Thousands of families relying on Universal Credit are finally set to receive the increase from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that was due in April. Of course, it is not the “huge payrise” outlets like the Sun have made it out to be, just for clicks. It is also not “unexpected“, like clickbait merchant Birmingham Live has claimed.
Moreover, the DWP has once again demonstrated the troubling inefficiencies and complexities baked into the welfare system—delaying crucial increases for many claimants by up to two months. This lag not only undermines the purpose of benefit support but reveals a system ill-equipped to respond swiftly to the escalating cost of living.
Universal Credit: a meagre increase from the DWP
The headline 1.7% rise in Universal Credit payments arrived long after many already struggling families desperately needed relief.
Due to the assessment-based, monthly payment structure, some claimants — depending on when their “assessment period” begins — will not witness any increase until 12 June. For those whose assessment period started just before 7 April, this means enduring a prolonged wait despite the government’s awareness of soaring living costs.
Inflation in April was running at 3.5% – once again, showing that the DWP is sorely underpaying Universal Credit claimants.
This unnecessary delay is symptomatic of a broken system designed without consideration for the urgency that financial hardship demands. The staggered roll-out evidently penalises the most vulnerable, forcing families to weather an extended period without adequate support, precisely when several are battling to keep up with soaring bills.
Woeful
Moreover, even when the increase finally arrives, the size of the uplift remains woefully inadequate.
The standard monthly allowance for a single claimant over 25 has risen merely to £400.14, with similar fractional increments across other claimant categories. Although presented by the DWP and others as “helpful”, these increases fall far short of keeping pace with the relentless rise in the cost of essentials like energy, food, and housing.
Much of the media is parroting the line the DWP’s increase to Universal Credit is good. Even the Mirror, which presents itself as supportive of chronically ill and disabled people, is doing this (presumably for ad revenue). It ran with the headline:
DWP Universal Credit payments to rise for millions from June in major boost
Firstly, it’s not millions. Secondly, it’s not a “major boost” – if anything, it’s likely a real-terms pay cut for claimants.
Academic research and independent analyses consistently show that benefit rises have systematically lagged behind inflation for over a decade.
For instance, the Resolution Foundation highlighted that since 2010, DWP benefit payment increases have persistently failed to match inflation, causing real-terms reductions in support. This is due to government freezes and below-inflation increases.
The result? Households on Universal Credit regularly face diminished purchasing power, deepening poverty rather than alleviating it.
The health element freeze: stark neglect from the DWP
Compounding this troubling picture is the DWP and Labour government’s planned cruel freeze on certain elements of Universal Credit—most notably the health element for existing claimants, which under proposals could remain locked until as late as 2029-30.
This freeze effectively sidelines chronically ill and disabled people, excluding them from even minimal financial improvements and exacerbating existing inequalities.
By embedding such a lengthy freeze, the government not only proves indifferent to the needs of the most vulnerable but actively contributes to their financial marginalisation. As inflation continues to climb, failing to revise these elements constitutes a breach of the welfare safety net’s responsibility.
Faced with these shortcomings by the DWP, local councils like Middlesbrough have resorted to emergency “top-up” payments via the Household Support Fund, offering families up to £120 to meet immediate needs.
While welcome, these patchwork measures starkly illustrate the insufficiency of central government support. Moreover, reliance on charitable organisations and benefit calculators from groups like Turn2Us underscores a welfare system that forces claimants into a bewildering maze just to secure the help they are entitled to.
Universal Credit is broken – and Labour are smashing it further to bits
The meagre 1.7% increase in Universal Credit payments, coupled with arbitrary delays and freezes, underscores an inherently flawed system that fails the very people it is intended to support. Yet many corporate media outlets would have you believe that already poverty-stricken claimants were somehow getting a generous payrise.
If the DWP is serious about protecting those on the lowest incomes, it must overhaul this intricate bureaucracy, refuse to freeze vital components like the health element, and commit to benefit increases that genuinely reflect inflationary pressures.
Without this, Universal Credit is little more than a ticking time bomb—promising relief but delivering delay and disappointment to those who need it most.
“What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians. It’s the result of government policy — knowingly, evilly, maliciously, irresponsibly dictated.”
This statement was made not by a foreign or liberal critic of Israel but by the former Prime Minister and former senior member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s own Likud party, Ehud Olmet.
Nightly, we witness live-streamed evidence of the truth of his statement — lethargic and gaunt children dying of malnutrition, a bereaved doctor and mother of 10 children, nine of them killed by an Israeli strike (and her husband, another doctor, died later), 15 emergency ambulance workers gunned down by the IDF as they tried to help others injured by bombs, despite their identity being clear.
Statistics reflect the scale of the horror imposed on Palestinians who are overwhelmingly civilians — 54,000 killed, 121,000 maimed and injured. Over 17,000 of these are children.
This can no longer be excused as regrettable collateral damage from targeted attacks on Hamas.
Israel simply doesn’t care about the impact of its military attacks on civilians and how many innocent people and children it is killing.
Its willingness to block all humanitarian aid- food, water, medical supplies, from Gaza demonstrates further its willingness to make mass punishment and starvation a means to achieve its ends. Both are war crimes.
Influenced by the right wing extremists in the Coalition cabinet, like Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s goal is no longer self defence or justifiable retaliation against Hamas terrorists.
Israel attacks Palestinians at US-backed aid hubs in Gaza, killing 36. Image: AJ screenshot APR
Making life unbearable
The Israeli government policy is focused on making life unbearable for Palestinians and seeking to remove them from their homeland. In this, they are openly encouraged by President Trump who has publicly and repeatedly endorsed deporting the Palestinian population so that the Gaza could be made into a “Middle East Riviera”.
This is not the once progressive pioneer Israel, led by people who had faced the Nazi Holocaust and were fighting for the right to a place where they could determine their own future and be safe.
Sadly, a country of people who were themselves long victims of oppression is now guilty of oppressing and committing genocide against others.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters called Israel’s actions “ intolerable”. He said that we had “had enough and were running out of patience and hearing excuses”.
While speaking out might make us feel better, words are not enough. Israel’s attacks on the civilian population in Gaza are being increased, aid distribution which has restarted is grossly insufficient to stop hunger and human suffering and Palestinians are being herded into confined areas described as humanitarian zones but which are still subject to bombardment.
People living in tents in schools and hospitals are being slaughtered.
World must force Israel to stop
Like Putin, Israel will not end its killing and oppression unless the world forces it to. The US has the power but will not do this.
The sanctions Trump has imposed are not on Israel’s leaders but on judges in the International Criminal Court (ICC) who dared to find Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu guilty of war crimes.
New Zealand’s foreign policy has traditionally involved working with like-minded countries, often small nations like us. Two of these, Ireland and Sweden, are seeking to impose sanctions on Israel.
Both are members of the European Union which makes up a third of Israel’s global trade. If the EU decides to act, sanctions imposed by it would have a big impact on Israel.
These sanctions should be both on trade and against individuals.
New Zealand has imposed sanctions on a small number of extremist Jewish settlers on the West Bank where there is evidence of them using violence against Palestinian villagers.
These sanctions should be extended to Israel’s political leadership and New Zealand could take a lead in doing this. We should not be influenced by concern that by taking a stand we might offend US president Donald Trump.
Show our preparedness to uphold values
In the way that we have been proud of in the past, we should as a small but fiercely independent country show our preparedness to uphold our own values and act against gross abuse of human rights and flagrant disregard for international law.
We should be working with others through the United Nations General Assembly to maximise political pressure on Israel to stop the ongoing killing of innocent civilians.
Moral outrage at what Israel is doing has to be backed by taking action with others to force the Israeli government to end the killing, destruction, mass punishment and deliberate starvation of Palestinians including their children.
An American doctor working at a Gaza hospital reported that in the last five weeks he had worked on dozens of badly injured children but not a single combatant.
He noted that as well as being maimed and disfigured by bombing, many of the children were also suffering from malnutrition. Children were dying from wounds that they could recover from but there were not the supplies needed to treat them.
Protest is not enough. We need to act.
Phil Goff is Aotearoa New Zealand’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs. This article was first published by the Stuff website and is republished with the permission of the author.
“What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians. It’s the result of government policy — knowingly, evilly, maliciously, irresponsibly dictated.”
This statement was made not by a foreign or liberal critic of Israel but by the former Prime Minister and former senior member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s own Likud party, Ehud Olmet.
Nightly, we witness live-streamed evidence of the truth of his statement — lethargic and gaunt children dying of malnutrition, a bereaved doctor and mother of 10 children, nine of them killed by an Israeli strike (and her husband, another doctor, died later), 15 emergency ambulance workers gunned down by the IDF as they tried to help others injured by bombs, despite their identity being clear.
Statistics reflect the scale of the horror imposed on Palestinians who are overwhelmingly civilians — 54,000 killed, 121,000 maimed and injured. Over 17,000 of these are children.
This can no longer be excused as regrettable collateral damage from targeted attacks on Hamas.
Israel simply doesn’t care about the impact of its military attacks on civilians and how many innocent people and children it is killing.
Its willingness to block all humanitarian aid- food, water, medical supplies, from Gaza demonstrates further its willingness to make mass punishment and starvation a means to achieve its ends. Both are war crimes.
Influenced by the right wing extremists in the Coalition cabinet, like Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s goal is no longer self defence or justifiable retaliation against Hamas terrorists.
Israel attacks Palestinians at US-backed aid hubs in Gaza, killing 36. Image: AJ screenshot APR
Making life unbearable
The Israeli government policy is focused on making life unbearable for Palestinians and seeking to remove them from their homeland. In this, they are openly encouraged by President Trump who has publicly and repeatedly endorsed deporting the Palestinian population so that the Gaza could be made into a “Middle East Riviera”.
This is not the once progressive pioneer Israel, led by people who had faced the Nazi Holocaust and were fighting for the right to a place where they could determine their own future and be safe.
Sadly, a country of people who were themselves long victims of oppression is now guilty of oppressing and committing genocide against others.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters called Israel’s actions “ intolerable”. He said that we had “had enough and were running out of patience and hearing excuses”.
While speaking out might make us feel better, words are not enough. Israel’s attacks on the civilian population in Gaza are being increased, aid distribution which has restarted is grossly insufficient to stop hunger and human suffering and Palestinians are being herded into confined areas described as humanitarian zones but which are still subject to bombardment.
People living in tents in schools and hospitals are being slaughtered.
World must force Israel to stop
Like Putin, Israel will not end its killing and oppression unless the world forces it to. The US has the power but will not do this.
The sanctions Trump has imposed are not on Israel’s leaders but on judges in the International Criminal Court (ICC) who dared to find Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu guilty of war crimes.
New Zealand’s foreign policy has traditionally involved working with like-minded countries, often small nations like us. Two of these, Ireland and Sweden, are seeking to impose sanctions on Israel.
Both are members of the European Union which makes up a third of Israel’s global trade. If the EU decides to act, sanctions imposed by it would have a big impact on Israel.
These sanctions should be both on trade and against individuals.
New Zealand has imposed sanctions on a small number of extremist Jewish settlers on the West Bank where there is evidence of them using violence against Palestinian villagers.
These sanctions should be extended to Israel’s political leadership and New Zealand could take a lead in doing this. We should not be influenced by concern that by taking a stand we might offend US president Donald Trump.
Show our preparedness to uphold values
In the way that we have been proud of in the past, we should as a small but fiercely independent country show our preparedness to uphold our own values and act against gross abuse of human rights and flagrant disregard for international law.
We should be working with others through the United Nations General Assembly to maximise political pressure on Israel to stop the ongoing killing of innocent civilians.
Moral outrage at what Israel is doing has to be backed by taking action with others to force the Israeli government to end the killing, destruction, mass punishment and deliberate starvation of Palestinians including their children.
An American doctor working at a Gaza hospital reported that in the last five weeks he had worked on dozens of badly injured children but not a single combatant.
He noted that as well as being maimed and disfigured by bombing, many of the children were also suffering from malnutrition. Children were dying from wounds that they could recover from but there were not the supplies needed to treat them.
Protest is not enough. We need to act.
Phil Goff is Aotearoa New Zealand’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs. This article was first published by the Stuff website and is republished with the permission of the author.
In the UK, an astonishing one in 11 adults serves as unpaid carers, a role that extends far beyond mere assistance. These 5.7 million people constitute a vital segment of society, providing care for their loved ones. Yet Labour’s cuts to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will cut nearly £650 million in support from around 150,000 carers. So, Carers UK has taken a stand.
Unpaid carers; saving the government £184 billion – yet the DWP will cut their benefits, anyway
Recent research has unveiled that the contribution of these unpaid carers is valued at an eye-watering £184 billion annually. However, this figure may not fully encapsulate their true worth, as a significant 36% of carers take more than three years to acknowledge their caregiving role.
Despite their invaluable contributions, a staggering 55% of these individuals feel undervalued by society. Many are grappling with the heavy toll that caregiving takes on their mental and physical well-being.
A recent study highlighted that eight out of ten carers foresee worsening health impacts in the coming years. Such stark reveals underline the need for greater recognition and support for these unsung heroes – not lease from the DWP.
Thanks to DWP cuts to PIP, a staggering 150,000 people are set to lose their eligibility for Carer’s Allowance and the carer element of DWP Universal Credit, as highlighted by the latest announcements from chancellor Rachel Reeves during her Spring Statement.
These changes come against a backdrop of significant cuts to chronically ill and disabled people’s benefits, anticipated to affect as many as 3.2 million families by 2030. According to estimates, individuals could see their annual income plummet by an average of £1,720 due to these shifts in policy.
DWP PIP, which is crucial for so many disabled people, is split into two distinct components: daily living and mobility.
Currently, the standard rate for the daily living part of DWP PIP requires claimants to accrue between eight and 11 points, while those eligible for the higher rate must score 12 points or more. However, a new threshold is set to be introduced in November 2026 which will require a minimum score of four points in at least one activity to qualify for the daily living component, although the mobility criteria will remain unchanged.
Helen Walker, chief executive of Carers UK, sharply condemned the decision, describing it as “the first substantial cuts to Carer’s Allowance in decades,” and calling it an unprecedented step in the wrong direction.
Poverty is already entrenched. Labour will make it even worse with DWP PIP cuts.
1.2 million unpaid carers already live in poverty, and 400,000 live in deep poverty in the UK.
She further explained that DWP PIP functions as a “gateway” benefit, meaning that changes will have dire consequences on the entitlements and support available to those who are already in difficult positions.
The DWP itself estimates that 150,000 unpaid carers will lose their entitlements to Carer’s Allowance or the carer’s element of Universal Credit.
Moreover, the financial burden on carers is exacerbated by the revelation that Carer’s Allowance currently provides £81.90 a week to those who care for someone for a minimum of 35 hours per week, but that support is now dwindling. The carer’s allowance of DWP Universal Credit is £198.31 every four weeks.
“The Most Valuable Portrait”
So, to shed light on this often-overlooked group and DWP PIP cuts, Specsavers Home Visits has collaborated with Carers UK and artist Colin Davidson to create a portrait titled “The Most Valuable Portrait“:
Colin Davidson’s “The Most Valuable Portrait” is being displayed at London’s South Bank Observation Point from 30 May to 1 June.
This piece features carer Jaycee La Bouche, who tends to her mother, and has been symbolically valued at £184 billion to reflect the immense contributions of over a million unpaid carers.
Davidson articulated the intent behind the project, stating, “It represents all the unpaid carers who deserve to be seen and valued.” This sentiment resonates deeply amidst a backdrop where caring responsibilities frequently go unacknowledged by the wider community.
