The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has put out a call for evidence for the Timms Review into Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

However, as with pretty much everything the DWP does, it’s already looking like it’ll be another major stitch up.

DWP PIP: Timms Review launches call for evidence

In the last few days, the corporate media has noticeably up its demonisation of disability benefit claimants. Of course, that’s usually a tell-tale sign. You can all but guarantee the department has something in the pipeline when the gutter press kicks into gear maligning welfare.

The latest bullshit was the shitrag Daily Mail clamouring:

One in 10 working age Brits are on disability benefits with 1,000 successful claims A DAY

However, as the Canary’s chief DWP botherer Rachel Charlton-Dailey pointed out, that 1 in 10 figure is complete nonsense. And when disabled people make up 25% of the population – she rightly underscored that it should be closer to 1 in 4. What’s more, as Charlton-Dailey highlighted:

that 1,000 is the number of successful claims. The Mail article glosses over the fact that, in those 13 years, 4.4 million claims were denied. It also completely ignores the scale of the backlog to even get PIP.

In short, it was more lowlights in the Mail’s revolting history of vilifying benefit claimants. But crucially, now its agenda in publishing this has been made extra obvious: to manufacture public consent for devastating PIP cuts.

Because lo and behold, less than 48 hours later, the Timms Review has launched its call for evidence. And predictably it’s chock-full of the kind of leading questions that just scream ‘forgone conclusion’.

Just 10 weeks for disabled people to have their say

In a press release the DWP published 19 March, it announced the call, stating:

The Review is examining whether PIP – which supports nearly four million people in England and Wales with the extra costs of disability – better reflects how people’s conditions impact them in the modern world.

The Call for Evidence – which runs until 28 May – is the first step in a wider, accessible programme of engagement, shaped by the Review’s steering group. This will ensure as many disabled people as possible contribute to it, including young people.

The first thing that immediately stands out is that the call for evidence runs for only 10 weeks. Technically, since this isn’t a consultation, that’s not unlawful – unlike the previous Conservative government’s 8-week Work Capability Assessment (WCA) consultation.

Even so, ordinarily, the government will host these in line with its 12-week requirement around consultations. Case in point: the Treasury has announced a call for evidence on the “future of the Advance Corporation Tax regime” today (19 March) as well. That runs for 12 weeks (until 11 June). Because when reforms are for Labour’s billionaire buddies in business, the government will give them ample time to lobby their grievances.

Of course, it speaks volumes that the DWP is giving disabled people – some of whom will need more time to engage – even less time than the standard amount to do so. Ironically, the press release quotes Stephen Timms suggesting:

it is vital that as many people as possible have the chance to contribute.

The DWP likes to talk a big game about listening to disabled people when it’s doing exactly the opposite. Naturally, it’s also not the only ‘stakeholders’ it wants to hear from:

Anyone can respond and those with lived or learned experience of PIP, including disabled people, the organisations that represent them, carers, clinicians, experts, MPs, and other elected officials across the UK, are particularly encouraged to do so.

Those ‘experts’ will inevitably be stacked with talking heads from the likes of Iain Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) and other diabolical think tanks, no doubt.

Constricting PIP criteria: the real agenda – again?

Some of the questions and information the review is seeking could be genuinely game-changing if the DWP responds right. It wants to know about disabled people’s experiences of the assessment process and barriers to it. In other parts of the call, it asks for evidence about reasonable adjustments, experiences with external assessment providers, and both the award review and appeals process.

There’s a lot of opportunity in these parts for disabled people to highlight the many flaws in the current system.

That said, this it the DWP we’re talking about here. The chance it will actually do anything positive to improve the PIP process feel slim to none. At best, it will take forward a few good changes, but use them to package more brutal cuts.

One notable sentence confirming this concerns what the review says it’s “particularly interested in”, states that:

the assessment criteria for both Mobility and Daily Living elements of PIP – including activities, descriptors and associated points – and whether these effectively capture the impact of long-term health conditions and disability in the modern world (from the Terms of Reference)

It’s hard not to see this as a sly to justify constricting the PIP criteria to exclude people. Of course, this is precisely what the DWP previously tried to do to slash people’s access to PIP with its egregious 4 point policy.

Keeping PIP in ‘fixed financial limits’

And question four brings this into focus further. It asks:

What has changed in wider society and the workplace since 2013 (and might be expected to change in the future), how has this impacted PIP and does PIP need to change accordingly?

