First Minister Eluned Morgan's top adviser stands down
David's departure means Morgan will need to appoint a third chief adviser since she became first minister last August, and with less than 10 months to go until next May's Senedd election.Having governed Wales since devolution began in 1999, current polling suggests Labour face a battle to retain power in 2026.David was appointed as the first minister's chief special adviser after ex-Cardiff West Labour MP Kevin Brennan left the position to take a seat in the House of Lords.Responding to David's decision to stand down, the first minister said: "Wayne has worked incredibly hard over the past few months, bringing a wealth of political experience to the table at a challenging time. "He has served Wales with distinction over many decades. "I wish him well in this next phase of life, which will mean slowing down and putting himself first – not something that comes easily to a man who has dedicated his life to public service in Wales."David will officially stand down on 25 July.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
Labour fails to rule out annual tuition fee rise to stop universities going bust
The education secretary has said the government is looking at allowing universities to hike tuition fees every year based on inflation to stop them going bust. It comes less than a year after Bridget Phillipson announced that fees would increase in England for the first time in eight years as part of a major overhaul of the higher education system. Tuition fees have been frozen at £9,250 since 2017, but in November, it was announced that they would increase in line with the Retail Price Index inflation in September 2025. Asked whether the government would allow universities an inflation-linked tuition fee increase every year to improve their financial situation, Ms Phillipson did not rule it out. She told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme: 'We did give universities an increase through the tuition fee increase that we delivered last year, but we'll be looking at all of these areas around the long-term financial sustainability of universities as part of that post-16 white paper that we'll set out later on this year. 'We do also believe alongside that further reform will be needed, but also working together with other institutions, like further education, to bring education, training opportunities and skills much closer to where people are, including those people – adults, in particular – who might be further away from the labour market.' The remarks – which came on A-level results day – appear to set Labour on course for a clash with one of their biggest voter bases, students, and come despite Sir Keir Starmer's promise to abolish university tuition fees entirely when he stood to be Labour leader in 2020. He rowed back on the pledge in 2023, saying it was no longer affordable as a result of the country's financial situation, instead promising Labour would come up with a 'fairer solution' if it formed the next government. It comes amid growing concern over the state of the education sector, with many universities facing financial crisis. As many as 40 per cent of English universities are expected to fall into a budget deficit this year, a report from the Office for Students (OfS) said. The OfS, which regulates higher education providers, said universities needed "significant reform and efficiencies" to turn the tide, despite some institutions already closing courses and selling buildings to cut costs. It said a drop in international students coming to the UK was the main reason for the worsening financial position. Speaking on Thursday, Ms Phillipson said the government had already taken action to help universities, but that there is more to do. Asked about universities' financial struggles, she told Times Radio: 'I've made it a priority to put our universities on a more sustainable footing. 'The action that we've taken in turning around the regulator, the Office for Students, much more of a focus on universities' financial health, but also the difficult but necessary decision that we took quite early on as a government to increase tuition fees to make sure that universities have a more stable funding stream into the future. 'There is more to do and later on this year we'll be setting out our plans for post-16 education overall, including universities, through a white paper we'll be publishing.' On international students, the education secretary said they made an 'important contribution' to the UK's universities and economy, and 'will always be welcome in the UK'. She added: 'It is also fair to say that some institutions, their business model has allowed them to become too dependent on international students, and therefore too open to any fluctuations that may happen around that.'