Carers UK echoes these concerns, asserting that the health and social care system would face a catastrophic breakdown without unpaid carers.
Already cut to the bone and exhausted
According to Helen Walker, chief executive of Carers UK:
We want to see greater acknowledgment of the true value of unpaid care—a lifeline for many that often goes unrecognised.
The combined voices of these caregivers demand not just recognition, but actionable support and resources.
The challenges faced by unpaid carers are manifold – and that’s before the knock-on effect of DWP PIP cuts.
Over the past decade, approximately 4.3 million individuals have stepped into caring roles, equating to around 12,000 people per day. The burden of these responsibilities is disproportionate, falling heavily on women, who comprise nearly 59% of this workforce.
Significantly, many carers are juggling this role with paid employment; 56% of carers are managing both caregiving and holding jobs, often sacrificing their work hours. Alarmingly, 32% have been compelled to abandon their jobs altogether due to the demands of caregiving, reflecting a systemic failure to accommodate their needs.
Additionally, a report from Carers Trust revealed that 45% of unpaid carers feel they do not receive adequate support.
This lack of recognition is particularly acute among those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and from Black and brown communities, who often encounter additional barriers to accessing essential services. The socio-economic impact of this caregiving crisis is profound, with many carers sacrificing their own financial stability in the process.
DWP PIP cuts will exacerbate a crisis for unpaid carers
According to recent census data, about 1.5 million individuals dedicate more than 50 hours a week to caregiving tasks. This commitment comes at a staggering cost—one in ten unpaid carers finds themselves in poverty, with many struggling to afford basic necessities like food and heating.
The government’s failure to provide adequate support not only jeopardises the well-being of these individuals but also places immense strain on the broader social care system.
Now, that lack of support – such as giving unpaid carers the equivalent of the minimum wage – will be exacerbated by DWP PIP cuts. It is astonishing that, given these people save the government so much money, it still wants to cut support for some of them.
Carers UK has taken an admirable stand. Now, further action needs to manifest to stop these cuts in their tracks.
Featured image via Specsavers/Carers UK/Colin Davidson
Rachel Charlton-Dailey looks at ‘Taking The PIP’ – a new campaign around Labour’s cuts to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) support for chronically ill and disabled people
I’ve been horrendously busy this week, as after weeks of organising a campaign I’ve been working hard to pull together to take a stand against disability benefits cuts finally launched on Tuesday 27 May.
Taking The PIP is a national campaign which is headed up by some of the most well-known disabled people in the UK. To launch the campaign a letter was sent to the prime minister demanding that the inhumane DWP PIP and Universal Creditbenefits cuts, which would destroy the lives of disabled people, are scrapped.
The letter was signed by over 100 disabled people from the worlds of TV, film, sport, media, the arts, and DDPOs. Signatories include Jack Thorne, Liz Carr, Francesca Martinez, Ruth Madeley, and Lee Ridley.
As we said in the letter:
If these plans go ahead, 700,000 families already living in poverty will face further devastation. Over 3.2 million disabled people and their families will be affected. This is not reform; it is cruelty by policy.
The campaign was organised by a small core team of us who have worked our socks off around the clock for the last few weeks, despite all being multiply disabled. It includes myself and actors and campaigners Cherylee Houston, Lisa Hamilton, and Natalie Amber.
DWP PIP and Universal Credit cuts: we’re angry, and so should everyone be
We started the campaign because we were all so angry and crushed by what the government want to do to our community.
Whilst I’m loathed to ever call myself a celebrity and I’m certainly not in the same calibre as many on this list, I’d be foolish not to acknowledge that I do have a significant following and want to use that as always to hold the government to account. You all know how close to my heart this issue is by now and I would never put my name behind a campaign that was all mouth and no trousers.
I’ve had the huge honour these last few weeks to work with these incredibly passionate, driven, hilarious, angry, kind souls. Our daily Zooms have been filled with anger but also compassion and a drive to make a fucking difference in a world that wants disabled people hidden and silent.
It’s worth pointing out that the campaign is fighting for a U-turn of ALL the benefits cuts proposals.
Whilst it’s called Taking the PIP, we aren’t just focusing on the changes to DWP PIP. We know how catastrophic cuts to Universal Credit, ESA, and Access to Work would be and would never want to contribute to the “worthy disabled who works vs layabout” narrative. ALL disabled people who need benefits deserve to have them. The name was chosen cos we all thought it was funny, in a juvenile way.
We’re not reinventing the wheel
Whilst the letter launched the campaign, it’s not about a bunch of people in the public eye trying to speak over others and act like we reinvented the wheel.
Taking The PIP by no means wants to act like there isn’t already incredible work happening to fight back against the government, but we also know that we’re lucky to have our platforms and want to use them to raise public awareness of what disabled people are facing via DWP PIP, Universal Credit, and other cuts.
The truth of the matter is none of us want to be doing this. It shouldn’t take famous people for the public to take notice of how horrific these cuts could be.
Jack Thorne said:
I don’t think people are truly aware of the damage these PIP cuts could do. We desperately need people’s attention on this issue. I hope this campaign will cause people to look up and take notice
The fact of the matter is that whilst disabled people and their families are struggling, many non-disabled people won’t know as much about the reality of the situation.
They aren’t hearing about how disabled people will struggle to pay their bills, feed their families, keep a roof over their head and ultimately will die if these DWP PIP, Universal Credit, Access to Work, and other cuts go ahead.
And make no mistake: this is massively down to how much bullshit is willfully being spread by the media and government about lazy scroungers taking the taxpayer for a ride.
DWP PIP and Universal Credit cuts will decimate lives
Cherylee Houston told me:
The stark reality is this is going to decimate lives, people are telling me they’re terrified about what will happen as they won’t be able to afford their bills and food, let alone the additional costs that come with disability.
Someone told me they wouldn’t be able to afford their incontinence pads since the number they were given a day has been cut to three, let alone food or to get their wheelchair repaired. The disability cuts are a brutal attack on the most vulnerable in our society and this threat needs to be halted immediately.
And whilst we might all have a public profile that doesn’t mean the DWP PIP and other cuts wont affect us.
I can only work more relaxed hours to accommodate my ever-changing disabilities. Some of us who rely on Access to Work would be forced to give up the careers we love due to the horrendous cuts – such as Jess Thom. We want to raise awareness of just how much the “getting Britain working” story is just that – fictitious, because these cuts will only make it harder for disabled people to work.
Beyond the letter, we want to keep this momentum up via social media. We’re asking disabled people to use the hashtag #TakingThePIP to share their experiences and what the cuts to DWP PIP and Universal Credit would mean to them, share their anger, and ultimately show that we are fighting back.
Fight back
Whilst this is going to be a long fight, people need to take action now, as we’re only a few weeks away from the Commons debate. That’s why we’re massively encouraging people to sign existing petitions as well as taking the fight to MPs.
We’ve made it super-easy for you to write to your MP and ask them to oppose these DWP PIP and Universal Credit cuts with our write to your MP tool. If you’re unsure on how your MP feels about the cuts, Mad Youth Organise has created a tool to see if your MP opposes the cuts or not.
In my opinion, a big reason that the government can propose these cuts is that they’ve worked with the media to turn the public against us for decades now. The media narrative is that these DWP PIP and Universal Credit cuts are a good thing because they save money and will get disabled people back into work.
We need to turn the narrative back around, and shine a harsh light on the brutality of these cuts. But most importantly we want the many disabled people who feel that they don’t have a voice to know that we and many other disabled peoples organisations and campaigners are fighting for them.
Crucially, people under the age of 22 will no longer be able to claim these top-ups at all under Universal Credit at all.
The Royal British Legion has been vocal in its disapproval, warning that delaying access to this DWP health element could leave Early Service Leavers and those medically discharged facing hardships during what they describe as a “vulnerable period” of readjustment.
The charity has echoed sentiments voiced by Sasha Misra, head of policy at Help for Heroes, who stressed that a significant portion of veterans live with complex, lifelong conditions and that DWP reforms must not exacerbate their struggles. Misra articulated a call for a compassionate welfare system, one that provides support for veterans striving to reintegrate into civilian life instead of viewing them as burdens on the state.
In parliament, Labour MP Anna Gelderd raised pointed questions about the likely repercussions of these welfare reforms. In response, governmental assurances were made regarding consultations with armed forces groups to potentially mitigate adverse effects.
Veterans hit hard by successive governments
DWP minister Stephen Timms indicated that a dedicated consultation event for stakeholders from the Armed Forces would soon take place, hinting at a willingness to engage directly with the veterans’ community. Yet many viewed this as inadequate in the face of immediate and pressing needs.
Recent studies have illustrated a tarnished relationship between military veterans and the DWP benefits system. Findings highlight the numerous obstacles veterans encounter during assessments, with many dealing with mental health issues that are frequently minimised or misconstrued by assessors.
This landscape paints a troubling picture of a welfare system that is not only dysfunctional but one that misrepresents the very individuals it is meant to serve.
Moreover, a survey conducted by Bolt Burdon Kemp found nearly 74% of military charities feel the government is failing to support veterans. These charities stress the multifaceted challenges ex-service members face as they navigate the choppy waters of civilian life—issues that extend beyond finances to encompass employment, healthcare, and mental wellness.
Of course, these DWP cuts will not only be devastating to young veterans.
[They] already face health struggles, particularly in mental health. Resolution Foundation research in 2022 showed that Common Mental Health Disorders (CMD) amongst young people have generally been increasing since the 1990s but began rising most rapidly from the mid-2010s. They also found that a CMD makes it more likely a young person will exit the workforce, and for longer.
Forcing young people with health conditions to choose between poverty or an unsuitable job ignores that the work available to young people may pose additional health risks. Work Foundation research has found that young workers (excluding students) are almost twice as likely to be in severely insecure work with a lack of access to employment rights, unpredictable or low pay, and no contractual guarantee of future hours. Whilst some students may opt in to casual, agency or zero-hours type work to enable them the flexibility to fit around their studies, young workers who aren’t studying are also experiencing this insecurity – suggesting people aren’t entering these jobs through choice.
Our 2024 Stemming the Tide report shows low levels of control over working hours and work conduct are associated with higher health risks and a 3.7 times higher rate of worklessness after a negative health experience. This mirrors findings in the Netherlands which estimated that workers with fixed-term contracts have a 30% higher risk of applying for disability insurance than those with permanent contracts.
Yet Labour seems to be ignoring all this. Throwing young disabled people – including veterans – into chaos is nothing short of cruel and callous by the DWP. You’d think Labour, given it is pandering to the ‘patriotic’ right wing at present, would treat military veterans with more respect. Clearly not.
A shocking new report from the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) has painted a grim picture of housing in England. Richard Blakeway, the Housing Ombudsman wrote:
We investigated 474% more complaints about poor living conditions in the last budget year compared to when I started as Ombudsman in 2019-20, with poor practice found in 72% of cases. This is despite almost £9 billion spent on repairs and maintenance in 2023-24.
The authority’s investigation found that one million children live with a serious hazard. And 18% of those children live in social housing. A shocking 43% of repair and maintenance cases in 2025-25 were considered high risk. Over 2,000 landlords were ordered to apologise for poor conditions, with £3.4 million being paid out in compensation.
Housing crisis
So dire is the state of housing in England, that Blakeway warns the government about growing anger:
Without change we effectively risk the managed decline of one of the largest provisions of social housing in Europe…It also risks the simmering anger at poor housing conditions becoming social disquiet.
The report is at pains to point out that houses are emotional and deeply personal spaces for tenants. The fact that the ombudsman believes such a consideration to be necessary speaks to the heart of the issue. After all, how many landlords would be happy for their homes that they live in to feature such disrepair? The report encourages landlords to engage with tenants in a more empathetic manner:
residents repeatedly tell us how they can find landlord communication dismissive, derogatory, or even stigmatising.
They add that:
we still experience landlords being defensive, deflecting from the reasons for repeated service failure or comparing poor performance favourably to the worst. This creates an impression of not caring when most housing professionals do, leaving residents feeling invisible.
Delays
A shocking 1 in 4 repairs were not completed on time. And, as the report outlines, disabled people face the brunt of these delays:
A seemingly minor repair could be urgent if it significantly impacts a resident’s health. Given the high number of disabled social housing residents, this understanding is crucial for effective service delivery.
A lack of clear communication and trust between landlords, tenants, and contractors means that housing is often in a poor state. Problems of damp, mould, and deterioration in structural integrity over time means tenants have to live in unacceptable conditions. The report recommends the establishment of what it calls a “statutory resident advocacy body.” This prospective organisation would advocate for tenants rights. And, the ombudsman suggests the proposed body being able to set up:
a code of conduct for operatives responsible for repairs.
Given the sheer number of complaints over housing conditions to the ombudsman – to say nothing of those who do not (or cannot) complain – such a body is sorely needed.
Recommendations for housing
The report’s recommendations do provide a blistering analysis of a culture which allows landlords to mistreat both tenants and their housing. While parts of the report will be welcome for tenants, these recommendations can only be part of the picture. Until the government acknowledges that safe, clean, and pleasant housing is a basic right of everybody, nothing can change. The longer it is the norm for landlords to treat housing as a commodity, and not a necessary resource, the situation will keep getting worse.
The BBC have chosen a bizarre angle to report on the news of the unfolding debacle over US/Israel-backed humanitarian aid into Palestine. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) is an ostensibly independent, but Israeli- and US-backed organisation who plans to distribute aid in the Gaza strip.
However, other humanitarian organisations, including the UN, have issued a blistering rebuke as to the independence of GHF. There are further questions over the organisations ability to address an Israeli-manufactured famine.
On top of all this, Israeli forces have repeatedly shot at Palestinians seeking aid from GHF. Many have died, with many more wounded. And what does the BBC do?
Lead with a headline that reads:
Crowds overrun US-backed group’s new aid distribution site in Gaza
BBC News bias for Israel – again
There’s no mention of how Israel have manufactured food and resource scarcity by systematically destroying life-sustaining systems. There’s no reference to the questions asked about GHF at the highest possible levels of humanitarian work. And, there’s certainly no mention of Israelis slaughtering Palestinians as they come to collect the aforementioned aid.
Often, bias in reporting is about what story isn’t covered, as much as what story is covered. It’s only in the first sentence that BBC News addresses the controversies with GHF:
Thousands of Palestinians have overrun an aid distribution site in Gaza set up by a controversial US and Israeli-backed group, a day after it began working there.
Then, presumably in an oblique reference to Israeli forces slaughtering starving Palestinians, they report:
The Israeli military said troops nearby fired warning shots.
The above reporting from the BBC was first published on 27 May. However, by that stage it was already clear – via both testimony and video recordings – that Israel was not only firing warning shots, but shooting to kill aid seekers.
‘Full of lies’
At this stage of Israel’s genocide, taking any kind of comment from their military without providing independent evidence is not only terrible journalism, it’s immoral. In April 2025, fifteen members of the Palestine Red Crescent Society and Civil Defence were murdered by Israeli forces. There have been numerous investigations and reports from independent organisations who have looked into the matter. Whilst Israel insisted that these deaths were a result of “professional failures” it was plainly evident that Israel was simply continuing its indiscriminate killing of Palestinians. The Palestinian Red Crescent Society said Israel’s report was:
full of lies.
The UN humanitarian chief, Jonathan Whittall, said Israel’s report represented an erosion of norms:
A lack of real accountability undermines international law and makes the world a more dangerous place.
