Politics
Adrian Lee: Wilson walks – it’s fifty years ago that a Labour Prime Minister resigned
Adrian Lee is a solicitor-advocate in London, specialising in criminal defence, and was twice a Conservative parliamentary candidate.
“I see myself as the big black spider in the corner of the room. Sometimes I speak when I’m asleep. You should both listen. Occasionally when we meet, I might tell you to go to Charing Cross Road and kick a blind man. That blind man may tell you something, lead you somewhere.”
Harold Wilson in conversation with BBC journalists, Barrie Penrose and Roger Courtiour, 1976.
On the morning 16th March 1976, Harold Wilson announced to his Cabinet that he was resigning as Prime Minister. Wilson, physically looking like a man in his mid-seventies, had just turned 60 years old only five days earlier. The physical and mental decline of Harold Wilson, even by the standards of the time, was striking. In comparison, Sir Keir Starmer today is three and a half years older than Wilson at the time of his resignation. Tony Benn described the announcement as follows:
“I went to Cabinet at 11. Harold said, “Before we come to business I want to make a statement.” Then he read us eight pages, in which he said that he had irrevocably decided that he was going to resign…People were stunned but, in a curious way, without emotion. Harold is not a man who arouses affection…Nobody knew it was coming [but] there was still a remarkable lack of reaction. Jim Callaghan, who found it hard to conceal his excitement, said “Harold, we shall never be able to thank you for your services to the Movement.” I left Downing Street about 1. By then there was a huge crowd of people, hundreds of television cameras.”
Roy Jenkins noted bitterly in his diary: “Callaghan had been informed beforehand, but I had not, which was a clear indication of the way that Wilson’s preference had shifted.”
Later that day, Wilson appeared at a gloriously smoky press conference to confirm his decision and later still gave interviews for the evening news bulletins. He maintained that there was nothing unusual about his actions and that he had decided two years before in February 1974 that he would resign about this time. He reminded the public that in total, considering the Labour governments of 1964 to 1970 and periods out of office, he had spent eight years as Prime Minister and five years as Leader of the Opposition. It was time to let someone else have a go. All of this seemed fair enough, and yet there seemed to be one piece of the jigsaw puzzle missing.
The three-seat parliamentary majority that Wilson’s Labour Party received in the October 1974 General Election left the fate of Britain’s government hanging by a thread. With strong commitments to significantly expand the welfare state, Wilson and his Chancellor Denis Healey raised the top rate of income tax to an eye-watering 83 per cent in Labour’s first year back in government. Inflation peaked at 26 per cent in 1975, but still the revolution continued as the government had confidence in the “social contract” that they had negotiated with the Trades Union Congress to facilitate a voluntary incomes policy. In other words, the unions would attempt to restrain their members from advancing pay claims outside the limits set by government.
In social policy, the government established a Health and Safety Commission and a separate Health and Safety Executive to regulate the workplace. Meanwhile, Tony Benn, Secretary of State for Industry, was busy creating a new quango: the National Enterprise Boad (N.E.B), the aim of which was to pump taxpayer’s money into private companies in exchange for the state taking part of the equity. Benn made no secret of the fact that he viewed the expansion of the state into the realms of private business in the most positive light.
Wilson’s government was also determined to increase comprehensivisation across the secondary school sector, effectively ending grammar schools, and to bring into existence two new Acts of Parliament tackling racial and sexual discrimination. The latter would establish yet another highly expensive quango: the Equal Opportunities Commission. Whilst all this was going on, disquiet started being expressed by all social classes. Unemployment rose to over one million in April 1975, and those with investments started fretting about their savings. Wilson also suffered his first ministerial resignation when the formidable Joan Lestor M.P. resigned as Under Secretary of State for Education and Science on 9th March 1976 over proposed budgetary cuts.
In private, Wilson had been becoming increasingly paranoid regarding Security Services. He was convinced that British intelligence was working to undermine him and wished to remove him from office. Joe Haines, Wilson’s press secretary, recalled in his memoirs that on one occasion, Wilson lifted up a painting on the wall at No. 10 Downing Street and pointed to some electrical wires poking out of the wall. Wilson informed Haines that this was proof of MI5’s bugging. It transpired that the wires had nothing to do with a listening device, but were instead the remnant of a light that had once hung over the picture. Haines commented:
“He gradually began to suspect everybody. He suspected MI5, he feared a military coup, he thought the Soviets or anybody else might be spying on him and it got worse and worse I’m afraid.”