On its own, that might sound innocuous enough. However, it couches this in calls for:

the factors contributing to increased disability prevalence in society including different conditions, ages, people, and terminal illness

That’s very blatantly a hat-tip to the government’s latest scapegoating around the rise of claims involving mental health and neurodivergence. And of course, the DWP and its lapdog press have been on overdrive stigmatising and trivialising them. The department’s clear goal has been to make it harder for people with these conditions to claim PIP.

To top it off, the review also wants to hear from stakeholders:

how PIP can remain within fixed financial limits

In reality then, this is what it’s all about. The DWP wants to kick people off PIP to slash spending. Making PIP more accessible and inclusive won’t make the department savings. So whatever evidence disabled people provide, a fit-for-purpose disability benefit system won’t be the outcome.

A tick-box exercise

At this point, we feel like a broken record, but it still needs saying: this Labour government has no real intention of genuinely including disabled people in decisions that will deeply impact their lives.

From the moment the government paused its plans for PIP (because let’s be honest, it never committed to chucking its shameful cuts out altogether), it was only a matter of time before it started weaponising bare minimum ‘consultation’ and ‘co-production’ with disabled people. Naturally, it’s all to lay the groundwork for following through with them.

This call for evidence shows that once again, disabled people’s lived realities are little more than tick-box exercises to the callous DWP.

But then, what more should anyone expect from a government that’s already gutted the health element of Universal Credit, is sneakily slashing Access to Work support, and continues to vilify disabled claimants at every turn.

You can respond to the call for evidence until 28 May here.

Featured image via the Canary

Israeli settlers have shown their “undying spiritual connection” to occupied Palestine – by fleeing it in panic. Footage filmed 16 March in occupation airports shows “total chaos” as mobs desperately try to get onto flights out and escape from Iranian retaliation for Israel-US attacks. Like Ben Gurion airport:

✈️🇮🇱 Chaos total à l’aéroport Ben-Gourion : files d’attente interminables en pleine guerre❗️(16 mars 2026) pic.twitter.com/jMHmzlHapK

— The News (@thenews_fr) March 16, 2026

They can all bog off back to Brooklyn pic.twitter.com/n9Wsfw80nD

— Her Royal Heinous 🇮🇪🇵🇸 (@HerRoyalHeinous) March 17, 2026

The clips triggered thousands of responses comparing the fortitude of Palestinians and Lebanese people in their razed lands with the readiness of ‘Israelis’ to run away. Like this one, captioned in French “The difference between the owner of the land and the one who stole it”:

• pic.twitter.com/4XViB9fbTS

— Fania 🦋 (@FaniaNaili) March 16, 2026

“Wah wah, my country is Israel but I want to go back to France”:

NO COMMENT ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/H9Ypix0eum

— OXYGÈNE ⚖️🗽🐢✌️ (@samisam60980585) March 16, 2026

pic.twitter.com/wRZFqWJkQD

— Mekki Rachid (@slim_o27) March 16, 2026

Advertisement

They can all bog off back to Brooklyn pic.twitter.com/n9Wsfw80nD

— Her Royal Heinous 🇮🇪🇵🇸 (@HerRoyalHeinous) March 17, 2026

Others mocked the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu has not been seen, except in AI videos, for more than a week now. Not without reason, since he has frequently fled, though whether he is hiding abroad this time or dead is not yet clear:

pic.twitter.com/tf0BzihD4w

— mujaheddin (@EdwardSaid1968) March 16, 2026

pic.twitter.com/dP4JScXXhq

— Miguel W. (@miguel_wals) March 17, 2026

Advertisement

pic.twitter.com/lZHIHqyuLL

— Pablo (@PabloEskoba72) March 17, 2026

And it’s fair to say that there was not a lot of sympathy on show:

pic.twitter.com/ETBMVBdqVL

— ostensible spam (@PsionicPsittacc) March 17, 2026

Brilliant #OperationEpicScurry

— OneQuantumLeap (@OneQuantumLeap) March 17, 2026

Advertisement

Israel had already put a ban preventing aircraft from carrying more than a hundred passengers at a time in an attempt to slow the exodus-flood. But it seems Iran noticed. Two days after the scenes were filmed, on 18 March 2026, Ben Gurion airport was heavily bombed, making fleeing even harder.

Featured image via X

Two Israeli tourists have been ejected from a Brazilian beach—by popular demand. This happened after they assaulted a woman for carrying a Palestine flag. Beachgoers chanted “free, free Palestine” as the Israelis were booed away.