Without accountability, we risk continuing to watch atrocities unfolding, and the norms designed to protect us all, eroding.
Medics, and for that matter aid workers, are always easily identifiable and these paramedics in particular were gunned down while in their uniforms. It has been factually proved that Israel lied. And, not just once or twice – but routinely. So much so, that it’s a core part of their military operations to lie and obfuscate. Al Jazeera’s Ahmed Najar reported how, despite repeated accounts demonstrating Israel knowingly and willingly slaughtered the paramedics, Western media remained unmoved by facts:
much of the Western media reported Israel’s version first – “Israel says …”, “the IDF states …”, “a military source tells …”. These carefully worded lines carry more weight than the blood-stained uniforms of the Red Crescent. More than the evidence. More than the truth.
This is not new. This is not an isolated mistake.
This is a system.
A system in which Palestinians are presumed guilty.
Najar demonstrates exactly how dehumanisation of Palestinians is at the core of Western complicity:
A system in which hospitals must prove they are hospitals, schools must prove they are schools and children must prove they are not human shields. A system in which our existence is treated as a threat – one that must be justified, explained, verified – before anyone will mourn us.
This is what dehumanisation looks like.
Choices for BBC News – Israel’s lies or…?
The BBCNews article in question does go into detail in the body of the article about the controversy over Israel and GHF. However, in presenting the Israeli military as a legitimate journalistic source, and by framing the article with a muddied angle that waters down accountability, they have made a choice to subtly but firmly prop up Israeli propaganda.
Eleven prominent humanitarian aid organisations have signed an open letter to call GHF:
a project led by politically connected Western security and military figures, coordinated in tandem with the Israeli government, and launched while the people of Gaza remain under total siege.
They forcefully state that:
This initiative is not a genuine humanitarian effort. It is a smokescreen and, as UN Humanitarian Chief Tom Fletcher has said, “a cynical sideshow” for a deeply flawed and dangerous attempt to rebrand the delivery of aid in Gaza while the Israeli government continues to impose a blockade, bomb civilians, and block life-saving assistance. Aid does not need rebranding. It needs to be allowed in.
The Problem is Not Logistics. It Is Intentional Starvation.
Acting UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Sigrid Kaag, described the amount of aid GHF have the capacity to distribute as a:
lifeboat after the ship has sunk.
The criticism of GHF couldn’t bemore comprehensive, nor come from more expert sources:
The UN and other humanitarian organisations have refused to work with the GHF on the basis that it would compromise values and put their teams and those receiving aid at risk.
They have said the GHF can be used by Israel to forcibly displace the population by requiring them to move near a few distribution hubs or else face starvation. The UN has also opposed the use of facial recognition to vet those receiving aid.
And, just days ago the head of GHF resigned, saying:
I am proud of the work I oversaw, including developing a pragmatic plan that could feed hungry people, address security concerns about diversion, and complement the work of longstanding NGOs in Gaza.
However, it is clear that it is not possible to implement this plan while also strictly adhering to humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence, which I will not abandon.
Not enough for the BBC
BBCNews have covered the problems with Israel and GHF elsewhere. However, they have made repeated choices to dehumanise Palestinians and to unquestioningly publish Israeli propaganda. They have made a choice to, as an institution, position Israeli lives as inherently worth more than Palestinian lives.
After all, it is a choice to describe a starving and besieged population only as “crowds” that “overrun” the meagre aid Israel allow into the area. There’s no mention in the headline of Israeli forces shooting at a crowd that they’ve trapped, terrorised, and starved for months without end.
In its ever-present drive to be unbiased, the BBC aims for a goal that cannot be achieved. It’s a juvenile understanding of bias that positions reporting on Israel’s genocide as one that involves equally covering both ‘sides.’ How can there be ‘sides’ when Israel is extending a genocide on Palestinians, after decades of dominating Palestinians with settler colonialism?
Disabled people across the UK, particularly in traditionally Labour-supporting regions, face the looming threat of reduced financial support due to proposed reforms to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Personal Independence Payment (PIP). But we now know that those in the Midlands and Wales are most at risk – thanks to research from the iPaper.
Wales and the Midlands: stripped of DWP PIP
The government’s plans, which aim to tighten DWP PIP eligibility criteria, could lead to devastating impacts on vulnerable individuals relying on these benefits to navigate daily life.
In Wales, an alarming 90% of the 91,000 PIP claimants currently on the standard rate daily living allowance could find themselves ineligible if reassessed under new rules set to take effect from November 2026.
Similarly, in the East Midlands and West Midlands, the threat extends to 89% of claimants, suggesting that the reforms, aimed at cutting welfare costs, stand to affect the most vulnerable members of society.
The new regulations stipulate that claimants must score at least four points in one of the daily living categories to qualify for the standard benefit, which provides support for essential tasks such as managing finances, maintaining hygiene, and socialising.
This stringent criterion has sparked outrage, especially among mental health advocates who fear that individuals struggling with conditions such as anxiety and depression may be disproportionately affected. As one MP involved in the opposition voiced, the proposed cuts disregard the complex daily challenges faced by those with less visible disabilities.
The tip of the iceberg
But the huge numbers in Wales and the Midlands who will see the DWP cut their support are just the tip of the iceberg.
As the Canary previously reported, as a minimum and according to a DWP impact assessment, as many as 370,000 current claimants could lose their PIP entitlement due to changes in eligibility rules set to be implemented in November 2026, pending parliamentary approval.
But crucially, about 430,000 future applicants are anticipated to be denied the benefit, creating an average annual loss of around £4,500 for those affected. Therefore, Bryant’s 90% figure is not accurate – because people, including children transitioning from Disability Living Allowance to PIP – will lose out.
So, the figure is nearer 20% – not 10% – based on the DWP’s own data – plus 150,000 carers who will also lose their Carer’s Allowance.
However, this is all just before the end of 2028/29. The long-term picture is horrifying.
A horrifying picture emerging of DWP PIP cuts
The changes to DWP PIP Kendall is proposing target neurodivergent, learning disabled, and those with mental health disorders. Moreover, disabled people who need help with things like cutting up food, supervision, prompting, or assistance to wash, dress, or monitor their health condition, will no longer be eligible.
And revelations from a Freedom of Information (FOI) request has also shown that the changes will disproportionately hit PIP claimants over 50 as well. Specifically, the criteria goalpost shifts will deny 1.09 million (nearly 70% of those who could lose out) the Daily Living component of PIP. Part of this cohort is obviously also people Labour is already hammering with the Winter Fuel Payment cuts.
Another FOI made by a member of the public unearthed that around 209,000 people getting enhanced rate DWP PIP Daily Living will lose it. On top of this, around 1.1 million people getting the standard rate will lose it.
In total then, nearly 1.4 million people could, on reassessment, lose their Daily Living element of DWP PIP. However, as the Canary’s Steve Topple previously noted, this doesn’t tell us how many could lose their full PIP altogether. This is because the data does not show how many of these people get standard or enhanced Mobility Element of DWP PIP.
Nonetheless, it’s evident that the plans will be enormously detrimental for chronically ill and disabled people.
The recent episode of BBC Question Time has ignited discussions around the controversial Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) two-child benefit cap, which restricts financial support to families with more than two children. Because during the show, transport secretary Heidi Alexander accidentally hinted at what the Labour Party government might be planning to do.
And it sounds like it will create a two-tier system – where some parents are removed from it, while others are not.
The two-child benefit cap
The two-child benefit cap, introduced by the Conservative government in 2017, limits families to receiving extra financial support through DWP Universal Credit only for their first two children. Critics argue that this policy has cruelly stripped assistance from struggling families and contributed directly to rising levels of child poverty, affecting approximately 1.6 million children across the UK.
If the cap remains in place, it is estimated that 670,000 more children will face poverty in the coming years, a devastating statistic that underlines the significance of this debate. The Liberal Democrats, Reform, and the Green Party have called for its removal, with Lib Dem deputy leader Daisy Cooper branding it “heartless.”
In contrast, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch staunchly defends the cap, proclaiming it to be “right” and “fair.” She has imperiously dismissed the proposals from Farage and Labour leader Keir Starmer as mere political pandering, asserting:
I am saying what is the right thing to do – it may not be popular, but it is absolutely the right thing to do.
Keir Starmer’s recent statements indicate a shift in the Labour Party’s stance. Initially ruling out the scrapping of the cap, he has now signalled a willingness to “look at all options” regarding child poverty. This could be a pivotal moment for the party, especially as key ministers within Labour, such as DWP boss Liz Kendall, appear supportive of the initiative.
However, the potential £3 billion cost of abolishing the cap raises questions over the government’s fiscal strategy, especially amid rising national debt. Critics argue that the hesitance to act could exacerbate socio-economic divides, particularly as the government continues to grapple with its public spending strategy.
Low-income families, especially those with multiple children, find themselves shouldering the burden of what many perceive as a misguided austerity measure rather than a moral or fiscal necessity.
Heidi Alexander: giving the DWP game away?
So, what will Labour and the DWP do? Well, Alexander might have given the game away on BBC Question Time.
During an exchange on the two-child benefit cap, Alexander made it pretty clear she thought that a) parents who work have to make ‘tough decisions’ around how many kids to have – ergo people reliant on benefits should have to do the same. Alexander said:
I speak to people in… Swindon… many of them have said to me that they’ve limited the number of children they have because they can’t afford to have another child… they feel like they’re playing by the rules and being responsible…
Basically, Alexander was saying in no uncertain terms that people on benefits who have more than two children are not being responsible – because why should the state pay for their kids? As the Canary has been saying for years, this idea that chronically ill, disabled, and non-working people who rely on social security are not allowed to have multiple children because the state says so is nothing short of Eugenics.
I wouldn’t go into having a third child for £17 a week. It works out to be around £1,000 a year. I could think of other ways I could make money… Probably…
Not that Alexander would care. She went onto to give the biggest hint yet at what Labour might do about the two-child benefit cap.
Eugenics via politicians and the DWP
Because it clearly can’t have crips and scroungers breeding, the DWP may well instead do something else. Alexander noted that, specifically for Universal Credit:
I think that around the edges there are some really difficult issues. If you’re pregnant and you’re expecting one baby and then you have triplets, you’re acting entirely responsibly… the other example I would give is if you’ve had a larger family and your partner leaves you and you’ve only got one income.
Yup, she really did go there: some people on Universal Credit are more deserving than others. Alexander concluded:
That’s why the government is going to look at the evidence… and make a decision… about what is the most effective way to permanently reduce the number of children growing up in poverty.
You don’t even have to read between the line to see what Alexander was saying.
It seems from what the transport secretary said, that Labour might well be considering a two-tier structure to the two-child benefit cap. That is, it will put in place exemptions if you have three children and the DWP deems it no fault of your own – like the example Alexander gave about a partner leaving someone. It will probably include some concession for working parents, to stave of Nigel Farage and Reform’s attack on this issue.
There is no other country in history that has adapted social security policy to increase child poverty to reduce fertility or encourage abortion. It is a completely outrageous assault on liberty.
The two-child benefit cap has demonstrably done all those things.
Shame on Labour if it keeps the two-child benefit cap
As the Canarypreviously reported, after the Tories brought in the DWP two-child benefit cap, abortion rates among women who already had two or more kids increased rapidly. However:
The Canary analysed the birth rates for women by socioeconomic status; that is for the richest and poorest women.
Our research found that birth rates fell generally between 2017 and 2019. But we found the biggest falls were among the poorest households. For example, between 2013 and 2016, birth rates in four bottom deciles (10%’s of population) fell overall by 0.9%. Then suddenly, between 2017 and 2019, this accelerated to a 12.4% fall in birth rates. This fall also correlated with an 11.74% increase in abortions – and the poorest women were having abortions at over twice the rate of the richest.
What does this mean?
The Tories introduced a policy, via the DWP, to socially engineer certain groups of people to stop them having kids. This is Eugenics in all but name – and the evidence backs up that assertion. Now, it seems Labour will continue this – albeit with some concessions so they don’t look quite so evil. In reality, though, creating a two-tier two-child benefit cap is just as cruel – if not more so. For shame, Labour.
Stoking anti-immigrant sentiment is a key plank of Nigel Farage’s politics and he says he’ll bring down immigration. But his party Reform’s climate crisis-denying proposals would actually contribute to the opposite and risk greatly increasing immigration.
Oh the irony for Nigel Farage
Nigel Farage has outright questioned the science behind the climate crisis. On GB News in 2021, he said:
What annoys me… is this complete obsession with carbon dioxide almost to the exclusion of everything else, the alarmism that comes with it, based on dodgy predictions and science.
Yet 97% of publishing scientists agree that man made climate change is happening, primarily because of burning fossil fuels. There has been a steady increase in global temperature since the industrial revolution.
Farage also says he’d re-open the coal mines in government, taking us back to more fossil fuel use.
The thing is, climate change risks dramatically increasing immigration and it looks like Nigel Farage would make it worse.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that the Persian Gulf, parts of India and the southern Gulf of Mexico are “already experiencing heat stress conditions approaching the upper limits of labour productivity and human survivability”. And around 50-75% of the entire global population could face life threatening climate conditions by the end of the century, meaning immigration to the global north would go through the roof.
Extreme weather and sea level rises
And man-made climate change is already driving extreme weather events, causing crop failures and rising sea levels, bringing particularly global south countries into peril. Between 1970 and 2019, climate related extreme weather events including floods, droughts and fires increased five fold. The steady increase in disasters and uninhabitable conditions risks becoming the key driver of immigration.
Yet DeSmogresearch shows Nigel Farage’s party has accepted £2.3 million from fossil fuel interests, big polluters and climate deniers since 2019. They clearly do not take even the issue of immigration seriously.
At the 1.5C level of warming we are already experiencing, sea level rises will become unmanageable and lead to “catastrophic inland migration” according to a recent study by scientists at Durham University. But the scientists behind the study emphasised that any reductions in the incoming sea rises, however small, will make a huge difference.
I think we should scrap the net zero targets… they’re going to make zero difference to the world…you better go and talk to the Chinese… we make no difference whatsoever
Nigel Farage’s drifting between pro-fossil fuel use and outright climate denialism actually risks increasing immigration to the UK in the long term. His policies would only backfire in government.
1 June 2025 sees the 40th anniversary of the ‘Battle of the Beanfield’ – one of the darkest days in contemporary British history, when a convoy of 150 vehicles heading to the people’s free festival at Stonehenge was ambushed in a quiet corner of Wiltshire, contained in a field for several hours, and then brutally attacked by over 1,000 riot police.
Remembering the Battle of the Beanfield 40 years on
Traveller homes were systematically wrecked, and most of the over 500 people present were assaulted, many with blows to the head, and arrested. It was the largest mass arrest in British legal history. One young mother carrying her baby, was dragged out of her home by her hair. Some of the police, clearly intent on causing serious damage to both people and homes, were masked up to protect their anonymity. Many didn’t wear numbers. Traumatised children were taken into care, and in some cases held for a few days. Seven dogs were put down.
ITNwere on the field and filmed what its journalist, Kim Sabido, would later describe in a piece to camera as:
the worst police treatment of people that I’ve witnessed in my entire career as journalist.
Additionally, Observer journalist Nick Davies described an attack on one particular bus:
They just crawled all over that vehicle truncheons flailing, hitting anyone they could reach. It was very violent and very sickening. And it was at that point that my photographer, who was trying to take pictures of it, got arrested, and I myself got threatened and told to leave.
