Plea to help tackle stray sheep roaming around Blaenavon
But Torfaen Borough Council leader Anthony Hunt has said the authority has little power to act when sheep have been crossing private land to wander around Blaenavon.
He was asked if the council would take part in discussions over the issue by Nick Horler one of three borough councillors representing the town.
The independent councillor said: 'We now have sheep entering the town. This is quite pleasing at times however I am getting an increased number of calls and messages from local residents about the damage these sheep are causing to vegetation in people's gardens and public spaces.
'There are also concerns about sheep leaving mess in gardens and public areas such as parks and play areas causing issues with children using the areas and safety on the main road.'
Labour's Cllr Hunt said the 'difficulties experienced are appreciated' and the council had established the World Heritage Site management board which includes a caring for Blaenavon group which he said would be the 'forum for discussion'. He said he and other cabinet members have attended at the group with Cllr Horler.
READ MORE: Shepherd to round up stray sheep in Blaenavon idea rejected
But Cllr Hunt added: 'Where sheep are able to gain access over private land the council has limited powers to take action and that needs to be taken by the owners of the sheep.'
He said the council would continue in discussions with interested groups.
In September 2023 the council rejected a plea from Cllr Horler to employ a shepherd to round up stray sheep but did say it would look into the possibility of assisting with a database of animal owners after Cllr Horler reported a ram was terrorising residents in Forgeside.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
20 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Meet the Blue Labour bros
Illustration by Nate Kitch Blue Labour has always been more of a collection of guys than a faction. From its beginnings in the aftermath of the financial crisis, it was Maurice Glasman and a small handful of Jons and not a huge amount more. It is now having something of a resurgence, and beginning to develop a degree of internal reality, although the reality of its actual influence remains debated. A Blue Labour group of MPs formed at the end of last year; now a parliamentary staff network has been set up. There are, I'm told, around 15 of these staffers so far, planning a roster of events and meetings and general association. Over the last few weeks, I've been speaking to some of the new staff group to try and understand them. What does this lanyard class that hates the lanyard class believe? You can paint a picture of who they are with heavy use of the caveat 'mostly but not exclusively'. They are mostly, but not exclusively, men, and mostly, but not exclusively, quite young. They mostly work for new-intake MPs; they are mostly white, and mostly from outside of London. In short, they look like any random sampling of Labour's parliamentary staff class would. Some work for members of the Blue Labour MPs group; some work for completely conventional Starmer-era Labour MPs. Their diagnosis of what is wrong with the country and what Labour should do about it is commensurate with the rest of Blue Labour in its Dan Carden and Jonathan Hinder era. One member of the staff network views Blue Labour as a project of 'realigning the party with areas it represents'. Having come into the party as a Corbynite, they say they 'used to be much more liberal on immigration', but now believe that in the country the 'Overton Window has moved' and have moved with it. One staffer talks about being the grandchild of immigrants and hearing her family and friends increasingly express concern that more recent immigrants are not well integrated – indicating, she thinks, that worries about immigration and integration are far from the preserve of racists and traditionally anti-immigration parties, but are something Labour needs to reckon with. Another staffer says that Blue Labour is concerned with people who have been 'ignored by the establishment for decades', suffering both 'economic neglect' but also being 'ignored on issues like immigration'. He reckons that the 'liberalism of Blair has dominated the party for two decades', with 'not enough focus on class'. Another thinks we have an 'economy too focused on London and the South East', and that Labour is 'not giving white working-class men anything'. 