The incident occurred as thousands of Israelis in occupied Palestine, fearing retaliatory Iranian attacks, formed panicked mobs at airports in an attempt to flee. A true display of their deep connection to the land of Palestine…

Featured image via X/the Canary

The Guardian has gone through 4,366 video clips that Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has made since 2021. And it has shown that, as part of his £374,893+ side hustle, Farage has happily performed for neo-Nazis. He may claim he made mistakes, but his consistent dog-whistling suggests he knows exactly what he’s doing.

Farage has received money on the Cameo platform to make videos for all sorts of fans. He recorded messages:

• For a man who got 16 months in jail for participating in far-right riots, which Farage labelled “absolutely outrageous”.
• Dog-whistling around the far-right phrase “If in doubt, kick them out”. As the Guardian said, “Farage uses – or more often alludes to – the hardline anti-immigration phrase more than 20 times”. In doing so, Dr Ashton Kingdon insisted, he was “choosing to cultivate this audience and to speak its language back to it”.
• Happily saying “up the Rhodesia”, despite that likely referring to the historical white supremacist ethnostate in Africa.
• Voluntarily referring to antisemitic conspiracy theories, saying: “Is it the Bilderbergers that are running the world? … It could be the Masons. Some think it’s the Rothschilds. Maybe it’s George Soros. I don’t know. What I do know is actually I don’t think any of it is a conspiracy theory.”
• For people who, as the Guardian said, “openly expressed offensive views in their prompts”.

The most shocking video, however, gave what the Guardian describes as:

a pep talk for Canadian neo-Nazis

Farage endorsing neo-Nazis? Sounds about right.

One video, the Guardian explained, wanted Farage to:

endorse the “Road Rage Terror Tour”, a Canadian show hosted by “Jeremy MacKenzie, Derek Harrison and Alex Vriend”. A quick Google would have revealed to Farage the extremist nature of the individuals and their event.

MacKenzie, Harrison and Vriend are leaders of Diagolon, a group identified as a “Canadian far-right ‘extremist’ group” by the US state department in 2022.

Advertisement

Diagolon’s website advertised a book alluding to Adolf Hitler called Meme Kampf and the group’s extremist slogan – “they have to go back” – was a nod to the forced repatriation of migrants.

Farage apparently didn’t do a quick search to find out more about the event. Instead, the Guardian said:

he duly obliged, starting his video: “They have to go back.” Farage’s message then encouraged “Andrea” to attend what he said was “the most talked-about show in Canada”. “Why not give it a go?” Farage said. “You never know, you might walk out saying, ‘Road Rage Terror Tour is the best thing that ever happened.’”

The neo-Nazi group quickly clipped up the video and used it in their propaganda. This included one video, the Guardian reported:

in which a leader of Diagolon makes shooting noises and gestures while saying: “I just saw you were brown and I couldn’t help myself.”

In another, the paper added:

Farage’s Cameo clip featured alongside white nationalist and antisemitic messaging

A representative for the far-right group itself said it showed Farage:

being lazy and stupid enough to say anything for a dollar

Farage, meanwhile, pleaded ignorance. A spokesperson said he had been using Cameo “without knowledge of the individuals”.

But we reckon Farage knows exactly what he’s doing.

Featured image via the Canary

The Israeli occupation has tried to murder RT‘s Lebanon bureau chief Steve Sweeney and his cameraman Ali Rida. Both men were wounded in the attack.

Sweeney was speaking to camera in southern Lebanon about Israel’s illegal invasion and resistance responses when an Israeli missile roared in, narrowly missing the two men – who were both clearly identified as press:

Sweeney has said that he is fine and has already had shrapnel from the bomb removed. Rida said:

We were wearing [press] uniform. The Israeli enemy targeted us deliberately.

Israel has repeatedly killed and maimed journalists in Lebanon, copying its tactics that have murdered hundreds of journalists and their families in Gaza.

Featured image via X

The FIFA World Cup 2026 is entering an early stage of testing, caught between political pressure and security concerns. These concerns extend beyond the stadium and threaten the true image of the sport.

European Commissioner for Sport, Glenn Micallef, escalated his criticism of FIFA President Gianni Infantino, condemning what he described as a lack of clarity and responsiveness to growing European concerns about the safety of spectators.

EU Commissioner presses FIFA

As the largest World Cup in history approaches, co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, warnings are mounting about the repercussions of geopolitical tensions, following Trump’s illegal assault against Iran.