Copyright Ben GibsonCopyright Ben Gibson
The event became known as the ‘Battle of the Beanfield’, although it was more like a massacre: the Thatcher government’s final solution to the traveller ‘issue’. Like the miners, the travellers were portrayed as an ‘enemy within’, anathema to everything Thatcherism stood for. It was estimated that at the time of the Beanfield there were some 12,000 travellers living on the road throughout the UK. And the numbers were steadily growing, taking advantage of the thriving free festival circuit throughout the UK at the time.
The Peace Convoy at Nostell Priory: a taste of the violent repression to come
Moreover, also like the miners, Thatcher used an increasingly para-militarised police force to smash the Peace Convoy. Travellers in Yorkshire reported seeing a coach load of riot police heading to the picket line, holding up a sign saying, “YOU’RE NEXT”. In August 1984, police at the Nostell Priory festival in Wakefield, Yorkshire, just a few miles down the road from Orgreave, gave people a taste of things to come. Police assaulted them, held them in custody, and systematically wrecked their homes.
Thatcher herself eventually said that she was:
only too delighted to do anything we can to make life difficult for such things as hippy convoys.
As traveller Mo Lodge told us:
Stonehenge was just an excuse. The real reason was the threat to the State. The numbers of people at Stonehenge was doubling every year for four years. Well, that was a huge number of people that were suddenly flocking into buses or whatever and living on the road. It was anarchy in action and it was working, and it was seen to be working by so many people that they wanted to be a part of it.
Five years later, 26 people sued the Wiltshire Police for damages at Winchester Crown Court, in what became known as the ‘Beanfield Trial’. It was the closest anyone came to a public inquiry. As film students, we went down to cover it.
Everyone we hoped to interview appeared at that trial, such as the Earl of Cardigan, who witnessed a heavily pregnant woman with “a silhouette like a zeppelin” being “clubbed with a truncheon”. ITN journalist Kim Sabido was also there, and told the court that, ‘the nastier more controversial shots that were taken’ disappeared from the ITN library.
So, the Battle of the Beanfield trial revealed every piece of video and photographic evidence we might need, the official police report, and their radio log. It would all go into the final documentary ‘Operation Solstice’, broadcast by Channel 4 in November 1991, despite the police’s best efforts to get it pulled. We had had to condense 20 plus hours of rushes down to a meagre 26-minute slot.
So, we ended up with this sizeable archive, mostly unseen, on an array of now defunct video formats, each potentially threatened by dust, heat, and moisture. And it had lain for 33 summers and winters in a mum’s loft. Until now.
Dale Vince at the Beanfield
We had learnt that Dale Vince, the CEO of Ecotricity, social commentator, and one-time backer of Just Stop Oil, was on the Beanfield.
He had been a motorcycle outrider on the trip down to Stonehenge, passing messages up and down the line, discovering the police’s sneaky roadblock trap up ahead, for which he got a mention in the police radio log:
we have a motorcycle outrider now approaching, if he gets anywhere near our ground unit they suggest they may attempt to take him out.
We asked him to help fund the saving of this archive, which he did, and he also agreed to do an interview.
So, I have spent the past four months going through and editing the interviews, conducted just five or six years after the Beanfield. These were therefore some very fresh recollections. I have brought out the best of each story, really getting under the skin of what happened and why, and placing it all on a website in time for the 40th anniversary. Alongside this, with access to all the rushes again, I reedited ‘Operation Solstice’, so that it explains and contains a lot more.
The Battle of the Beanfield to today: an increasingly authoritarian police state
One of the lasting legacies of the Battle of the Beanfield, and subsequent police operations surrounding travellers and the summer solstice, would be to tighten an increasingly authoritarian police state belt. In 1986, ushered in on a wave of news-managed moral panic, it was the Public Order Act. Supposedly the government aimed it at a minority, but, as with every legal knee jerk since, it bound everyone. In one section, it limits the number of vehicles that could park up together to twelve – because they really didn’t like people meeting up.
This would soon become six thanks to the Criminal Justice Act 1994, another tightened notch, only this time with two new convenient groups – ravers and road protestors – in the crosshairs. More recently, we’ve seen anti-protest laws, controlling everybody, not just Just Stop Oil. None of these increasingly draconian police powers get repealed, you notice. They just get built upon.
In the coming weeks there will be a screening and exhibition at Glastonbury, and highly likely a gathering at the site itself on 1 June, as there is pretty much every year. This will be hosted at Parkhouse Roundabout, Wiltshire, where someone has placed on one of the fence posts a commemorative plaque. It says:
This marks the spot of THE BATTLE OF THE BEANFIELD June 1st 1985.
An inscription adds:
You can’t kill the spirit.
And despite their best efforts, after nearly 40 years of the Public Order Act 1986, with hundreds of people now taking up van life in laybys, carparks, and in fields all over the country, they still clearly haven’t. Because no matter how hard they push down with that thumb, the spirit, like water, will always find a way:
Copyright Alan Lodge
Featured image via Ben Gibson and additional images via Ben Gibson and Alan Lodge
The Canary recently attended a people’s assembly in Newcastle involving former North of Tyne mayor Jamie Driscoll, his local party Majority, and Assemble. The theme was empowering ordinary people and putting them front and centre in the fight for a better country and world. And Driscoll said this is essential at a time when Keir Starmer’s Labour has left a big void in British politics with its massive shift rightwards.
At the packed event in the beautiful Discovery Museum, people living locally discussed the issues they’re facing and what potential solutions could be:
And the Canary sat in on one of the discussions attendees were having.
Assembly raises local issues that resonate nationally
The youngest voices on the table outlined the local challenges in Newcastle with particular clarity. Despite having experienced the negative effects of anti-social behaviour directly, they insisted on the importance of focusing on the reasons behind such behaviour. And one key reason was that there are very few places for young people to hang out with each other. The feeling was that the lack of funding for youth clubs, and for the local area in general, can contribute to a loss of pride and hope, and thus to problems like littering and anti-social behaviour.
Another issue they mentioned was the lack of worker protections, largely as a result of deunionisation. The nature of work has changed significantly since Margaret Thatcher’s brutal assault on unions and industry in the 1980s, with precarious work now increasingly commonplace thanks to consistently Tory and Tory-lite governments. And people in these jobs, who are generally younger, have little union representation. In turn, the weakening of the trade union movement seems to have helped secure the growing stranglehold of Thatcherite economics in parliament. So the sentiment at the Newcastle assembly was clearly that a trade-union revolution among young and precarious workers is of great importance.
The vast majority of attendees came with an open mind, listening respectfully to each other and focusing on how to improve their community. And a unanimous show of hands at the end confirmed that it had been worth their time and effort.
Jamie Driscoll in Newcastle on ending corruption in politics
Speaking at the 18 May Newcastle event, Driscoll highlighted that:
A whopping 88% of Britons don’t trust political parties, not least because governments respond to the demands of big money over individual citizens. When the majority of citizens disagree with the economic elites or with organised interests, they generally lose.
One example he gave was a recent story about how the corporate lobbyists at the Food and Drink Federation succeeded in pushing the government to drop measures aiming to reduce junk food consumption.
With this in mind, he emphasised that “Majority has the Nolan Principles built into its DNA”, “on an equal footing with our political values statements” in the party’s constitution. The Nolan Principles theoretically underpin public service with honesty, incorruptibility, and accountability, but in reality are sorelylacking in British politics today.
Driscoll: Ordinary people need to be front and centre – not just in Newcastle either
Also in Majority’s DNA, Driscoll said, is that “all candidates will develop their manifesto in conjunction with the public” via assembly consultation. And on that point, he clarified that:
A citizens’ assembly isn’t just a lottery. You don’t just throw a load of ideas out and pick them out at random. It is deliberative democracy. It’s about structured evaluation of policies based on the advice and lived experience of the community. It is the wisdom of crowds.
The central role of ordinary people in the political process is not something we should fear, he insisted. Speaking about the citizens’ assembly he ran on climate change when he was North of Tyne Mayor, he stressed that “every single recommendation they came up with was practical, effective, and fair”. That’s why “trusting the public is the heart of democracy”.
Meanwhile, he criticised the wastage of resources, lack of public involvement, and the ‘we know better than you’ attitude in politics that has led to numerous failures locally, including the dodgy new Metro trains.
Labour has left a void. Social power must drive the movement to fill that space.
Regarding the purpose of the 18 May Newcastle assembly, Driscoll asserted that:
today we are kickstarting a process to get the people back in charge
He also argued that Labour’s drastic shift rightwards has left a void, saying:
the people’s party that was founded by Keir Hardie is now a pro-genocide, pro-billionaire, neoliberal party under Keir Starmer. And if we don’t fill that void, fascists will.
He lamented that “person after person that I talk to tells me that they feel politically homeless”, adding that “it is dangerous to leave a void”. With that in mind, he said:
I hope some of you here today will be brave enough to… stand up for democracy, and put the citizens’ manifesto to the people of Newcastle
With the attendees, volunteers, and campaign groups backing the assembly, he stressed:
This is what social power is.
And he insisted that an organisation to unite them and represent them in elections must be “built on social power, not sitting around passing resolutions”.
You can see the Canary’s interview with Driscoll at the 18 May event here, and watch all his speeches below:
DWP staff in Jobcentres around the UK are facing a raft of changes led by Labour’s attempts to put out a rebellion over disability benefit cuts. MP Alison McGovern has been tasked with overhauling employment support after Keir Starmer announced a brutal set of cuts to disability benefits.
Under these new changes, the Jobcentre will no longer force people looking for work into any job. McGovern said:
The Tories used to talk about ABC: ‘Any job, Better job, Career’. I think that if you think about the career [first] … If we can get people into an NHS job where they’re more likely to move on and move up, then that is far better for them.
However, McGovern’s strategy for getting people into a career is to ask DWP staff at Jobcentres to use AI for certain tasks in order to free them up to give “human” support to people in long-term unemployment. She is also planning on getting claimant’s GPs to offer “work support” – as well as physiotherapists.
DWP on AI
It’s no accident that this latest announcement comes just as Starmer is on course for a major rebellion from within his own party. MPs from across the centre, right, and left of Labour have signed a letter which urges him to change policy. As the Canary previously reported:
The letter sets out how the proposals have created “a huge amount of anxiety and concern” for disabled people. According to the DWP, the proposals would hit 700,000 families who are already in poverty. Even so, Starmer has persisted with the plans in an attempt to deliver a saving of £5 billion.
Of course, that saving would come at the cost of disabled and chronically ill people. Whilst departing from the Conservative policy of DWP workers forcing any unemployed person into any old job, this new announcement relying on AI already has its critics. The Canary’s Hannah Sharland reported that the DWP have funnelled £1.5 million to obscure AI companies. Sharland wrote:
the AI service dresses up in wellbeing language, but, emphasis on the “employers’ powerful new tools”. It suggests the potential for employer control over employee health information. Coupled with the DWP’s garble about “economic inactivity” and supporting a “more productive workforce”, it’s not rocket science to see where that could end.
Put another way, it’s for sating the capitalist urge to squeeze every last drop of profit from ill employees.
AI is far from neutral. And, in the hands of a government that has shown such callous disdain for disabled people, it can only be a tool to further marginalise us. Sharland explains:
what we have is AI spying on sick people in work, and AI spying on sick people not in work. Ultimately, this new DWP AI guff is just the government’s latest dodgy gambit to bring sick and disabled people under the thumb of the exploitative capitalist market.
Time is not the problem
McGovern attempted to acknowledge the distress Labour’s disability policies have caused, telling the Guardian:
I don’t blame anybody for being scared or worried about it because given what’s happened with changes to disability benefits before, I understand that.
Under McGovern’s stewardship, the government is set to spend £1 billion a year to get people into work. McGovern said:
what I would like is a person comes into the jobcentre who has perhaps not worked for some years and … they are given the time so that they can tell their whole story. Jobcentres will then be able to pick up the phone to tailored specific support for that person’s barriers, then support once they are in work as well. We’ve got to see the whole person.
DWP staff in Jobcentres will be told to use AI to fill in paperwork and handle other tasks that, in theory, free them up to spend more time on tailored support for people seeking work. Even putting aside the problems of whether AI is actually up to the job, it’s laughable that Labour believe cutting benefits for disabled people – who have more costs and live in poverty – is going to somehow aid them in finding a job.
Have these people ever tried to find a job while struggling to pay rent and bills? Never mind trying to save for disability aids? Or paying for necessary medication and treatment? More time with the depraved monsters who work at the Jobcentre isn’t going to solve this problem that is of Labour’s own making.
Punishment
I’ve been signed on at the Jobcentre at various points, and for those who haven’t had the pleasure, let me tell you that the places are routinely hellholes. Security guards patrol the whole building, waiting for someone in despair to allow them to spring into action. Work coaches speak with barely disguised disdain. More often than not, you’re just another appointment getting in the way of their targets. They don’t care how long you’ve been out of work, and they certainly don’t bother with anything like “human” support.
Having to attend the Jobcentre for work meetings feels like punishment for daring to be out of work. They’re dank and horrible places that are designed to make you feel like a trembling animal being told off for not functioning properly. Anyone who’s had to interact with DWP workers knows how demeaning and disrespectful they are. At their very best, DWP workers are unfortunate cogs in a rotten system following orders to police the humanity of the unemployed. At their worst, they’re willing sadists complicit in a system that disciplines and punishes people who are struggling to survive.
People with complex needs, who these changes are supposed to be for, can include people who are too sick to work but not sick enough to meet the insane thresholds of disability support. You have to get yourself to the Jobcentre, steel yourself for the abject dehumanisation, and go through the motions in order to get the vast riches of…er…maybe some of your rent and bills covered. If you’re good.
Salt the earth – and the DWP
Enabling DWP workers to be able to see the whole person requires much more than time bought via AI fucking up some paperwork. It requires an entire overhaul of how capitalist society is structured. Imagine what career support could look like if people were able to have all their basic needs met – somewhere safe and warm, and – reach for the sky here – pleasant to live. Enough money to feed themselves and their family. A welfare system which genuinely supports instead of punishes people unfortunate enough to struggle with survival. A society which doesn’t see unemployment as a mark of failure, but instead values people regardless of their capacity to work. Perhaps even a government which doesn’t use disabled people as a budget to be slashed, but as people.
Failing that, burn the fucking Jobcentres to the ground and salt the earth. Either will do – just leave disabled people the fuck alone, we’ve got enough to deal with. We don’t want your extra time for “human” support.
Donald Trump’s chaotic tariff system has received firm pushback from a US federal court. Three judges on the US Court of International Trade have found that Trump’s tariffs:
exceed any authority granted to the president … to regulate importation by means of tariffs.
The ruling made it clear that it is not a comment upon the effectiveness of Trump’s tariffs, but instead on whether Trump had the legal power to apply trade levies. They said that Trump’s actions were
impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.
The Guardian reported that:
The court ruling immediately invalidates all of the tariff orders that were issued through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law meant to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during a national emergency.
Now, the US government has 10 days to issue new orders in line with injunction. However, Trump’s team have already begun the process of appeal, which could see the case taken to the Supreme Court.
It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency.
Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for the White House said:
The judicial coup is out of control.
However, these remarks ignore the fact that such sweeping tariffs cannot happen legally without the approval of Congress. In attempting to use an emergency act to push tariffs through, the administration effectively attempted to bypass the law. On top of that, the three judges on the panel were in unanimous agreement – including a Trump-appointed judge.