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
Street preacher who lost Spectator libel case to challenge High Court ruling
An Islamic street preacher who lost a High Court libel case against The Spectator and the magazine's associate editor has said he will be appealing against the decision. Mohammed Hegab, known online as Mohammed Hijab, sued the publication and Douglas Murray over an article that alleged he was a 'street agitator' who whipped up his followers and made disparaging comments about Hindus in the wake of the 2022 Leicester riots, which he denied. In a ruling last week, Mr Justice Johnson found that the article from September 2022 was 'defamatory' at common law, but dismissed the claim. He said: 'The publication has not caused, and is not now likely to cause, serious harm to the claimant's reputation. 'In any event, it is substantially true, and it is not materially inaccurate.' The judge also found that, as a witness, Mr Hegab was 'combative and constantly argumentative'. In his written judgment, he said: 'He sought, at every turn, to debate with counsel, responding to questions with rhetorical questions of his own, arguing his case rather than giving straightforward responses, and denigrating the character of the second defendant to whom he bears palpable personal animosity. 'I am satisfied that he lied on significant issues, with the consequence that his evidence, overall, is worthless.' In a YouTube video posted on Wednesday, Mr Hegab said he had 'learned a lot' from the process, adding that he would be appealing against the ruling. He said: 'I didn't expect it to go that way. I was very disappointed, very disheartened with the ruling.' He added: 'I will be appealing this judgment.' In the clip, Mr Hegab also accused the judge of being biased, adding that he had made the mistake of 'putting a bit too much trust in the justice systems in the West'. The defamation trial centred around a video Mr Hegab made amid violence between Muslims and Hindus in Leicester in the summer of 2022, which was sparked after India won a cricket match against Pakistan in August that year. In it, he said: 'If they believe in reincarnation … what a humiliation and pathetic thing for them to be reincarnated into some pathetic, weak, cowardly people like that. 'I'd rather be an animal. I'd rather be reincarnated as a grasshopper…' During the trial in London, Mr Hegab claimed it was clear from the context that he was not talking about Hindus, but Hindutva, an extremist far-right ideology. But Mr Justice Johnson said that Mr Hegab 'knew exactly what he was doing' and 'chose his words deliberately'.
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
I watched the police arrest hundreds of peaceful protesters – I fear Britain is on a slippery slope towards authoritarianism
Last Saturday, I stood in Parliament Square and bore witness to the largest mass arrest in a single day in the last decade. The Metropolitan Police detained 532 peaceful protesters – an operation that will live in infamy. The demonstration was organised by Defend Our Juries, which had called on participants to sit peacefully on the Parliament Square lawn between 1pm and 2pm, holding signs that read: 'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.' Organisers had expected around 500 people. In fact, thousands turned up. That morning, I had published an opinion piece in The Independent announcing that I would be there, holding a sign quoting Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): 'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.' I also quoted Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, who warned that the UK government's proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation 'appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on those rights that is at odds with the UK's obligation under international human rights law'. When I arrived at 1pm, the square was surrounded by police. Hundreds of Metropolitan Police vans were stationed around the square, stretching as far as Oxford Street. Officers formed cordons to prevent people entering, but I managed to squeeze in. For nearly three hours, I stood in silence, holding my sign. The arrests began shortly after the scheduled sit-in concluded at 2pm. Officers began to position themselves to advance against the peaceful protesters seated on the lawn, and the few lying on the ground. Police reinforcements, including officers from Wales, swept into the square. Of the 532 arrests, 522 were for the simple act of holding placards supporting Palestine Action, under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. The statistics are as shocking as the scenes I saw. According to the police's own figures, 112 of those detained were in their 70s, and 15 in their 80s. Nearly half were 60 or older, with an average age of 54. The police waged a relentless campaign against the protesters. Many were frail, elderly, or disabled. I saw priests and vicars in clerical collars led away in handcuffs. I saw retired nurses and NHS healthcare workers in scrubs being taken into police vans. One of them, Nick, was interviewed, and asked if he was afraid. His reply was very moving and and it almost brought me to tears: 'I'm absolutely terrified. I'm shaking. I'll be honest with you. I nearly cried earlier. The thought of doing something like this is just awful, but it's even more awful if we don't do it. I mean, I