut the future incomes of millions of nurses, teachers and police. Farage said he was focusing on “exorbitant” management fees paid by pension funds.
This is the man who sold Brexit to the country, undermining our economy and enabling the hundreds of small boats in the English channel that he now wants to exploit for his own political gain.
This is the man who stands by Sarah Pochin and her venal race comments, while raking in fees from Nomad Capitalist, a consultancy that provides strategies for high-net-worth-individuals to avoid paying tax by moving their lives and businesses offshore.
None of this serves the interest of the UK or of ordinary voters.
Tuesday, November 04, 2025
Protecting the fat cats
The site says that the axing comes following pressure from corporate lobbyists who objected to leading companies and their directors being put on the 'naughty step' over issues such as ballooning executive pay because it harmed their reputation:
In 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May ordered the Investment Association (IA), a trade body that represents fund managers, to keep track of quoted firms where at least a fifth of investors had rebelled at their annual meeting.
The list was meant to improve transparency for shareholders, staff and public by pressuring quoted firms to curb executive excess, as protest votes generally are themselves not binding.
But in a surprise move Business Minister Blair McDougall has told the IA to drop the register 'to remove duplication' as part of a series of 'pro-growth' measures designed to cut red tape for firms.
The IA confirmed the register was no longer being updated.
'This is another small but significant nail in the coffin of our reputation for high standards of corporate governance,' said Catherine Howarth of campaign group ShareAction.
'For the last year, corporate lobbyists have been chipping away all too successfully at standards and structures which protect the investing public, both retail investors and the UK's vast number of pension savers.'
The decision was 'disappointing from a government displaying a concerning pattern of disregard for shareholder rights,' she said.
Corporate governance expert Tom Powdrill said: 'It is a bit odd to see Labour scrap an initiative intended to restrain executive pay by taking a position less radical than the Conservatives who introduced it.'
What are Labour playing at?
Monday, November 03, 2025
Tory-Reform pact on ECHR won't stop the boats
Now, they're at it again, claiming that the answer to all of our problems lie in us joining Putin's Russia outside the European Convention on Human Rights, as if further isolation from the rest of the World is going to make us stronger.
This has not stopped Badenoch's Tories casting one last desperate throw of the dice by joining Farage's Reform in wanting to ditch Winston Churchill's great legacy, which he designed to form a bulwark to future dictatorships. History is not a strong suit for the political right wing.
The Independent has news for these popularist wannabes. They report that nearly 300 organisations have issued a rallying cry for a “full-throated defence” of the European Convention on Human Rights, accusing politicians of using it as a scapegoat with devastating effects.
They say that groups ranging from Liberty to Refuge, health charity Parkinson's UK and the Centre for Military Justice have warned that the ECHR protects “the rights of ordinary people every day up and down the country from victims of sexual violence to LGBT+ service personnel, public interest journalists to mental health patients”:
They have accused politicians of “using our human rights as a scapegoat…. [and] escalating, irresponsible rhetoric targeting migrant and minoritised communities, which has devastating real-world consequences”.
Sam Grant, director of external affairs at Liberty, which organised the statement from 292 organisations, said: “There are people in powerful positions who want us to believe that we would be better off without the ECHR – don’t believe them.
“For decades our human rights laws have underpinned all of our daily lives by giving us the ability to speak freely, love who we want, and live in peace. These rights were hard-won and we must not allow governments now or in the future to take them away.”
The statement, which has been signed by organisations including Ben and Jerry's, Shelter, Mind, Disability Action and the Centre for Women's Justice, argues the ECHR “is fundamental to our democracy and enables ordinary people, of all backgrounds, to hold the state and public bodies accountable”.
Developed after the Second World War, with the UK playing a leading role, the ECHR and the Human Rights Act (HRA), which incorporates it into British law, “have protected the rights of ordinary people every day up and down the country; from victims of sexual violence to LGBT+ service personnel, public interest journalists to mental health patients and victims of serious injustice (from Hillsborough to Windrush)”, the groups said.
“The ECHR helped bring peace finally in Northern Ireland, through the Good Friday Agreement, and has improved the quality of public services. We reject the narrative that human rights are not in the interests of the public – everyone in our society would be much worse off without these key protections”.
Attacks on the ECHR, they say, have “often been based on myths, over-simplifications, inaccuracies, and scaremongering, particularly around migration.”
Leaving the convention would not solve problems like the backlog of asylum cases or migrants taking dangerous small boats across the Channel, they said, “but would bring about years of legal uncertainty, undermine our international position, and cause harm to the rights of both migrants in the UK and our wider communities”.
They called on politicians to stop “using our human rights as a scapegoat, level with the British public about the significant costs of ECHR withdrawal (such as the impact on the Good Friday Agreement) and end the escalating, irresponsible rhetoric targeting migrant and minoritised communities, which has devastating real-world consequences for people who are often already made vulnerable by wider social and economic marginalisation and stigmatisation.”
They also call on Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour government “to make the positive case for our human rights protections and how they empower ordinary people across the UK” adding “Now is the time for a full-throated defence of the ECHR and HRA.”
It took votes by the Liberal Democrats to block Nigel Farage's Ten Minute Rule bill to leave the ECHR, after the Labour front bench abstained, a shocking decision that defines the spinelessness of this government. It is time all parties of the centre and left stood up to this disgraceful Tory-Reform alliance to tell them that enough is enough.
This has not stopped Badenoch's Tories casting one last desperate throw of the dice by joining Farage's Reform in wanting to ditch Winston Churchill's great legacy, which he designed to form a bulwark to future dictatorships. History is not a strong suit for the political right wing.