As ever, the only metric by which the US government operates is to consider any opposition to it to be partisan, unfair, biased, and/or corrupt. However, as the attorney general of New York,
The law is clear: no president has the power to single-handedly raise taxes whenever they like.
This injunction will mean Trump will have to operate his tariff system in a much slower manner. And, of course, the missing approval of Congress will have to be part of the process.
Uncertainty
This lawsuit, amongst the many Trump faces, was filed by public interest law firm, the Liberty Justice Center alongside a number of small businesses. Ilya Somin, a law professor and co-plaintiff in the case, said:
If starting the biggest trade war since the Great Depression based on a law that doesn’t even mention tariffs is not an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power, I don’t know what is.
The worldwide and retaliatory tariff orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The trafficking tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.
The use of the emergency powers act, argued the Liberty Justice Center, created unnecessary uncertainty for small businesses and the market more broadly. Jeffrey Schwab, lead attorney for the centre, toldCNN that the plaintiffs were looking for certainty:
They’re hopeful that these will be upheld by the appellate court so that they can continue their businesses with the certainty of what’s going to happen rather than the uncertainty of not knowing what the tariff rate is at any given time and whether it will change.
Schwab continued:
Obviously this is a very important case, not only because of the tremendous economic impact that it has on everybody, but particularly business and our businesses, but also because of the tremendous power grab that the administration is claiming here.
He can’t just assert unlimited authority to tariff whenever he wants.
Culture of intimidation
Whilst Trump himself has not publicly responded to the tariffs ruling, the response from those in his administration follows a pattern of intimidation of judges. Trump evidently operates with a policy of shock and awe, flooding and overwhelming the American public, media, and judiciary with unconstitutional, ill-thought-out, and often chaotic policies. Public resource site, Just Security, tracks legal challenges to Trump’s orders. Their counter currently sits at a whopping 249 active cases, with just 10 closed.
It is becoming increasingly routine for judges to deliver rulings that demonstrate how and why Trump’s orders are illegal. And, it is just as routine for Trump’s cronies to insist that the judiciary is biased against them.
Former Republican congressman Charlie Dent summed up exactly what’s going on:
It appears the president is being beaten in court on a regular basis because many of his executive orders are legally and constitutionally questionable. His lawyers are trying to argue weak cases and that’s why they’re losing.
Legal experts and former judges have spoken out about the constant recrimination and allegations of bias streaming from Trump and his supporters as contributing to a culture of intimidation. Of course, the poorly planned, outright offensive, and hotch-potch policies are the point – In Trump’s reality any challenges of logic, law, or common sense are biased attacks, rather than assertions of fact and expertise.
America no longer has a functioning democracy, with a legal system under intense pressure to conform from a belligerent administration. If they were a country in the Global South, they’d invade themselves to install the missing democracy faster than you can say ‘oh look, is that some oil we can steal over there?’
This analysis comes from the WASPI group itself, emphasising a betrayal that extends across party lines, with 119 Labour MPs and 15 Conservative MPs amongst those who have gone silent.
The government’s refusal to compensate these women, despite its admitted missteps, constitutes what many advocates – including WASPI chair Angela Madden – have branded as a national scandal.
Madden pointed out that while many principled MPs remain committed to that cause, the leadership’s current stance undermines both the credibility of its political commitments and the emotional wellbeing of those affected. She said:
We know hundreds of principled MPs are still resolute in their support for those affected and firmly disagree with the decision taken by the Labour leadership.
While some appear to have given up on us, abandoning the vulnerable women they once promised to fight for, it is clear that a majority of MPs know deep down that compensating WASPI women is the right thing to do.
Numerous MPs have echoed these sentiments, arguing that the decision not only erodes public trust but also shows a glaring disregard for the hardships that thousands of women now face as a direct result of sudden pension age changes. This alteration was executed without adequate prior notice, leaving many in precarious financial situations.
A protracted fight with the DWP
In February 2023, WASPI leaders attempted to address these grievances directly by hosting a parliamentary roundtable with a group of Labour MPs. This forum was organised with the hope of reigniting discussions and pushing forward a much-needed compensation scheme.
They achieved a significant legal victory that forced the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) to revise its findings on the matter. However, the path towards comprehensive and satisfactory restitution remains riddled with obstacles.
The reluctance of the government to act on the PHSO’s recommendations—suggesting compensation payments of between £1,000 and £2,950 per woman—further intensifies the frustrations of those who have seen their lives upended.
Campaigners have also pointed out that well over 40 MPs from various political parties have rallied behind the WASPI cause, indicating a cross-party desire for justice that transcends political divides.
Madden expressed gratitude for this coalition, underlining the widespread consensus among parliamentarians that the DWP failed to provide necessary information when enacting the age changes. This lack of communication has had dire implications for thousands of women who suddenly found themselves without the financial security they had been counting on.
Then, outrage surged following the government’s announcement that it would not disburse any compensation. This followed recommendations from the PHSO, which made it clear that a degree of financial redress was not merely warranted but necessary for many women who have suffered as a result of the government’s actions.
The WASPI fight continues
However, the response from the government was predictably dismissive, with officials arguing that compensatory payments would be neither “fair nor proportionate” to taxpayers. This stance continues to ignite fury, as claimants and supporters alike argue that this callous attitude only reinforces systemic inequalities within the welfare system.
Facing repeated denials from the government, it is perhaps no surprise that WASPI has begun to prepare for legal action. The group firmly believes that their arguments against the government’s position are solid and expects to challenge any narrative that tries to diminish the need for compensation.
This determination to fight back against perceived injustices showcases the resilience of WASPI and all those affected, as they strive not only for financial recompense but also an acknowledgment of the government’s failures.
However, the abandonment from the 134 MPs cannot be overstated. It seems that, especially in Labour, the party machinery is whipping these politicians to toe the line. In the case of WASPI, and other DWP scandals, not only is this a failure on MPs behalf, but also a failure of party politics and government to put their own citizens first.
Chronically ill and disabled people are speaking out about the cruelty and incompetence of Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessors. Importantly, this comes in the midst of the government attempting to paint claimants as ‘scroungers’ and ‘benefit cheats’ – and cutting their benefits accordingly.
‘Do you watch TikTok?’
On May 28, the Canary published an article recounting a story in which a DWP PIP assessor asked a claimant, ‘Do you watch TikTok?’.
Obviously, the claimant expected serious questions related to their health condition. Instead, the assessor asked something probably intended to deceive. Because clearly, if someone can press one button to open TikTok, they can’t be disabled.
What the government are not reporting is that a staggering £870 million in DWP PIP support went unclaimed between 2023 and 2024. This means that many potential claimants, unable to navigate the convoluted processes or fearing judgment and scrutiny, miss out on vital support.
The DWP claims its PIP assessments are meant to evaluate how conditions affect day-to-day activities, so they have introduced revamped guides and resources on their website in an effort to aid potential claimants.
A common experience in DWP PIP assessments
After publishing the original story, the Canary was met with dozens of replies detailing horrendous PIP assessment experiences.
Have you experiened a diabolical DWP health or WCA assessment? We've had so many people reach out in the comments to this article with their stories – so comment below if you have too #TakingThePIPhttps://t.co/SAHeiLp2ph
I suffer from complete social withdrawal as a result of other conditions. Assessor asked how often I have sex! I said never, as I’m asexual. Assessor: a ha! so you must masturbate then! Er, I think that says more about them than me. Disgraceful.
At my public appeal tribunal, I was asked about sex and how we managed it, positions etc. in front of my wife & CAB advocate (not allowed to speak) for 20 minutes, then admonished for going over their time – clock was behind me so that was on them. Diminish, demean, destroy
I was asked if I still had Lupus. I was asked about sex with my husband. The report questioned how do my job (pharmacist) if I can’t walk far- they’d made assumptions I worked in a community pharmacy- if they’d asked I’d have told them-I work a desk job mostly at home
Liar liar
Then, there were countless reports of assessors straight up lying.
My assessor claimed I’d made him a cup of coffee, and managed to climb stairs with no problem. I never even left my recliner in the assessment, my carer made his coffee for him.
My assessor lied. She said I was sat up and fine during my telephone assessment. I wasn’t. I was lying in a dark room, like I had been for weeks and weeks because I was so unwell. She said I was talking fine but I remember stopping multiple times because I couldn’t remember words
She said I could do things that I know at the time I wasn’t able to do, she just completely made up the entire thing, but I got rejected and again on appeal because of what she said. I complained to Capita in December and they never got back to me. I gave up on PIP after that.
Apparently when I had cancer and was being fed through a NG tube, they put me down as ‘eats a normal diet’. Was also scored zero because I use the tram when I have ME crash.
I fell, hit head, had seizure, screaming, crying, vomiting. Ambulance called: HR over 220, BP 195/160. Atos Dr said I “allowed” myself to fall and wrote “all vitals normal” on report. While on the floor Dr insisted I sign for the recording, said illegal for my wife to sign for it
DWP ignorance, or a carefully executed PIP plan?
And when it comes to suicidal ideation, the assessors are even more clueless. From suggesting that if you haven’t tried to kill yourself, you can’t be serious, to telling claimants it’s the ‘coward’s way out’, maybe they think making an already suicidal person feel worse is a pretty fast way to close a claim.
I was asked about my brother’s suicide and the GP assessing me told me it was the cowards way out. I’d also admitted to having suicide attempts myself. I put a complaint in but it was kicked around until they said she was no longer working for them and nothing they could do.
Yes. “If you’re suicidal why aren’t you dead yet” “what method would you use if you tried to kill yourself” ” When did you last attempt suicide, what method did you use”? I’m was in the substantial risk group.
My son is autistic and has suicidal thoughts, the assessor asked about it and replied “but he hasn’t actually done it though” like it was nothing. Also asked if he could tell if chicken was cooked properly he replied “No” they still put he was capable of cooking that’s just a few
Either that, or they are the second coming of Jesus and are going to cure claimants themselves.
DWP PIP is still not fit for purpose
Back in 2017, the Canary reported on the DWP’s ‘kill yourself‘ scandal. Essentially, DWP assessors were asking claimants why they hadn’t killed themselves. At the time, the DWP told the Canary that assessors were receiving training on mental health conditions, “including social issues”.
Disgustingly, eight years on, they are still asking this – even at a time when the Labour government is planning to cut and restrict access to DWP PIP even further.
The responses to the Canary’s callout show that time after time, PIP assessors are treating people like criminals. The complete lack of basic human decency is astounding. The expectation that chronically ill and disabled people cannot use social media, have sex, or have any sort of pleasure because they are asking for support with their disability is absurd.
But let’s be real, the assessor’s ability to fabricate the truth and straight up lie shows that the system we are living in, which is designed to dehumanise the most vulnerable, is working exactly how our government intended.
When I despairingly contemplate the horrors and cruelty that Palestinians in Gaza are being subjected to, I sometimes try to put this in the context of where I live.
I live on the Kāpiti Coast in the lower North Island of Aotearoa New Zealand.
Geographically it is around the same size as Gaza. Both have coastlines running their full lengths. But, whereas the population of Gaza is a cramped two million, Kāpiti’s is a mere 56,000.
The Gaza Strip . . . 2 million people living in a cramped outdoor prison about the same size as Kāpiti. Map: politicalbytes.blog
I find it incomprehensible to visualise what it would be like if what is presently happening in Gaza occurred here.
The only similarities between them are coastlines and land mass. One is an outdoor prison while the other’s outdoors is peaceful.
New Zealand and Palestine state recognition Currently Palestine has observer status at the United Nations General Assembly. In May last year, the Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of Palestine being granted full membership of the United Nations.
To its credit, New Zealand was among 143 countries that supported the resolution. Nine, including the United States as the strongest backer of Israeli genocide outside Israel, voted against.
However, despite this massive majority, such is the undemocratic structure of the UN that it only requires US opposition in the Security Council to veto the democratic vote.
Notwithstanding New Zealand’s support for Palestine broadening its role in the General Assembly and its support for the two-state solution, the government does not officially recognise Palestine.
While its position on recognition is consistent with that of the genocide-supporting United States, it is inconsistent with the over 75 percent of UN member states who, in March 2025, recognised Palestine as a sovereign state (by 147 of the 193 member states).
NZ Prime Minister Christopher Luxon . . . his government should “correct this obscenity” of not recognising Palestinians’ right to have a sovereign nation. Image: RNZ/politicalbytes.blog/
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s government does have the opportunity to correct this obscenity as Palestine recognition will soon be voted on again by the General Assembly.
In this context it is helpful to put the Hamas-led attack on Israel in its full historical perspective and to consider the reasons justifying the Israeli genocide that followed.
7 October 2023 and genocide justification The origin of the horrific genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and the associated increased persecution, including killings, of Palestinians in the Israeli occupied West Bank (of the River Jordan) was not the attack by Hamas and several other militant Palestinian groups on 7 October 2023.
This attack was on a small Israeli town less than 2 km north of the border. An estimated 1,195 Israelis and visitors were killed.
The genocidal response of the Israeli government that followed this attack can only be justified by three factors:
The Judaism or ancient Jewishness of Palestine in Biblical times overrides the much larger Palestinian population in Mandate Palestine prior to formation of Israel in 1948;
The right of Israelis to self-determination overrides the right of Palestinians to self-determination; and
The value of Israeli lives overrides the value Palestinian lives.
The first factor is the key. The second and third factors are consequential. In order to better appreciate their context, it is first necessary to understand the Nakba.
Understanding the Nakba Rather than the October 2023 attack, the origin of the subsequent genocide goes back more than 70 years to the collective trauma of Palestinians caused by what they call the Nakba (the Disaster).
The foundation year of the Nakba was in 1948, but this was a central feature of the ethnic cleansing that was kicked off between 1947 and 1949.
During this period Zionist military forces attacked major Palestinian cities and destroyed some 530 villages. About 15,000 Palestinians were killed in a series of mass atrocities, including dozens of massacres.
The Nakba – the Palestinian collective trauma in 1948 that started ethnic cleansing by Zionist paramilitary forces. Image: David Robie/APR
During the Nakba in 1948, approximately half of Palestine’s predominantly Arab population, or around 750,000 people, were expelled from their homes or forced to flee. Initially this was through Zionist paramilitaries.
After the establishment of the State of Israel in May this repression was picked up by its military. Massacres, biological warfare (by poisoning village wells) and either complete destruction or depopulation of Palestinian-majority towns, villages, and urban neighbourhoods (which were then given Hebrew names) followed
By the end of the Nakba, 78 percent of the total land area of the former Mandatory Palestine was controlled by Israel.
Genocide to speed up ethnic cleansing Ethnic cleansing was unsuccessfully pursued, with the support of the United Kingdom and France, in the Suez Canal crisis of 1956. More successful was the Six Day War of 1967, which included the military and political occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Throughout this period ethnic cleansing was not characterised by genocide. That is, it was not the deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of a large number of people from a particular national or ethnic group with the aim of destroying them.
Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians began in May 1948 and has accelerated to genocide in 2023. Image: politicalbytes.blog
In fact, the acceptance of a two-state solution (Israel and Palestine) under the ill-fated Oslo Accords in 1993 and 1995 put a temporary constraint on the expansion of ethnic cleansing.
Since its creation in 1948, Israel, along with South Africa the same year (until 1994), has been an apartheid state. I discussed this in an earlier Political Bytes post (15 March 2025), When apartheid met Zionism.
However, while sharing the racism, discrimination, brutal violence, repression and massacres inherent in apartheid, it was not characterised by genocide in South Africa; nor was it in Israel for most of its existence until the current escalation of ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
Following 7 October 2023, genocide has become the dominant tool in the ethnic cleansing tool kit. More recently this has included accelerating starvation and the bombing of tents of Gaza Palestinians.