'You've got to read the way the world is going,' they say, and ask 'do we want it in a Labour way, or in a right-wing way?' However, while my impression of Jonathan Hinder is as a man of total conviction (believing among other things that universities should be allowed to go bust and that we should at least think very seriously about leaving the ECHR), the staffers seem just as animated by the process of thinking and talking about politics as they do by the positions themselves. Clearly one of the attractions is not the specific appeal of Blue Labour itself, but the space it provides to talk about things. Keir Starmer's Labour Party is not a very ideas-y place, and these are, on an intellectual level, painfully earnest young people. 'We debate quite a lot – it's good to talk about ideas and philosophy, and all the things staffers never talk about,' says one member; another feels there is a 'frustration with the lack of ideas from the progressive wing of the party'. A third notes that 'a lot of MPs are issues-led, but not political'. When I ask for political heroes, I get Crosland and Blair: my strong sense is that in a different internal climate, these people might not have found themselves at the door of Blue Labour, and instead been scattered, ploughing perhaps somewhat idiosyncratic furrows in a variety of different factions. However, while their attitude to the government could in broad terms be described as loyalist, the ideological vacuum of Starmerism – famously unburdened by doctrine – and the government's lack of (or even decidemad uninterest in) intellectual vitality brings them here. It's not surprising that the people who are here for the debating society have ended up in the tendency which began life as (and arguably has never been much more than) a series of seminars. The staff group's convenor does sees debate as part of the programme though: he says having 'debate and discussion' is really important in and of itself, but also hopes to help flesh out the Blue Labour policy programme (answering questions like, 'what is a Blue Labour foreign policy?' for example). This desire for debate also intersects with another current dynamic in the party: the total sidelining of the Labour left. Dan Carden, the leader of the Blue Labour MP caucus, was a member of Corbyn's shadow cabinet and came up through Unite (he has described his journey into Blue Labour as being from 'left to left'). Various members of the staff network started their political lives as Corbynites, and even those who didn't are fairly ardent believers in the need for a broad-church Labour Party. I hear some variant on 'Blair never expelled Corbyn' more than once in my conversations. One staffer thinks that thanks to Corbyn's foreign policy positions and the anti-Semitism scandal, 'the entire Corbyn project was delegitimised' and there wasn't a thorough evaluation of what worked and what didn't. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe As much as one of the older members I speak to wants to stress that Blue Labour is not just a reaction to Reform and has been 'going for 15 years', the experience of Corbynism and of the loss of Red Wall seats in 2019 has clearly imprinted itself deeply on the tendency's new iteration. The new Blue Labour owes significant DNA not just to the valiant seminar-convening of Jonathan Rutherford and co., but also to post-2019 projects like the moderate 'Renaissance', the Corbynite 'No Holding Back', and the Labour Together thinking on show in 'Red Shift', the report which famously brought us Stevenage Woman. This post-Corbyn inheritance is also present in how the tendency talks about the state and the economy. In one staffer's view, Blue Labour's 'economic populism is more important than its cultural elements'; the group's convenor immediately says that it is Blue Labour's answers on political economy that most appealed to him. The staffers' views chime with the views of Blue Labour MPs Jonathan Hinder, Connor Naismith and David Smith, who wrote in LabourList last week that their agenda is 'an explicit challenge to the neoliberal, capitalist consensus, and it belongs to the radical labour tradition'. There is a reticence amongst the staffers when it comes to Glasman and some of his more recent interventions (the repeated assertion that progressives don't want you to enjoy sex with your wife; an appearance on Steve Bannon's podcast; tirades about the chancellor and the attorney general). While the group's convenor (who tells me that he first became interested in Blue Labour because when was younger he would 'watch and read stuff online, lectures and articles, by Cruddas and Glasman') says the Labour peer's connections with the Maga movement are 'realpolitik', conversations Labour needs to be open to having, others are less positive and more awkward when asked about their long-time standard bearer. They also acknowledge that Blue Labour has, as one of them puts it, a 'brand issue' within Labour, a party whose membership are in the main bog-standard left liberals. They aren't wrong: one Labour MP I spoke to