The Independent has news for these popularist wannabes. They report that nearly 300 organisations have issued a rallying cry for a “full-throated defence” of the European Convention on Human Rights, accusing politicians of using it as a scapegoat with devastating effects.
They say that groups ranging from Liberty to Refuge, health charity Parkinson's UK and the Centre for Military Justice have warned that the ECHR protects “the rights of ordinary people every day up and down the country from victims of sexual violence to LGBT+ service personnel, public interest journalists to mental health patients”:
They have accused politicians of “using our human rights as a scapegoat…. [and] escalating, irresponsible rhetoric targeting migrant and minoritised communities, which has devastating real-world consequences”.
Sam Grant, director of external affairs at Liberty, which organised the statement from 292 organisations, said: “There are people in powerful positions who want us to believe that we would be better off without the ECHR – don’t believe them.
“For decades our human rights laws have underpinned all of our daily lives by giving us the ability to speak freely, love who we want, and live in peace. These rights were hard-won and we must not allow governments now or in the future to take them away.”
The statement, which has been signed by organisations including Ben and Jerry's, Shelter, Mind, Disability Action and the Centre for Women's Justice, argues the ECHR “is fundamental to our democracy and enables ordinary people, of all backgrounds, to hold the state and public bodies accountable”.
Developed after the Second World War, with the UK playing a leading role, the ECHR and the Human Rights Act (HRA), which incorporates it into British law, “have protected the rights of ordinary people every day up and down the country; from victims of sexual violence to LGBT+ service personnel, public interest journalists to mental health patients and victims of serious injustice (from Hillsborough to Windrush)”, the groups said.
“The ECHR helped bring peace finally in Northern Ireland, through the Good Friday Agreement, and has improved the quality of public services. We reject the narrative that human rights are not in the interests of the public – everyone in our society would be much worse off without these key protections”.
Attacks on the ECHR, they say, have “often been based on myths, over-simplifications, inaccuracies, and scaremongering, particularly around migration.”
Leaving the convention would not solve problems like the backlog of asylum cases or migrants taking dangerous small boats across the Channel, they said, “but would bring about years of legal uncertainty, undermine our international position, and cause harm to the rights of both migrants in the UK and our wider communities”.
They called on politicians to stop “using our human rights as a scapegoat, level with the British public about the significant costs of ECHR withdrawal (such as the impact on the Good Friday Agreement) and end the escalating, irresponsible rhetoric targeting migrant and minoritised communities, which has devastating real-world consequences for people who are often already made vulnerable by wider social and economic marginalisation and stigmatisation.”
They also call on Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour government “to make the positive case for our human rights protections and how they empower ordinary people across the UK” adding “Now is the time for a full-throated defence of the ECHR and HRA.”
It took votes by the Liberal Democrats to block Nigel Farage's Ten Minute Rule bill to leave the ECHR, after the Labour front bench abstained, a shocking decision that defines the spinelessness of this government. It is time all parties of the centre and left stood up to this disgraceful Tory-Reform alliance to tell them that enough is enough.
Sunday, November 02, 2025
'Most sane people would run a mile' from politics
The BBC quotes Kirsty as saying that the online abuse she and other politicians had received was "unforgivable", and it was this level of trolling that forced her to leave politics:
Speaking to politician Lee Waters - who has said he will step down next year - on the Fifth Floor podcast, she said the way she was targeted "badly" affected her children.
She added that when she told them about her new role as chairwoman of the Cardiff and Vale health board, her daughters told her "don't do it, we can't go through this again".
"I didn't realise how badly it affected my family," she said, adding that once news of her new role was made public the "pack" were back online "telling everybody what a terrible person I am".
Williams said that being a politician was "no worse or better than many other jobs that people do".
"Most sane people would run a mile from putting themselves into that environment," she said, referring to the level of criticism received.
"I'm worried that it's baked in now. People who go for that job accept that this is how they're going to have to live their lives.
"It's not pleasant."
She was speaking to Waters, who was Welsh Labour's former deputy minister for climate change and who previously received "insults and abuse" for the introduction of the 20mph law.
Kirsty Williams was speaking to politician Lee Waters, who said he received "insults and abuse" for the introduction of the 20mph law
Williams feared the wrong type of person would be able to sustain a life in politics because "you have to have a certain kind of personality" to put up with abuse.
"And I'm not convinced that the people who can put up with that, and ignore it, are perhaps not the people that you need in the political environment getting things done," she said.
She described that as "probably the greatest threat to liberal democracy".
As somebody who served with Kirsty in the Welsh Assembly for seventeen years, I know what a talented and capable politician she was. We are fortunate that she continues to serve the public in other roles since standing down in 2021, but she is absolutely right, this level of abuse is unacceptable and undermines the whole democratic process. It is sad and deeply regrettable that it continues to this day.
Saturday, November 01, 2025
Remembering a disaster
The entire crew of The Mumbles Lifeboat, Edward, Prince of Wales, lost their lives in attempting to rescue the crew of the SS Samptampa which came to grief on rocks close to Sker Point, Porthcawl. There is also a memorial in Rest Bay, Porthcawl, pictured below, which was unveiled almost exactly a year ago.
In hurricane-force winds, in a powerful tidal surge, just 30 miles from its destination, the vessel broke apart on Sker Point. All 39 crew members were stranded, with no hope of rescue from land due to the ferocious conditions.
The Mumbles Lifeboat Edward Prince of Wales launched, battling extreme winds, tidal spray, and oil slicks. Despite their efforts, all eight volunteer lifeboat crew and the crew of the Samtampa were lost.
The Samtampa was a 'Liberty ship' built in America in 1943 and was on her way to Newport from Middlesborough when she ran aground on the rocky ledges of the Sker Point near Porthcawl. The total death toll for the disaster was 47.