The magnitude of this genocide is discussed further below.
The Biblical claim Zionism is a movement that sought to establish a Jewish nation in Palestine. It was established as a political organisation as late as 1897. It was only some time after this that Zionism became the most influential ideology among Jews generally.
Despite its prevalence, however, there are many Jews who oppose Zionism and play leading roles in the international protests against the genocide in Gaza.
Zionist ideology is based on a view of Palestine in the time of Jesus Christ. Image: politicalbytes.blog
Based on Zionist ideology, the justification for replacing Mandate Palestine with the state of Israel rests on a Biblical argument for the right of Jews to retake their “homeland”. This justification goes back to the time of that charismatic carpenter and prophet Jesus Christ.
The population of Palestine in Jesus’ day was about 500,000 to 600,000 (a little bigger than both greater Wellington and similar to that of Jerusalem today). About 18,000 of these residents were clergy, priests and Levites (a distinct male group within Jewish communities).
Jerusalem itself in biblical times, with a population of 55,000, was a diverse city and pilgrimage centre. It was also home to numerous Diaspora Jewish communities.
In fact, during the 7th century BC at least eight nations were settled within Palestine. In addition to Judaeans, they included Arameans, Samaritans, Phoenicians and Philistines.
A breakdown based on religious faiths (Jews, Christians and Muslims) provides a useful insight into how Palestine has evolved since the time of Jesus. Jews were the majority until the 4th century AD.
By the fifth century they had been supplanted by Christians and then from the 12th century to 1947 Muslims were the largest group. As earlier as the 12th century Arabic had become the dominant language. It should be noted that many Christians were Arabs.
Adding to this evolving diversity of ethnicity is the fact that during this time Palestine had been ruled by four empires — Roman, Persian, Ottoman and British.
Prior to 1948 the population of the region known as Mandate Palestine approximately corresponded to the combined Israel and Palestine today. Throughout its history it has varied in both size and ethnic composition.
The Ottoman census of 1878 provides an indicative demographic profile of its three districts that approximated what became Mandatory Palestine after the end of World War 1.
Group
Population
Percentage
Muslim citizens
403,795
86–87%
Christian citizens
43,659
9%
Jewish citizens
15,011
3%
Jewish (foreign-born)
Est. 5–10,000
1–2%
Total
Up to 472,465
100.0%
In 1882, the Ottoman Empire revealed that the estimated 24,000 Jews in Palestine represented just 0.3 percent of the world’s Jewish population.
The self-determination claim Based on religion the estimated population of Palestine in 1922 was 78 percent Muslim, 11 percent Jewish, and 10 percent Christian.
By 1945 this composition had changed to 58 percent Muslim, 33 percent Jewish and 8 percent Christian. The reason for this shift was the success of the Zionist campaigning for Jews to migrate to Palestine which was accelerated by the Jewish holocaust.
By 15 May 1948, the total population of the state of Israel was 805,900, of which 649,600 (80.6 percent) were Jews with Palestinians being 156,000 (19.4 percent). This turnaround was primarily due to the devastating impact of the Nakba.
Today Israel’s population is over 9.5 million of which over 77 percent are Jewish and more than 20 percent are Palestinian. The latter’s absolute growth is attributable to Israel’s subsequent geographic expansion, particularly in 1967, and a higher birth rate.
Palestine today (parts of West Bank under Israeli occupation). Map: politicalbytes.blog
The current population of the Palestinian Territories, including Gaza, is more than 5.5 million. Compare this with the following brief sample of much smaller self-determination countries — Slovenia (2.2 million), Timor-Leste (1.4 million), and Tonga (104,000).
The population size of the Palestinian Territories is more than half that of Israel. Closer to home it is a little higher than New Zealand.
The only reason why Palestinians continue to be denied the right to self-determination is the Zionist ideological claim linked to the biblical time of Jesus Christ and its consequential strategy of ethnic cleansing.
If it was not for the opposition of the United States, then this right would not have been denied. It has been this opposition that has enabled Israel’s strategy.
Comparative value of Palestinian lives The use of genocide as the latest means of achieving ethnic cleansing highlights how Palestinian lives are valued compared with Israeli lives.
While not of the same magnitude appropriated comparisons have been made with the horrific ethnic cleansing of Jews through the means of the holocaust by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. Per capita the scale of the magnitude gap is reduced considerably.
Since October 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry (and confirmed by the World Health Organisation) more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed. Of those killed over 16,500 were children. Compare this with less than 2000 Israelis killed.
Further, at least 310 UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) team members have been killed along with over 200 journalists and media workers. Add to this around 1400 healthcare workers including doctors and nurses.
What also can’t be forgotten is the increasing Israeli ethnic cleansing on the occupied West Bank. Around 950 Palestinians, including around 200 children, have also been killed during this same period.
Time for New Zealand to recognise Palestine The above discussion is in the context of the three justifications for supporting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians strategy that goes back to 1948 and which, since October 2023, is being accelerated by genocide.
First, it requires the conviction that the theology of Judaism in Palestine in the biblical times following the birth of Jesus Christ trumps both the significantly changing demography from the 5th century at least to the mid-20th century and the numerical predominance of Arabs in Mandate Palestine;
Second, and consequentially, it requires the conviction that while Israelis are entitled to self-determination, Palestinians are not; and
Finally, it requires that Israeli lives are much more valuable than Palestinian lives. In fact, the latter have no value at all.
Unless the government, including Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters, shares these convictions (especially the “here and now” second and third) then it should do the right thing first by unequivocally saying so, and then by recognising the right of Palestine to be an independent state.
Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes, where this article was first published. Republished with the author’s permission.
Russian state media has taken a notable swing at US president Donald Trump in recent broadcasts, lampooning his perceived instability and questioning his mental fitness. The mocking tone reflects a broader narrative that has emerged in response to Trump’s combative rhetoric towards Vladimir Putin, particularly during a recent town hall where Trump danced around questions instead of answering them.
Russia-1: WTF is Trump doing?
As Newsweek reported over the town hall event:
After two attendees fainted and required medical attention during the town hall in Pennsylvania on Monday, Trump suddenly informed the crowd that he would like to “not do any more questions” and instead “just listen to music.”
“Let’s make it into a music. Who the hell wants to hear questions, right?” Trump said, before proceeding to stand awkwardly and sometimes dance on stage as music played for 39 minutes.
Olga Skabeyeva, a prominent host on Russia-1, highlighted this spectacle, suggesting it raised serious concerns about Trump’s cognitive abilities and fitness for leadership. The coverage has extended into a secondary commentary by US-based journalist Igor Naimushin, who noted the repetitive nature of Trump’s speech and erratic behaviour during the event:
Naimushin later pointed out that Trump has claimed that Vice President Kamala Harris instead has issues with “cognitive stamina and agility” before suggesting that he thought there was reason to suspect that Trump was mentally unfit.
“I have to acknowledge that the former U.S. president, and possibly future one, often keeps repeating himself during his speeches”… “He indeed gives a cause to doubt his mental abilities… He isn’t far behind the current President Joe Biden [in age]” Naimushin said.
This public mockery is not the first of its kind; Russian media has frequently ridiculed Trump, dubbing him “our Donald Ivanovych” in a previous broadcast during the impeachment era, indicating a perception of him as a figure of fun rather than fear.
Their strategy of highlighting Trump’s antics serves a dual purpose: to diminish the credibility of US leadership while reinforcing Russia’s own authority in global politics. When Trump threatens Putin, asserting he’s “playing with fire,” it only elicits laughter rather than concern.
The Russian perspective is clear: they view him as a leader too easily swayed by whim, lacking the resolve expected from a powerful nation.
Strained relations
The relationship between the United States and Russia has been notably strained, particularly under Trump’s administration. His inconsistent policy moves, such as imposing then retracting sanctions on China without tangible benefits, only serve to bolster the Russian narrative that Trump is indecisive and out of his depth.
Critics from various quarters argue that this indecisiveness is emblematic of a leader who prefers grandstanding over substantive action. Such wavering leaves the door open for stronger powers, like Russia, to exploit perceived weaknesses.
Additionally, Trump’s interactions with Canada offer a striking illustration of his foreign relations approach. His treatment of Canada, once a close ally, has turned sour to the point where many Canadians now view the US with suspicion.
These developments illuminate a broader trend in which Trump’s presidency has eroded long-standing alliances—a move that could have far-reaching consequences for diplomatic relations in an ever-complex global landscape.
Trump: ensnared in Putin’s web
While many Americans might express disbelief at Russian media’s portrayal of their former president, this mockery echoes sentiments that resonate within global discussions about US leadership.
There are fears that Trump, emboldened by his own rhetoric but often lacking in coherent strategy, is not just a source of amusement for the Russians, but a genuine threat to the international order.
Now, as he postures for attention, he seems to remain ensnared in a web woven skillfully by Putin, who is all too aware of Trump’s vulnerabilities.
Against this backdrop, the reverberation of Russian laughter might be more than mere mockery; it serves as a stark warning. The world watches closely, mindful that the implications of Trump’s presidency extend far beyond the borders of America, reshaping attitudes and alliances with each tweet and each bluster-filled speech.
In a time when global unity is paramount, the chaos of Trump’s rhetoric underscores a dangerous truth: the fragility of respect and the necessity of stable governance.
The latest YouGov poll has Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party eight points ahead of the Labour Party less than a year after Keir Starmer entered government. In a piece for the Guardian, former shadow chancellor John McDonnell has called for a progressive leadership challenge against the prime minister. He argues Starmer is trashing Labour’s legacy by more than at any point since the Iraq war.
Starmer is failing says John McDonnell (and everyone else in the country)
It’s important to remember that opposition to the neoliberal status quo and its latest form in Starmerism can come from within Labour and from without.
Whether it’s progressives within Labour, the Greens, a new party, or a coalition of the lot against Reform. In France, it was such a coalition that succeeded in defeating Marine Le Pen’s far right party (which was predicted to win) in last year’s election. Anything else but a dedication to policies over banners is closer to a party-style jingoism than rational politics.
That said, John McDonnell is on point with his criticism of Starmer. Whether it’s the two child benefit cap, looming cuts to disabled people’s support, Labour’s neoliberal fiscal rule, his rampant lies, or selling arms to colonial Israel, Starmer has steered Labour well away from its anti-establishment roots in the trade union movement.
Can progressives challenge Starmer?
But a leadership challenge to Starmer, as John McDonnell is calling for, will prove more challenging after he changed Labour’s internal electoral rules.
It could have been worse. At the 2021 September Labour conference, Starmer tried to outright overrule the one member one vote system for electing the party’s leader. The system was introduced in 2014 and led to the rise of Jeremy Corbyn. This was ironic because the Labour establishment thought it would produce right-wing candidates.
Starmer then tried to replace it with the electoral college system. This reduces the say of members to just one-third of the vote. At the time, Labour MP Zarah Sultana called it an “elitist… stitch up”.
The one member one vote system remains. But, while members all get one vote, a percentage of MPs must first nominate an alternative leadership candidate to challenge the prime minister. And Starmer was successful in doubling that from 10% of MPs to 20% in 2021.
And unfortunately, many Labour MPs are nodding dogs taking a ride on the parliamentary gravy train. They take part in a Westminster group think that doesn’t want to rock the boat, merely issue a tweak here and there. High salaries and symbolic status consolidates their position as yes men to a neoliberal leadership.
A brighter horizon?
The Corbyn years may well have been successful had the leadership not capitulated to the likes of Starmer over Brexit (who was shadow Brexit secretary). This ensured Labour lost a ton of key battleground seats who felt betrayed over the proposition of a second referendum. It turned the 2019 election itself into largely a re-run of the referendum but with the added issue of the fact that most Labour seats voted Brexit. Meanwhile, in 2017, Corbyn made more Labour gains than at any point since 1945.
The appetite for change is real and a broad coalition of anti-Reform progressives in and outside of Labour could be the winning ticket. Alternatively, the hints at a Corbyn-led new party are also appearing more and more.
Regardless, something is needed as John McDonnell recognises. Otherwise Farage may take us even further backwards.
Two NGOs have accused private contractor the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation of ‘stealing’ aid from them and forcing it to be distributed at its own controversial distribution points. The founder of one NGO told the Canary it was the Israeli army that requisitioned four trucks of aid.
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation: stealing aid?
After 88 days of closed borders and Israel’s total blockade of aid entering the Gaza Strip, we saw desperate scenes yesterday, on the first day of operations of the controversial US-Israeli Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. At least three people died and dozens injured as they attempted to reach life-saving supplies, after being intentionally starved by Israel for almost three months.
Among the boxes of food distributed by Gaza Humanitarian Foundation were four truck loads, equivalent to 4,000 food parcels, with the logo of Rahma Worldwide, a Michigan humanitarian NGO.
My colleagues, Euro-Med field researchers in Gaza, have been in touch with Rahma Worldwide, who said they had four truck loads which were going to be delivered to the World Food Programme in Gaza in a few days, but yesterday morning we saw the boxes and the logo of this organisation among those distributed to Palestinians by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
Rahma Worldwide told us the Israeli army forced the truck loads to the distribution points of the Americans, and distributed it.
Rahma Worldwide claims it does not support food distribution by the method GHF uses and, although unavailable for comment, the organisation released a statement on their social media this evening which included the following:
Rahma did not authorize such distribution, and none of our team was permitted to participate in this process… It is our policy to not support or permit the presence of any armed groups during any relief distribution of aid.
Weaponising aid
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation now has the sole responsible for the delivery of aid to Gaza’s 2.1 million residents, even though its aid distribution mechanism violates international law and weaponises aid, and it uses armed security to transport it from the border crossings to the distribution centres, which are surrounded by the Israeli military.
The UN and other international humanitarian organisations, which are experienced and have been delivering aid efficiently throughout the genocide, have rejected the GHF, saying it is designed to deliberately humiliate, persecute and forcibly displace Palestinians, by making them move to where aid is being distributed.
Although there were around 400 distribution points spread across Gaza before the start of the genocide, there are now only four, three of which are in the far South of Gaza and one in the central area. None are in the Northern area, as Israel hopes to ethnically cleanse this area of Palestinians.
According to Euro-Med Monitor, Palestinians may have to travel up to 30km each week to obtain this aid.
The lack of paved roads, extremely high cost or total absence of transportation, the continued Israeli ban on vehicle traffic on the only route currently open for civilian movement between the north and south, and the constant threat of being shot at by Israeli forces will cause huge problems – and will make it impossible for old and sick people to receive anything.
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation: reinforcing apartheid and occupation
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid distribution mechanism reinforces control over the life-saving supplies that are so desperately needed by Gaza’s population, giving Israel the power to decide who receives aid and who will be left to die, while attempting to mislead the public into believing Palestinians are benefitting.
According to the latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification report, 93% of Gaza’s population is facing acute food shortages.
Shadow chancellor and ex-Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) boss Mel Stride has launched a preposterous critique of Nigel Farage, drawing comparisons between the Reform UK leader and… Jeremy Corbyn. Yes, he really did say that – to the Spectator, of all places. It was, predictably, over the two-child benefit cap.
Mel Stride: the Wet Wipe returns
Stride’s bizarre comment comes on the heels of Farage announcing plans to abolish the controversial two-child benefit cap, a policy that has come under fire for exacerbating child poverty among the UK’s most vulnerable families.