about this piece called Blue Labour 'four guys who claim they do have girlfriends but that they go to another school'. It's hard to escape the impression that this MP and critics like them won't be persuaded by one staffer's arguments that Blue Labour is 'not anti-liberal, it's a critique of liberalism' or another's earnest assertion that he just wants more of our political conversation to address the 'moral plane' of people's lives. Arguments about the out-of-touch nature of the political classes are probably not best made by Westminster bag carriers – as the bag carriers well know. (There are 'too many of me in the economy', the group's convenor, a white man in his 20s with an Oxbridge degree, tells me ruefully.) Everything, however, starts somewhere. Political history is scattered with the vehicles of bright young things, some of which went places and some of which didn't. This group of earnest young people could do worse for themselves than as the staff vanguard of Labour's most discussed faction – even if not all the discussion is wholly positive. That being said, the staff network claims fairly moderate ambitions for itself and its tendency: 'Can I ever see them putting forward NPF or NEC candidates? Honestly, no,' one member tells me. In the meantime, though, there's another seminar to attend. [See also: Labour's 'old right' has been reborn] Related
South Wales Argus
23 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Abergavenny library mosque proposal decision date named
A decision to grant a 30-year lease on the former Abergavenny library was approved in May before being put on hold pending review by a council scrutiny committee, which met last week, and said the decision had to go back to the cabinet within 10 working days. Just days before the scrutiny committee took place the words 'No Masjid' and crosses were spray painted on to the grade II listed building with police investigating the criminal damage as a hate crime. Masjid is Arabic for place of worship or mosque. Monmouthshire council's Labour-led cabinet will now consider the arguments made at the place scrutiny committee when it meets for its regular meeting on Wednesday, June 25 and must decide whether to stand by its original decision or reconsider it. The scrutiny committee heard from Abergavenny mayor Philip Bowyer and town council colleague Gareth Wild, a Baptist minister, who both spoke in favour of the cabinet's decision to grant the lease to the Monmouthshire Muslim Community Association. READ MORE: Banner of support draped over Abergavenny mosque graffiti Four public speakers, including Sarah Chicken the warden of the alms houses next door to the former library, a resident, and Andrew Powell landlord of the nearby Groefield pub objected to the decision, citing reasons such as parking and potential for noise as to why a mosque and community centre would be unsuitable. Cabinet member Ben Callard, who lives near the proposed mosque and represents the area on the town council though he is the county councillor for Llanfoist and Govilon, explained no planning permission is required. Community centres and places of worship fall under the same planning use as a library. But he said the community association had promised to hold a public consultation on its plans, but that was criticised by councillors who called the decision in for review, as it was 'consultation after the decision'. The review was instigated by Conservative councillors Rachel Buckler and Louise Brown, who represent Devauden and Shirenewton, and Llanelly Hill independent Simon Howarth who questioned how the decision was made. They faced criticism as Abergavenny councillors and the town council backed the original decision. The former Abergavenny Library. The three questioned the council's process and complained there had been no scrutiny of the decision. Cllr Callard said the community association's bid was the highest scoring tender, and the £6,000 a year rent similar to one of the other bids, and rejected the idea it would be practical for the council to operate as a landlord if every lease had to go through a full scrutiny process. Cllr Callard also said if councillors disagreed with it offering the building for new uses, as it was no longer used as a pupil referral unit with the library having transferred to the town hall in 2015, the decision made last November to declare it 'surplus to requirements' should have been called in for review. The cabinet will consider the scrutiny committee's suggestions a re-tender should be run with specifications including an independent valuation, a survey of the building, consideration of the building's history and importance, a public consultation and the possibility of selling the building. It meets at County Hall in Usk at 4.30pm.