Micallef revealed that his sole meeting with Infantino in Brussels did not translate into concrete steps, despite his explicit demand for clear guarantees regarding the safety of European fans. He emphasised that the lack of follow-up from FIFA raises serious questions.

He stated:

When a host country is involved in a war, providing security assurances becomes a given, not an option.

Public safety challenges

European concerns are not limited to the political dimension. They extend to the security situation within the host countries. In the US, certain measures related to stricter surveillance and immigration are also causing anxiety. Meanwhile, Mexico is facing a rising wave of violence, particularly in areas considered potential World Cup hosting venues.

FIFA maintains that fan safety is a top priority, expressing confidence in the ability of the host countries to provide a safe environment.

However, this stance has not entirely dispelled European doubts, amid calls for greater transparency and detailed information.

A dispute beyond security

The tension between the two sides wasn’t limited to security matters; it extended to the nature of FIFA’s partnerships. Micallef expressed reservations about cooperating with initiatives supported by US President Donald Trump, arguing that this opens the door to increased politicisation of sports.

Conversely, he called for stronger partnerships with multilateral international organisations such as UNESCO and UNICEF, in line with the rules of the international system and to reduce polarisation.

In a broader context, the European official warned of transformations threatening the structure of sports on the continent, pointing to the National Basketball Association’s project to launch a European league and its move towards “closed leagues,” which contradicts the principle of sporting merit.

He also stressed the need to prevent the use of sporting competitions as tools for political propaganda, alluding to the renewed debate surrounding the participation of countries involved in military conflicts.

A test beyond football

These statements reflect a new reality where sport intersects with security and political considerations in an unprecedented way, transforming major tournaments into testing grounds for international influence and power balances.

Between FIFA’s assurances and European pressures, Gianni Infantino finds himself facing a complex challenge: managing a global tournament in a turbulent environment without compromising the game’s essence.

In this context, the question no longer concerns the readiness of stadiums, but rather football’s ability to remain out of the line of fire.

Featured image via White House, Instagram

Kristian Guise, is an undergraduate studying modern history and politics at the University of Southampton.

It’s been nearly two years since Starmer’s government won a landslide majority and eighteen months since the Conservative Party elected Kemi Badenoch as Leader of the Party.

Badenoch herself is a New-Right Tory and began by appointing vocal New-Right leaning members to His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition (e.g. yes, the now defector, Robert Jenrick, and still in post, Priti Patel) whilst those appointed members who’d come from a more one-nation background were far less forthcoming with their opinions.

This creates a problem for the Tories because, as the Party moves further to Right we leave more and more of our traditional One-Nation voters behind and fail to present ourselves as a political party with a broad vision. Failure to recognise this will not only cost us the next election but our hold on political relevance. As an 18-year-old member of the Party I believe the Tories should shift policies, rhetoric and vision to the centre-right to win the next General Election.

Since Brexit there has been a continuing movement of ideology and policy Right-ward, propelled by the rise of Reform – the recipients, now, of the services of the aforementioned Jenrick) The Conservative Party has begun to mimic not out-think Reform.

Take the issue of the European Union (EU) and Immigration.

Both policy issues were debated in the past in conversations that were much more constructive despite disagreements amongst members. However, in recent times, there has been a rapid conversion of the Tories to negativity within a focus on binary policymaking. Now there are few Tory MPs, let alone Shadow Cabinet members, who are willing to robustly debate EU and Immigration policy in the way the Party for so long espoused. Mrs Thatcher, for example, was, along with other members of her Cabinet, a Euro-sceptic. Yet this outlook did not prevent the inclusion of vociferous pro-European voices in her Cabinet (Geoffrey Howe was one who as Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned in 1990 over the issue of a single European currency) This shows, despite his resignation that even Thatcher’s government (seen, rightly or wrongly, as the Golden Age of Conservatism for many of today’s Shadow Cabinet members) had high-ranking Cabinet members with strongly held, pro-European sentiments.

That approach to Cabinet inclusivity contrasts with the way the Conservative Party has shifted in their tolerance of different views on the issues of the EU (and Immigration). This significant shift to the Right, I believe, has largely been brought about by a sense of apprehension about the rise of Reform. Where once there was no political alternative for Tory right-wing voters, now they find an option which not only competes but beats them in most instances with higher polling ratings amongst voters and success in local elections upon which Reform builds yet further support.