Farage asserted:
We believe lifting the two-child cap is the right thing to do. Not because we support a benefits culture, but because we believe for lower-paid workers this actually makes having children just a little bit easier for them.
Retaliating to Reform clearly putting water between themselves and the Tories, Stride quipped to theSpectator:
Farage has announced billions in unfunded commitments with fantasy ways to pay for them. It’s Corbynism in a different colour.
Stride’s dismissive response reflects a broader tension within British politics, where established parties are forced to confront the growth of the far-right, who are playing political games to garner support.
The two-child benefit cap
The two-child benefit cap, introduced by the Conservative government in 2017, limits families to receiving extra financial support through Universal Credit only for their first two children. Critics argue that this policy has cruelly stripped assistance from struggling families and contributed directly to rising levels of child poverty, affecting approximately 1.6 million children across the UK.
If the cap remains in place, it is estimated that 670,000 more children will face poverty in the coming years, a devastating statistic that underlines the significance of this debate. The Liberal Democrats and the Green Party have also echoed calls for its removal, with Lib Dem deputy leader Daisy Cooper branding it “heartless.”
In contrast, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch staunchly defends the cap, proclaiming it to be “right” and “fair.” She has imperiously dismissed the proposals from Farage and Labour leader Keir Starmer as mere political pandering, asserting:
I am saying what is the right thing to do – it may not be popular, but it is absolutely the right thing to do.
However, many are questioning whose interests this policy serves. The evidence reveals that low-income families, especially those with multiple children, find themselves shouldering the burden of what many perceive as a misguided austerity measure rather than a moral or fiscal necessity.
Labour in turmoil – and Farage is playing on that
As the Labour Party grapples with internal divisions over welfare policies, it is reportedly considering scrapping the two-child benefit cap in response to rising public dissatisfaction.
Education Minister Bridget Phillipson confirmed that this proposal remains on the table as part of broader efforts to combat child poverty. The party’s recent struggles in local elections -losing ground to far-right Reform – further illustrate the shifting political landscape, compelling Labour to reconsider its stance.
Critics within Labour, including veteran MP John McDonnell, argue that lifting the cap is essential for rectifying the injustices inflicted by earlier policies and significantly reducing child poverty.
Farage’s call to scrap the two-child cap, along with his proposals to enhance welfare benefits and tax breaks for married couples, is part of a concerted effort to align himself as a moderate alternative to the Conservative government’s current trajectory.
The two-child benefit cap: of course Farage wouldn’t scrap it.
Of course, this is demonstrable nonsense. Farage’s racist, classist party has no care for low-paid workers – who, incidentally, make up 59% of families affected by the two-child benefit cap. He is merely playing political games to force Labour to act – while presenting his as the party of poor(er) people.
And if Reform did get into government, there is no way that it would scrap the cap. If anything, as per the party’s MPs’ previous comments, people on benefits would be even worse off than under Labour and the Tories.
So, on the face of it, Stride is not actually wrong when he says that Reform’s policies are effectively uncosted drivel. However, he’d do well to remember that Labour’s two manifestos under Corbyn were fully costed. But of course, using Corbyn to attack Farage (when the former may be about to launch a new party) seems like an easy win for the Tories.
Overall, the crucial question remains: will Labour seize this opportunity to shift towards more compassionate policies, or will the fiscal realities dictate a return to austerity and further entrench the hardships faced by society’s most vulnerable?
As this dynamic scenario unfolds, the voices of working families must be centred in the national conversation, signalling the desperate need for real change in the UK’s welfare system.
Labour Party transport secretary Heidi Alexander made quite the admission in a speech welcoming the beginning of Great British Railways.
‘Public good over private profit’
Heidi Alexander really let the cat out the bag, saying:
We are really firing this starting gun in that race for a truly 21st-century railway, and that does mean refocusing away from private profit and towards the public good.
So there is a case for modern socialist ownership of public utilities? Someone should tell Keir Starmer who previously called such claims “ideological”, after ditching his leadership pledges to bring water, energy and mail into public ownership.
Yet the argument for public ownership of essentials extends to other utilities as well.
If something is a basic essential, it makes no sense to rent it from the private sector. And the argument is potent for the actual trains themselves, which Labour is refusing to nationalise. That’s right, we will still be renting the trains from ‘rolling stock’ companies even after Great British Railways is established. Labour is only nationalising the operating services.
Today marks a new dawn for our railways. Moving away from 30 years of inefficiency, delayed services and failing passengers, and moving confidently into a new era – the era of Great British Railways.
There is nothing efficient about renting the trains, nor in renting our water or energy. Instead, we should own these utilities and pay cost price for their maintenance.
Eversholt, Porterbrook, and Angel Trains own the majority of the trains that we rent. That’s despite the company shareholders making £3.6bn in the past decade in dividends.
Conservative prime minister John Major sold off the trains when he privatised the railways in 1993. Now we rent them back at higher costs and still will under Labour’s plans.
A report from the RMT union shows privatisation costs £1.5bn per year including profits extracted from rolling stock companies. Saving these profits could fund the cutting of fares by 18%. That’s every person in the country saving 18% on their train fare.
The government passed the Passenger Railway Passenger (Public Ownership) Bill earlier this year and will bring the rail services into public ownership as their contracts expire. On Sunday 25 May, the first nationalised service left London Waterloo is part of South Western Railway. Yet we are still renting the literal train itself.
Bring on Great British Trains
Public ownership doesn’t solve everything by itself – as Heidi Alexander surely knows.
Campaign group We Own It has a series of recommendations to make it a success. One of them is, of course, to nationalise the trains themselves under Great British Trains. Not renting the trains is even normal in the USA. Also, Transport for London and Liverpool City Region have both opted for direct ownership of a new set of vehicles in recent years.
Another recommendation is for the government to reinstate social and environmental mandates for the trains. The trains should be accessible to everyone and harbour commitments to the environment.
A further point is the lack of investment the UK puts into rail compared to countries like Switzerland. Switzerland invests around €477 for each person into its railway system, compared to the UK that puts in €116. That’s despite return on investment (ROI) reaching double what’s put in for the UK – £2 of economic activity for every £1 invested.
Heidi Alexander and the Labour government should go much further, and truly put the railways – and all over public services – into public hands.
Prime Minister Fiamē Naomi Mata’afa has advised Samoa’s head of state that it is necessary to dissolve Parliament so the country can move to an election.
This follows the bill for the budget not getting enough support for a first reading on yesterday, and Fiame announcing she would therefore seek an early election.
Tuimaleali’ifano Va’aleto’a Sualauvi II has accepted Fiame’s advice and a formal notice will be duly gazetted to confirm the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly.
Parliament will go into caretaker mode, and the Cabinet will have the general direction and control of the existing government until the first session of the Legislative Assembly following dissolution.
Fiame, who has led a minority government since being ousted from her former FAST party in January, finally conceded defeat on the floor of Parliament yesterday morning after her government’s 2025 Budget was voted down.
MPs from both the opposition Human Rights Protection Party and Fiame’s former FAST party joined forces to defeat the budget with the final vote coming in 34 against, 16 in support and two abstentions.
Defeated motions
Tuesday was the Samoan Parliament’s first sitting since back-to-back no-confidence motions were moved — unsuccessfully — against prime minister Fiame.
In January, Fiame removed her FAST Party chairman La’auli Leuatea Schmidt and several FAST ministers from her Cabinet.
In turn, La’auli ejected her from the FAST Party, leaving her leading a minority government.
Donald Trump’s Oval Office allegations of a ‘white genocide’ in South Africa were strongly rebutted by president Cyril Ramaphosa, highlighting misinformation’s danger around race and crime. Yet the majority of the right-wing Western media has failed to report on it – and those that did, have glorified it.
Donald Trump: more batshit far-right conspiracy theory
In a recent Oval Office meeting, US president Donald Trump made sensational claims regarding South Africa, asserting that a ‘white genocide’ is occurring against the Afrikaner minority.
This assertion was met with strong rebuttal from South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, who pointed out that the majority of violent crime victims in the country are against Black individuals.
The encounter not only highlighted the dangers of misinformation but also underlined the ongoing dialogues around race, land, and historical injustices in South Africa.
Trump’s allegations, which drew from debunked conspiracy theories popularised by far-right groups, presented a distorted view of South Africa’s reality.
Recent statistics from South African police reveal stark truths: between 2020 and 2024, only eight out of 225 murdered individuals on farms were white farmers. This statistic contradicts the narrative of widespread and targeted violence against white farmers, instead illustrating that the majority of agricultural victims have been Black farm workers, further complicating the simplistic portrayal of victimhood.
Using misinformation
During the meeting, Trump resorted to showing outdated video evidence that has been thoroughly dismissed as misleading. Among these was an image of a burial in the Democratic Republic of Congo, wrongly used as evidence for his claims.
The American publication that originally featured this footage admitted the mistake, yet Trump’s administration continues to perpetuate these inaccuracies. This indicates an alarming trend where narratives disconnected from actual data can influence international relations and perceptions.
Critics argue that such fabrications overshadow pressing issues within South Africa, including persistent inequality, crime rates, and a legacy of apartheid that continues to affect millions. In recent years, land reform, aimed at rectifying historical injustices, has become a priority for the South African government.
Proposals for expropriation without compensation have been presented, but they are subject to strict conditions and have yet to be enacted on a significant scale. Trump’s false claims distract from these complex realities, offering a dangerous oversimplification of issues that require nuanced understanding and dialogue.
Elon Musk, a prominent far-right amplifier, has once again amplified Trump’s claims, describing the South African government as “anti-white.”
However, this position has been soundly rejected by South African courts, which label the notion of a ‘white genocide’ as unfounded. The presentation of such ideas not only poses risks to diplomatic relations but also threatens to deepen divisions within South African society, undermining the efforts of reconciliation and healing from a troubled past.
Trump us being aided by most of the right-wing media
In a climate where mistruths can easily circulate, the portrayal of South Africa as a land where white individuals are under siege distorts the narrative and masks the country’s more profound struggles with inequality, actual racism, and violence that predominantly affect the Black population.
The media and political narratives surrounding these issues are crucial, as they can directly impact the lives of millions and the global understanding of a nation still grappling with its history. Yet when most of the right-wing corporate media fail to even report the US president as peddling racist, far-right conspiracy theory, the impact is only worsened. It is worsened still when outlets like the Daily Mail amplify the conspiracy theory themselves.
Trump must be held accountable for his claims, especially those that can incite division and misunderstanding. Of course, it’s highly unlikely he will be.
A massive group of far-right Israelis have marched through a Muslim area in Old Jerusalem in an annual hate march. Sometimes known as Jerusalem Day, Israelis mark the day via state funds as they mark the illegal occupation of East Jerusalem. Traditionally, the fascists march through the Muslim Quarter. Their racism and violence during the marches routinely creates an atmosphere of terror and fear for Palestinians.
Unionist Howard Beckett shared footage of the march:
Today is Jerusalem Day. An Israeli national holiday celebrating the annexation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank
Here right wing settlers in their thousand chant “death to Arabs”, “we’ll burn your villages”
large groups chanted racist slogans including “Gaza is ours”, “death to the Arabs” and “may their villages burn”.
Just a day before the march, footage of Palestinian children being burned to death went viral on social media.
Israelis march through Muslim Quarter
Residents in the quarter where the march took place were barricaded in their homes. Aviv Tatarsky, a resident of East Jerusalem, told the Guardian that:
Symbolically it sends a message: ‘You don’t belong here, we are the ones who own this place.’
The Guardian also reported that:
From midday, groups of Jewish men inside the city shouted racist chants including “may their villages burn”, “Mohammed is dead” and “death to Arabs”.
President of the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research, Dr. Omar Suleiman, contrasted the hate march with Palestinian children being burned alive just a day before:
The day after Israel burned a bunch of children alive and normal human beings watched in horror.
“May your village burn” and “Muhammad is dead” is what thousands of extremist Jewish settlers marching on Al Aqsa illegally in Jerusalem chanted.
Most of the people who died in the attack were children. One particular child can be seen engulfed in flames and trying to escape the building. That child survived, but her mother and siblings died in the flames.
Emergency responders were also seen attempting to put the fire out without any water:
Imagine watching children burn in front of you and there’s no water to put out the fire…!!
With warnings that the situation is heading towards an unprecedented humanitarian disaster, international reports indicate that 93% of the population suffers from food insecurity, while the Gaza Strip is expected to face a severe famine if the closure of crossings continues and the military operations continue.
Cruelty does not cover the mindset of these far-right Israelis in celebrating the colonisation and decimation of Palestinians.
Mindset
Any manner in which Palestinians defend themselves and their homeland is seen as terrorism. It is becoming increasingly clear, if it were ever in doubt, that the world is happy to watch Palestinians burn to death.
The world will barely make a squeak when it comes to thousands of Israelis baying for the death of Arabs, But, people of conscience must see these thousands of Israelis’ barbarism in attempting to stop aid to a starving population.
There are evidently plenty of Israeli settlers who actively want their government and army to continue its genocide on Palestinians. So much so, that a poll conducted by an Israeli channel found that:
A majority of the Israeli public is opposed to allowing humanitarian aid into the besieged Gaza Strip, a survey carried out by Israel’s Channel 13 has found.
Some 53 per cent of respondents said they believe Israel should not permit aid to enter Gaza, while only 34 per cent supported allowing lifesaving food, medicines and water to enter the enclave.
The fact that 53% of respondents believe a besieged and terrorised population shouldn’t be permitted any food or water is appalling. It does demonstrate, however, that a large proportion of Israeli settlers – replete with hate marches, chants for death to Arabs, physical blocking of aid – are, incredibly, calling for more devastation for Palestine.
An estimated £7.5 billion in Universal Credit benefits remain unclaimed in 2023 due to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) complicated eligibility criteria, lack of public awareness, and poor communication from authorities. However, crucially this figure comes just as the Labour Party government has repeatedly claimed that welfare spending is too high – and that it wants to cut chronically ill and disabled people’s Universal Credit, even though so much goes unclaimed.
Universal Credit: billions left unclaimed
Despite Universal Credit’s supposed aim to provide financial support to society’s most vulnerable, huge numbers of people are not claiming it when they are entitled to.
In 2023 alone, an estimated £7.5 billion in support went unclaimed, with approximately 1.2 million households unaware they could qualify for assistance. This enormous figure, discovered by think tank Policy In Practice research, underscores critical flaws in the accessibility and clarity of a system intended to alleviate poverty and financial distress, prompting urgent calls for reform and better outreach.
A significant barrier to uptake lies in widespread confusion regarding who actually qualifies for Universal Credit. Reports from Citizens Advice reveal numerous scenarios where individuals miss out due to lack of awareness or misunderstandings about their entitlements.
For example, people facing unemployment, reduced income, or those living with disabilities that restrict employment capabilities often do not realise they could apply. Moreover, additional factors such as high childcare costs or caregiving responsibilities for a family member may also open eligibility—even though many remain unaware of these provisions.
Too complex and inaccessible
The problem is compounded by the fact that eligibility extends beyond simple income measurements and employment status. Universal Credit is designed to accommodate a range of personal circumstances, reflecting the complex and varied nature of financial hardship in the UK today.
Contrary to common belief, Universal Credit eligibility is not governed by a fixed income ceiling. Research from Policy in Practice indicates that households with relatively high annual earnings—even those exceeding £100,000 under certain conditions—might still qualify.
This challenges the widespread assumption that Universal Credit is solely for those in desperate financial conditions, highlighting the scheme’s flexibility in addressing multiple needs and situations.