think to myself, you know, I've seen things, not on the mass media. I've seen things that cannot ever be unseen. And if we don't protest about it, we're culpable.' I also saw Jewish protesters critical of the Israeli government's actions being arrested alongside climate and human rights activists, including Chris Romberg, 75, a former British Army colonel and the son of a Holocaust survivor. No one was spared. One image that is seared in my mind: an elderly blind man in a wheelchair being dragged away by multiple officers as demonstrators shouted 'Let him go!' and 'Shame on you, shame on you!' I also watched the police arrest a frail woman in her 80s suffering from Parkinson's disease, while her son pleaded with the officers not to arrest her. The Metropolitan Police's motto is 'Working Together for a Safer London', but it is hard to see how dedicating so many resources to policing a peaceful protest and arresting frail and elderly citizens exercising such an ancient British freedom achieves this objective. Jonathan Porritt, former environmental adviser to King Charles, referred to the UK government's policy as 'absolutely standard authoritarian tactics'. 'I've come to the conclusion that the UK government is incontrovertibly complicit in this genocide not just through the continuing sale of arms to Israel, but because of its reckless refusal to follow guidance to seek to prevent genocide in countries like Gaza.' This is exactly how states erode democratic freedoms – not in one sudden lurch, but in small, calculated steps, until dissent itself becomes a criminal offence. The decision to ban Palestine Action was itself the product of a cynical political ploy. Home secretary Yvette Cooper bundled the group together with two violent white supremacist organisations – the neo-Nazi Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement – and forced MPs to vote for all or none. Many later admitted they felt they had no choice but to approve the ban. As Yasmine Ahmed, UK Director of Human Rights Watch, has warned: 'Proscribing Palestine Action is a grave abuse of state power and a terrifying escalation in this government's crusade to curtail protest rights.' The crucial issue here is that Palestine Action exposed what it – and many of us – see as the UK's complicity in the commission of genocide by Israel against the Palestinian people. Since December 2023, the RAF has flown more than 600 surveillance missions over Gaza, reputedly to locate hostages. This is why ordinary citizens – older people, clergy, disabled protesters – were criminalised for condemning what we believe to be genocide and demanding accountability. It also begs the question: who does prime minister Keir Starmer answer to – the UK electorate, Donald Trump, or the Israeli government and its lobbying organisations? Let me be clear: I unequivocally condemn Hamas for the atrocities of 7 October 2023. I call for an immediate and lasting ceasefire, and the unconditional release of all hostages. I was horrified seeing the images of an emaciated hostage. These crimes demand justice, but not through the carpet bombing of Gaza from North to South, the slaughter of civilians, and what is surely a deliberate policy of starvation of the population. Renowned human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, who has defended Guantánamo Bay detainees, has drawn direct parallels between this crackdown and authoritarian measures elsewhere: 'Supporting Palestine Action's right to protest is not the same as supporting Palestine Action. It's time for Keir Starmer to remember why human rights exist.' Even conservative voices such as Andrew Neil, who strongly disagrees with Palestine Action's aims, have condemned the terrorism designation as absurd and a waste of police time and public resources. What I saw on Saturday was not public order policing. It was the suppression of lawful dissent, and the deliberate targeting of vulnerable people to send a chilling message: no cause is safe from criminalisation. This is the logic of authoritarianism – a steady erosion of freedoms under the pretext of security. I know what authoritarianism looks like. I was born in Nicaragua. In 1981, in Honduras, I faced Salvadorian death squads armed with M16 assault rifles. I had a terrifying experience that changed the course of my life. That experience taught me the importance of bearing witness. I came to Parliament Square to stand with ordinary citizens calling attention to the genocide against the Palestinian people – and the UK government's complicity. The UK government has embarked upon a dangerous path. The right to peaceful protest, the cornerstone of our democracy – from the suffragettes to the anti-apartheid movement – is under attack. The government has conflated dissent with terrorism, and the police have acted as enforcers of political orthodoxy rather than guardians of public safety. When Benjamin Disraeli said in 1845 that 'a Conservative government is an organised hypocrisy', who could have imagined that his words would describe so aptly the current Labour government and its authoritarian home secretary? The question we must ask ourselves is simple: When history judges us, will we be remembered as those who stood against injustice, or those who stood by in silence? Parliament Square on 9 August was not just a police operation. It was a test of our democracy – and it is a test we are in danger of failing.
