Nigel Farage ridiculed for plan to ‘re-industrialise Wales'

Business secretary Jonathan Reynolds criticised Nigel Farage 's plan to reopen coal mines in Wales, calling it a "parody" of what working-class people want.
Mr Reynolds, whose grandfather was a coal miner, said Farage failed to understand the pride and aspirations of working-class communities.
Mr Farage announced Reform UK 's ambition to restart Port Talbot's blast furnaces and 're-industrialise Wales' by resuming coal production, aiming to challenge Labour's dominance in the Senedd elections.
Mr Reynolds also defended the UK's plan for closer trade ties with the US, emphasising the need to engage despite differing views.
Mr Reynolds recounted a phone call with his US counterpart, humorously noting concerns about poor phone signal potentially leading to unintended concessions during negotiations.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Auto Blog

37 minutes ago

• Auto Blog

Toyota Aims to Meet Stateside GR Corolla Demand with UK Production Line

Toyota's GR Corolla is one hot ride On paper, it is easy to understand the hype for the Toyota GR Corolla. For $39,995, car enthusiasts can pretty much get the closest thing to a WRC-winning rally car that money can buy and that your DMV will let you register for road use. While it shares its body with a practical five-door hatchback, Toyota's Gazoo Racing division stuffed lots of high-performance toys for unlimited smiles per gallon, including a turbocharged 1.6-liter three-cylinder engine producing 300 rampageous horsepower under the hood, an all-wheel-drive system, track-ready suspension, and a stiffened chassis. 2025 Toyota GR Corolla — Source: Toyota Toyota isn't faffing about with American demand for its pocket rocket With all this in tow, it is easy to see how Toyota's fast, little hatchback could be a sleeper hit that is taking the automaker by surprise. According to a new report by Reuters, insiders say that demand for the all-wheel-drive pocket rocket in the U.S. is so high that it is making a major production shift to satisfy their cravings. According to two sources close to Toyota, the Japanese automaker is moving some GR production from Japan to the UK in order to reduce the delivery wait times for export vehicles for the North American market. Currently, the GR Corolla is built on a dedicated assembly line shared with the GR Yaris at Toyota's Motomachi plant in Toyota City, Japan, which is reportedly insufficient to satisfy enthusiast demand in the U.S. and Canada. To accommodate this, Toyota will spend nearly $56 million to dedicate one production line at its plant in Burnaston, Derbyshire, in the UK. When it comes online in 2026, this line will be capable of producing 10,000 cars per year for export to the North American market. Opened in 1992, Burnaston uses some of Toyota's advanced production technology to pump out cars as fast as one per 60 seconds. Already, the English factory produces the Toyota Corolla hatchback, the vehicle on which the GR Corolla is based. The 2025 Toyota GR Corolla on the streets of SoHo in New York City. — Source: James Ochoa However, one Toyota source who spoke to Reuters said that the automaker will temporarily dispatch engineers to the English factory to share its expertise and knowledge with the workers on building such a car. The sources who spoke with Reuters emphasized that GR models like the GR Corolla and GR Yaris require more time and effort to produce than their non-GR counterparts because of the many procedures that machines cannot do. Autoblog Newsletter Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Sign up or sign in with Google Facebook Microsoft Apple By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. Moving production of high-margin cars to the UK can be a tariff power move. Although Toyota produces and sells a smaller chunk of GR Corollas compared to its more mainstream models, Toyota insiders note that their higher price tags compared to 'regular' Corollas command higher margins for the company, which could be a good deal, given the tariff situation currently at hand. Earlier this month, the Trump administration brokered a trade deal with Kier Starmer and the British government to reduce tariffs on UK vehicle imports from 27.5% to 10%. While automakers seem to get a break, the Trump administration restricts this 'special rate' for the first 100,000 cars automakers bring on American shores. Toyota insiders told Reuters that the move was not made because of President Donald Trump's tariffs on imported cars. 2025 Toyota GR Corolla — Source: James Ochoa Final thoughts I am not surprised that Toyota would be considering this move, as there seems to be something about the UK and hatchbacks. Previously, the last generation of Honda Civic Type R was made in Swindon, England, alongside production of the 'standard' Civic Hatchback destined for American shores. Nonetheless, the GR Corolla is an exhilarating car, even when equipped with an automatic transmission. However, I do hope that when they make this shift, Toyota GR fans will be vigilant for any noticeable differences in build quality compared to units from the Motomachi plant. Those GR engineers have a lot on their plates. About the Author James Ochoa View Profile

The Independent

an hour ago

• The Independent

Palestine Action to be banned after vandalism of planes at RAF base

The Home Secretary is preparing to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action. The decision comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being also investigated by counter terror police. A spokesperson for Palestine Action accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company Wagner Group. Another 14 organisations connected with Northern Ireland are also banned under previous legislation, including the IRA and UDA. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Friday's incident at Brize Norton, described by the Prime Minister as 'disgraceful', prompted calls for Palestine Action to be banned. The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe the group, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.' CAA chief executive Gideon Falter urged the Home Secretary to proscribe the Houthi rebel group and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, adding: 'This country needs to clamp down on the domestic and foreign terrorists running amok on our soil.' Former home secretary Suella Braverman said it was 'absolutely the correct decision'. But Tom Southerden, of Amnesty International UK, said the human rights organisation was 'deeply concerned at the use of counter terrorism powers to target protest groups'. Mr Southerden said: 'Terrorism powers should never have been used to aggravate criminal charges against Palestine Action activists and they certainly shouldn't be used to ban them. 'Instead of suppressing protest against the UK's military support for Israel, the UK should be taking urgent action to prevent Israel's genocide and end any risk of UK complicity in it.'

Daily Mail​

an hour ago

• Daily Mail​

This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG

The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.