Universal Credit eligibility
Furthermore, Citizens Advice stresses the importance of applying promptly, especially in light of planned changes to the health component of Universal Credit. These reforms will impact existing claimants differently from new applicants, potentially reducing access for those who delay their claims.
Acting swiftly thus becomes paramount to safeguarding the full range of benefits.
The criteria for Universal Credit eligibility are relatively inclusive. Generally, anyone aged 18 or over but below the UK’s state pension age, who permanently resides in the country and holds savings or investments below £16,000, can apply.
However, the rules are more intricate for younger claimants: individuals under 18 may also qualify if they have dependent children or face specific health conditions. This layered eligibility framework reflects an attempt to strike a balance between inclusivity and appropriate targeting but often leads to confusion among prospective applicants.
DWP communication failures and the need for empathy
Although the government publishes detailed eligibility guidelines on its official portal, this information is not always communicated effectively or accessed by those who need it most. The persistence of large sums of unclaimed benefits reveals a systemic failure by the DWP to relay clear, user-friendly guidance to the public.
Many potential claimants lack knowledge of their rights and entitlements due to complex language, bureaucratic jargon, and insufficient outreach to marginalised communities. Consequently, some individuals experience prolonged financial hardship when timely assistance was available.
Central to resolving Universal Credit’s uptake problem is fostering a more empathetic approach from the DWP. It must recognise that claimants’ lives are often complex, marked by unique challenges that a one-size-fits-all system struggles to address.
Moreover, empathy entails acknowledging the psychological burden of navigating a convoluted benefit system, which can discourage applications. Yet this is not how the DWP operates.
DWP Universal Credit: a perverse scenario
Most perversely, all this comes amid the DWP’s plans to cut chronically ill and disabled people’s Universal Credit. As the Canary previously reported, it is freezing chronically ill and disabled people’s Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity (LCWRA) elements of Universal Credit, at £97 a week – and reduced them to £47 a week for new claimants – with only people with the most severe conditions able to apply for LCWRA. People under the age of 22 will no longer be able to claim these top-ups under Universal Credit at all.
In a society where economic pressures increasingly threaten financial stability, it is vital that support systems do not become additional sources of hardship.
Yet the very fact that over one million households are missing out on over £7 billion of Universal Credit – at the same time the DWP thinks it’s spending too much on these people – shows that currently, the polar opposite is happening.
Eighty years after the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the Second World War, the threat of nuclear fallout remains.
Te Ao Māori News spoke with Mari Inoue, a NYC-based lawyer originally from Japan and co-founder of the volunteer-led group The Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World.
Recently, at the UN, they called for global awareness, not only about atomic bomb victims but also of the Fukushima wastewater release, and nuclear energy’s links to environmental destruction and human rights abuses.
Formed a year after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the group takes its name from the original Manhattan Project — the secret Second World War US military programme that raced to develop the first atomic bomb before Nazi Germany.
A pivotal moment in that project was the Trinity Test on July 16, 1945, in New Mexico — the first successful detonation of an atomic bomb. One month later, nuclear weapons were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing an estimated 110,000 to 210,000 people.
Seeking recognition and justice
Although 80 years have passed, victims of these events continue to seek recognition and justice. The disarmament group hopes for stronger global unity around the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and more support for victims of nuclear exposure.
Mari Inoue attended the UN as a representative of the Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World as an interpreter for an atomic bomb survivor. Image: TAM News/UN WebTV.
The anti-nuclear activists supported the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Their advocacy took place during the third and final preparatory committee for the 2026 NPT review conference, where a consensus report with recommendations from past sessions will be presented.
Inoue’s group called on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to declare Japan’s dumping policy unsafe, and believes Japan and its G7 and EU allies should be condemned for supporting it.
Hanford Site is a decommissioned nuclear production complex established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project . . . The contaminated site once belonged to several Native American tribes. Image: TAM News/Jeff T. Green/Getty
Nuclear energy for the green transition? Amid calls to move away from fossil fuels, some argue that nuclear power could supply the zero-emission energy needed to combat climate change.
Inoue rejects this, saying that despite not emitting greenhouse gases like fossil fuels, nuclear energy still harms the environment.
She said there was environmental harm at all processes in the nuclear supply chain.
Protests at TEPCO, Tokyo Electric Power Company, in Tokyo in August 2023. Image: bDavid Mareuil/Anadolu Agency
“Nuclear energy is not peaceful and it‘s not a solution to the climate crisis,” Inoue stressed. “Nuclear energy cannot function without exploiting peoples, their lands, and their resources.”
She also pointed out thermal pollution, where water heated during the nuclear plant cooling process is discharged into waterways, contributing to rising ocean temperatures.
Inoue added, “During the regular operation, [nuclear power plants] release radioactive isotopes into the environment — for example tritium.”
Increased tensions and world forum uniting global voices When asked about the AUKUS security pact, Inoue expressed concern that it would worsen tensions in the Pacific. She criticised the use of a loophole that allowed nuclear-powered submarines in a nuclear-weapon-free zone, even though the nuclear fuel could still be repurposed for weapons.
In October, Inoue will co-organise the World Nuclear Victims Forum in Hiroshima, with 2024 Nobel Peace Prize winner Nihon Hidankyo as one of the promoting organisations.
The forum will feature people from Indigenous communities impacted by nuclear testing in the US and the Marshall Islands, uranium mining in Africa, and fisheries affected by nuclear pollution.
Republished from Te Ao Māori News with permission.
On 14 June, independent socialists from across Merseyside will hold a rally in Liverpool. It will bring people together to challenge Labour. And ahead of the event, the Canary spoke to two of the people involved – councillors Alan Gibbons and Sean Halsall.
“The Labour Party needs sinking”
Gibbons explained that the rally will bring together independent groups from across Merseyside in a spirit of unity. And the hope is for the event to be “a stepping stone to the foundation of a new political party of the left to challenge… the ruinous hegemony of Starmer’s rightward-moving Labour Party”. There’ll be a range of speakers at the Liner hotel in central Liverpool, including Jeremy Corbyn, and “some really good musicians”. And as Halsall explained, it will be “open to anyone” because:
Politics should be about everyone. Everyone should engage. We should give them a reason to engage.
And in a rallying call, Halsall insisted:
the Labour Party needs sinking. Them and the Tories should never be in charge of this country again.
‘Starmer’s party isn’t in charge in Merseyside anymore’
The rally, Halsall argued, is “laying down a marker in Merseyside” that:
in Labour’s strongest stronghold, … they’re not in charge anymore. They’ve given up the right to represent the people of this region in this county. And we’re coming for them.
In Liverpool, Gibbons stressed, there’s:
a sense of palpable panic amongst many Labour councillors
Why? Because traditionally ultra-safe seats are now “marginal”. And in some places, it’s Reform UK that’s giving Labour a run for its money.
Challenging not just Labour, but also Reform
As Gibbons explained, part of bringing independent socialists together in the region with the 14 June event is to set the bloc up to be “a bulwark against the advance of Reform”. And he was clear that:
to stand against them, you actually need to take them on on class grounds
That means not just debating the issue of immigration with Reform-leaning voters, but reminding them that Reform’s leaders:
are people born with a silver spoon up their jacksies. These leadership public-school millionaires ascribed to the Thatcherite process, owning property development companies, … and commodity brokers. And their television, GB News, is funded by a hedge-fund millionaire. These are not your friends… They want to wreck your NHS, wreck your welfare state, and oppose workers’ rights.
You need to be in communities not just having those discussions respectfully with ordinary people, he said, but also actively and visibly participating in struggles on important local issues.
Halsall agreed, talking about the importance of local assemblies to give people a much-needed forum to:
talk about what matters to them, and then talk about how we’re going to fix that together through collective action
“Using human language” and “meeting people where they are is massive”, he stressed. That’s what can end isolation and division while helping to “rebuild community”.
“People distrust mainstream politics” but real alternatives can and do stop Reform capitalising on that
Halsall emphasised the role the right-wing leadership of Labour has had on empowering Reform, saying:
I don’t think we’d have Reform without Keir Starmer leading the Labour Party now.
But if Starmer keeps disastrously pandering to Reform, he said, the situation could get even worse, with “overt fascist parties” benefiting from the normalisation of Reform’s positions, which are likely to get more and more extreme.
In response to this situation, we need to understand how people are feeling. And Halsall asserted:
I don’t for a moment believe that everyone who votes Reform is a racist. I think that would be absolute lunacy to believe. I think the issue we’ve found ourselves in is people distrust mainstream politics. They distrust these parachuted-in, suited and booted idiots who haven’t got a clue, have never worked, never had sort of any prominent role in their communities, just appear out of nowhere, like my current MP, Patrick Hurley.
The hope, he stressed, lies in the fact that, “when there is… another option, people will take it”. For example:
in Preston, in the local elections there, three anti-welfare-cuts candidates won on a pro-Palestine platform in a… county council where Reform just swept the board.
Independent anti-establishment candidates Michael Lavalette, Yousuf Motala, and Almas Razakazi beat both Labour and Reform to become councillors in Preston. While Reform dominate the Lancashire council, independents now stand in third place. And they’ve now joined a Progressive Lancashire alliance with Green councillors to make their voices even louder.
What’s the story with the Greens?
Speaking about the Greens and their role in resisting the pro-war, pro-austerity establishment, Gibbons said a new party of the left would definitely need to have “discussions” and “non-aggression pacts” with the Greens. However, while the Green Party has its own internal struggle now with many seeking a broad shift to the left, the fact remains that:
You virtually never see a Green councillor on the picket line… there’s lots of Green activists who I just couldn’t see carrying credibility in most working-class areas… [and] the natural gravitation in crisis for the Greens is still to look towards Liberals, not towards Socialists.
Halsall agreed, saying:
They’re also never going to form a government. Their sort of ceiling’s probably 70 seats. They’ll be kingmakers at best at some point.
“Powering up class politics unites 99% of us” – that must be the focus
Bringing together a broad alliance to have success nationally, Halsall stressed, requires us to “make it about class” because:
Powering up class politics unites 99% of us in this country. Why would we want to divide ourselves?
Gibbons added that connected issues include workers’ rights, council-house building, a Green New Deal, reducing inequalities, having a “mass trade-union-recruitment process”, and standing in solidarity with workers from other countries (whose loss in Britain “would cause a catastrophe in the care home sector”).
As Halsall said, however, Labour is very much a part of the problem – especially as it gifts arms industry profiteers billions of pounds while taking billions away from chronically ill and disabled people:
we’ve seen decades upon decades of people being taken for granted… I’d struggle to find more than… 10 to 15 people in that Labour group in parliament who do the right thing – and local councils even less. They are whipped beyond belief, where they will actively vote against their residents’ interests.
Both Halsall and Gibbons refused to follow the whip under Starmer and became independent. And both have seen a positive response because they’ve stuck by their principles. Halsall stressed that:
when you do take a principled stance, people recognise it and respect that… That says to me how little of it there is in politics now that that’s such a massive thing—that I would resign over a genocide. That tells me how far we’ve gone off the deep end.
Community action and organisation has already begun
we’re going to see NHS strikes, and rightly so. I will stand with those workers until I drop over the next year or so
And the government’s attacks on disabled people will only add to the pressure, he said:
People are going to get sicker, not be able to keep their head above water. Nutrition is going to go down – kids driven into poverty, then given lifelong medical conditions.
Gibbons added that “Starmer’s attack on the most vulnerable people in society” is a key issue that has come up when he’s spoken to people locally. The winter fuel payment, disability cuts, two-child benefit cap, the lack of council and social housing, and the “ticking time bomb” of the NHS. “Real working-class campaigning politics”, he insisted, means standing with working-class communities like Garston where a site originally destined for social housing was turned into a source of corporate pollution, defending the important Marie Curie hospice, and attending dozens of protests against the genocide in Gaza.
Halsall echoed those sentiments, saying:
Support workers at Livv Housing. Support workers in the NHS when they find themselves in struggle. Any worker on a picket line deserves your support.
“Internationalism always”
Regarding Starmer’s ongoing attempts to pander to the far-right diversion tactics of attacking people who’ve come to Britain from other countries, Gibbons insisted “internationalism always!” And he emphasised that:
the asylum seekers up the road from me… I’ve got more in common with them than I have with the likes of [Nigel] Farage and DubaiDicky Tice and all these bloody spivs that were born with millions in their pockets.
Referring to Starmer’s embrace of Enoch Powell’s divisive “strangers’ rhetoric, meanwhile, Halsall asserted:
my grandmother would have been one of those “strangers” who came over to work in the NHS back in the 1940s
He added:
I would much rather have a refugee fleeing a war zone living next to me — and probably much easier to get along with and understand and see eye-to-eye with than some guy who’s playing at being working class, banging on about his dad being a toolmaker, who’s never experienced a day of struggle in his life, who gets gifts from all over the place. Lord Alli’s never offered me £20,000 or a stay in his gaff. These people do not represent us. And we’ve got to stop letting them speak for us.
To hear more about what’s going on in Merseyside to resist both Labour and Reform wings of establishment politics, you can register for the 14 June event at the Liner Hotel.
At the beginning of the Tory/ Lib Dem coalition government in 2010, the amount of foodbank parcels handed out stood at 60,000. The Trussell Trust has now revealed that this figure is close to three million for the year 2024/2025. And that only includes foodbanks run under the Trussell group. That is a 50 fold or 5000% increase.
What are politicians – namely Labour – doing about it?
The response to the foodbank epidemic from politicians is quite something. In 2022, former prime minister David Cameron tweeted that he had been volunteering at a foodbank for two years. Yes, the very architect of austerity who slashed public services and benefits must be drowning in hypocrisy. He’s a major reason the foodbanks are necessary.
Then there’s now-Reform MP Lee Anderson. As a Tory MP previously, he said:
I think you’ll see first-hand that there’s not this massive use for food banks in this country. You’ve got generation after generation who cannot cook properly. They can’t cook a meal from scratch. They cannot budget
Yet 15% of UK households are living in food insecurity, meaning eight million adults and three million children. In September, union leaders called on Keir Starmer to put a stop to the issue:
We simply cannot allow food banks to be seen as a normal part of life in the 21st Century. People are already at breaking point. You must tackle food insecurity and end food bank Britain.
The Trussell figure for foodbank use for 2024/25 is only an 8% reduction on 2023/24 levels.
Nonetheless, Starmer is going ahead with budget cuts to public services (branded as ‘efficiency savings’), along with cuts to disabled people’s support that will plunge 670,000 families who are already poor into even deeper hardship.
This is contrary to Labour’s manifesto, which said:
We want to end mass dependence on emergency food parcels, which is a moral scar on our society.
The Trussell report into foodbank use
In its report, Trussell made clear the main cause of foodbank use:
Emergency food parcel provision remains close to record levels first and foremost due to a weakened social security system that is unable to protect people from the most severe forms of hardship
The inadequate safety net forced 567,235 people (including 200,224 children) to turn to foodbanks for the first time in 2024/25. At the same time, the UK’s richest 350 households have £773 billion in wealth, according to the Sunday Times rich list for this year.
Low wages are also a factor in foodbank use. 11% of people referred to foodbanks in 2024/25 were earning.
Corporate control
At the same time as people rely on foodbanks, Tesco has reported profits of over £3 billion for 2024/25 and Sainsburys around £1 billion. That is obscene profiteering because of control over the food supply.
It’s clear the system is broken and Starmer doesn’t look likely to fix it.
national holiday celebrating the annexation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank 