New Statesman
34 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The left is rallying against war with Iran
Photo byAll eyes are on the White House, as the conflict between Iran and Israel enters its second week. Donald Trump has yet to commit to direct American involvement, telling reporters he would decide in the next two weeks. When he does, Keir Starmer will need to make a decision. Will the UK fall in behind its allies (the US and Israel) or will it keep its distance? This is an extremely delicate situation. The UK would be on difficult legal ground if it did get directly involved militarily, as it has not been directly attacked, nor have any of its Nato allies. Equally, it would not be in the country's interests to see an Iranian escalation which threatened shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, or the UK's military bases in Cyprus. Though Starmer has yet to make his position plain – he has repeated his assertion that this is a 'fast-moving situation' – whichever decision he takes is likely to lead to political friction. Inside the Labour Party, it already is. Though the UK is not directly involved in the Israel-Iran conflict, the same criticisms which have plagued the government on the ongoing war in Gaza have been applied here. Britain continues to technically supply arms to Israel through the F45 fighter jet programme and its belated sanctioning of far-right members of the Israeli government (Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich received sanctions last week) has been widely criticised. Increased UK involvement in the Middle East could lead to an escalation of these criticisms from the left, both within and outside of the Labour party. The potential for active UK involvement in the war in the Middle East is not likely to sit well with some Labour MPs. The scars of the Iraq war run deep among Labour politicians and party members. One backbench MP was clear: there are a lot of people in the Labour party who would not want to go to war in Iran. And while they said that while this is mostly concentrated among the old guard of MPs (those elected pre-2024), members of the new intake share their apprehension. The MP added that this concern could even stretch to the Cabinet, and that it would be better for Starmer to align the UK with its European partners and Canada, rather than remain at the beck-and-call of Trump and the US. Today Emmanuel Macron announced a European proposal to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. 'Britain has to have a recalibration of who they're dealing with,' the MP said. How Starmer deals with this conflict is also being watched closely by the leftward coalition which is forming outside the party. Among this broad extra-parliamentary group there is agreement that the UK must not be led into this conflict to serve US interests. Today (21 June), the Palestine Solidarity Campaign will stage a march from Russell Square to Westminster, with speakers including the Independent (former Labour) MP Zarah Sultana and Paloma Faith. Jeremy Corbyn and Zack Polanski will also be in attendance. This group is of course, dead against any direct UK involvement in the conflict. Corbyn told me, 'The last Labour government made the mistake of following the US into a catastrophic war and refusing to build its own, independent, ethical foreign policy. Human beings abroad paid the price.' The former Labour leader, who recently brought a 10-minute rule bill calling for an independent inquiry into the UK's involvement in Gaza, called on the government 'to learn the lessons of the past, otherwise it will be remembered for the less secure and less peaceful world it has helped to create'. His sentiments were similarly echoed by the Green Party deputy leader, and candidate for party leadership, Zack Polanski, who said: 'Starmer claims to support de-escalation – yet continues to back a government committing genocide in Gaza, arms its military, shares intelligence, and now refuses to rule out dragging us into another catastrophic war.' Polanski, who has said he thinks the UK should withdraw from Nato, similarly pointed to the lessons of history on this. He added: 'We saw in 2003 what happens when a prime minister chooses loyalty to an American president over the will of the British people. They must learn from that shameful chapter in history.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Privately, though, there is concern from those who are sympathetic to Gaza on the left that this escalation could only lead to more polarisation. Prior to Israel's strikes on Iran – and Iran's retaliation – it felt as though opinion on Gaza was on the cusp of a turning point, with more MPs feeling able to speak out about what they saw as indiscriminate Israeli aggression. This new stage of the conflict opens up a new attack-line. As Corbyn, Polanski, or other pro-Gaza MPs and politicians call for the end of arms sales to Israel, the worry is that critics will fire back that these MPs would leave Israel defenceless from Iran. None of this puts the Prime Minister in an easy position. Starmer has already received extensive criticism for being slow to act on sanctions and arms sales. If he commits to more UK involvement in this growing conflict, it will open him up to even further attacks from the left (and could even run the risk of more Labour losses to the Gaza independents or an equivalent organised party in 2029). Memories of Iraq, and the political damage that terrible conflict wrought on the Labour party have certainly not dissipated; the left are keen that no one forgets. [See also: The dangerous new neoconservatism] Related