The Conservative Party’s wasteful mimicry of Reform to retain the support of right-wing voters has cost us, and will continue to cost us, votes. It is the opposite of what we need.

This is for one simple reason: we cannot out-Reform the Reform Party. They were founded on divisive, New-Right focused policies and values, the Tories were not. In an important contrast that should not be overlooked, our Party was founded in 1834 by Sir Robert Peel and a few decades later moulded by Benjamin Disraeli into a party of One-Nation principles and values. With this history in mind and our future in view I call for a return to the centre-right. Surely, we must accept mimicry of Reform is no substitute for originality. What is needed is for the members of today, younger and older, to rise up with vote-catching policies of positivity and pragmatism that offer hope for the UK’s over-taxed and under-rewarded people.

Another case for adopting centre-right policy and, as important, robust rhetoric is the electoral reality that our future majority will be found in the centre ground. The 2024 General Election taught us that. The Liberal Democrat Party (Lib Dems) achieved 72 seats in the House of the Commons. This is the biggest number of seats the party has won since being founded in 1988. This was achieved because they scooped up middle ground voters, including many One-Nation Tories.

One-Nation Tories and other middle ground voters gave their vote to the Lib Dems because they had had enough of the Tory Party and by July 2024 felt alienated. A key reason for such alienation was the poor economic performance that occurred under the Tories. Namely Liz Truss’ ‘Mini-Budget’ which devastated the £ and damaged the economy. Once again, a New-Right Conservative did not pay heed to One-Nation principles of pragmatism opting instead for unfunded, unplanned tax cuts that were unsustainable and, as Labour love to keep reminding the British public at PMQs, Truss “crashed the economy”^[3].

This constant focus on New-Right policies has cost the Tory Party in recent years and is why it is imperative the Party return to the centre-right. Without this shift, millions of middle ground votes will continue to be cast for the Lib Dems. Out of the last three elections where the Conservative Party obtained a majority in the Commons, two were won on One-Nation principles and the other (under Boris Johnson) was also delivered by One-Nation policies.

Since the 1945 General Election there have been twenty-two General Elections, around half won by centre-right policies. This highlights how crucial a well-articulated, vocal and visible centre-right position is for winning elections and why the Conservative Party should adopt a centre-right approach to attract and regain the trust of middle ground voters to win the next General Election.

Embracing the centre-right improves our electability by shedding the baggage of the past 10 years since Brexit. Former Prime Minister David Cameron launched the EU Referendum in 2016 as an attempt to quell the growing tension within the Conservative Party, we have struggled because we have not adhered to our One-Nation roots haunted by the conflicts borne of Brexit. Just as Macbeth never rid himself of Banquo’s ghost, we shall never rid ourselves of the ghost of Brexit until we firmly and positively abandon New-Right principles.

First, accept Brexit’s failures, for without acceptance we can never win anything.

Secondly, make the evidently necessary decision to harness the Party’s policies to centre-right values. Our Party should celebrate young voices. Highlighting their 21st century vision of tomorrow. Unless there is radical change and a vocal, well-articulated move towards the centre-right my Party will fall into the abyss of political irrelevance until we find ourselves with little influence, a third party eking out a subsistence lifestyle.

The trifecta of challenges I outline (dangerous mimicry of Reform, majority of votes being in the middle ground and no policies of positivity to improve our electability) show the Party must shift towards the centre-right, adopt One-Nation principles and be seen and heard to do so!

Our next test comes in May when 32 London Boroughs, 32 Metropolitan Boroughs and 10 directly elected Mayoral offices go to the polls.

With May in the forefront of my mind I’d argue a Tory revival lies in the centre-right not on the failing altar of the New-Right.

Liverpool Friends of Palestine (LFP) and the Palestine Trauma Centre (PTC) are holding a free event on the evening of 25 March in the Toxteth area of the city.

Titled “Continuous Trauma: the mental health impacts of the genocide in Gaza”, the event features PTC patron Gwyn Daniel, The venue is Crawford House, Upper Warwick Street L8 8DN and doors will open at 6.30pm for a 7pm start:

Scientific studies of the psychological impacts of Israel’s genocide in Gaza show the horrific trauma inflicted on survivors, especially children, describing it as an “irreversible human catastrophe” that leaves children in constant fear and suffering the deepest imaginable post-traumatic stress, if they survive long enough amid the ongoing slaughter.

Featured image via Liverpool Friends of Palestine