At one point, Wilson organised a visit to the U.K. by C.I.A. Director, and future U.S. President, George H.W. Bush, just to ask him if his agency was engaged in trying to replace him. Bush recalled many years later that during their meeting “He (Wilson) did nothing but complain about being spied upon.” How on earth had Wilson become obsessed with this subject? To understand this, one must go back a few decades.
Between 1947 and 1951 Harold Wilson had served as Overseas Trade Minister in Attlee’s government. During this time, Wilson made three official visits to the Soviet Union with the aim of selling Rolls-Royce jet aircraft engines to the Soviets in exchange for Russian timber. This plan was controversial with the British defence establishment and became a concern of the Americans during the Korean War. It was claimed that Soviet jet fighters shot down in that conflict showed that their engines had copied and modified the British design. During the 1950’s, when Labour was in Opposition, Wilson continued to visit the U.S.S.R. to further Anglo-Soviet trade. He was the first British politician to travel to that country following Stalin’s death and was a paid consultant to a company importing Soviet timber. Wilson even played cricket with Soviet officials on the banks of the Moskva River. In 1956, Wilson was granted a private audience with Nikita Khrushchev and later declared that “the West must not underestimate this man.” Later that same year, Wilson refused to condemn the brutal suppression of the Hungarian Uprising.
Files later discovered in the Soviet archives imply that Wilson was at some stage approached by the K.G.B. with the aim of recruitment, but that he ran a mile when approached. The K.G.B. file states that “The development did not come to fruition.” Unfortunately, Wilson had already come to the attention of MI5, who had opened a file on him under the pseudonym “Norman John Worthington”.
In 1961, a K.G.B. officer, Anatoliy Golitsyn, defected to the West. Golitsyn told his Western handlers that the K.G.B. planned to assassinate a leading pro-Western Social Democrat politician and replace him with a Soviet stooge. All eyes initially focused upon West Germany, and then on the 18th January 1963, British Labour Leader Hugh Gaitskell suddenly died at the age of 56. He had only shown the first signs of illness in mid-December 1962 and his cause of death was initially unknown. Porton Down eventually established that he had died of Lupus, a rare autoimmune disease. A few days before falling ill, Gaitskell visited the Soviet Embassy in London where he had been kept waiting for a visa for a forthcoming trip. He told colleagues that he been given several cups of coffee by Soviet Officials whilst he waited to be seen. Rumours started circulating that his successor, Wilson, was helped to power by the Soviets.
One of the chief protagonists of this theory was MI5 agent Peter Wright (later notorious for his memoir “Spycatcher”). With Britain in the doldrums in the mid-70s, the rumours circulated widely. Wilson’s paranoia was further fed by the emergence of two proto-paramilitary organisations in 1974: Unison, led by former Deputy Chief of Staff of N.A.T.O. General Sir Walter Walker and G.B.75, led by S.A.S. founder David Stirling. Both Walker and Stirling said that their organisations would only assist the civil authorities if order broke down in the U.K., but Wilson perceived this as a challenge to his authority and a sign of a possible military coup.
To this day, those on the Far Left are convinced that Wilson was ousted from 10 Downing Street by an establishment campaign of smears and threats. However, Joe Haines disagreed. He stated that Wilson was tired and sick of being in government and, when he returned to power in 1974, only ever intended to rule for another two years. Haines pointed out that Wilson was relatively poor and that he relished the chance of making money in the media in his latter years. He had signed a lucrative I.T.V. contract for a television series, A Prime Minister on Prime Ministers, and had started working on the text of the accompanying book.
It is likely that Wilson retired suddenly for practical reasons. He may also have feared the onset of the Alzheimer’s that finally killed him in 1995. However, the paranoid Harold Wilson was on display a few months after his resignation when he met with B.B.C. Reporters Barrie Penrose and Roger Courtiour in his Lord North Street home. He encouraged them to investigate the establishment plot to topple his government. The quote at the beginning of this article about “…the big black spider in the corner of the room” reveal the depths of his conspiracist beliefs.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is lurching so far to the right that her friendship with Donald Trump and allied tech-bros may have cost her a key referendum.
Trump as “repellent”
In a referendum she called on judicial reforms, Italians vote 54% for the “No” campaign, while 46% supported the “Yes” vote Meloni backed.
The Conversation recently reported that any association with Trump now acts as a “repellent” for Italy’s political class. This doesn’t exclude the political right and is precisely the pathway that led to Meloni’s referendum defeat. The outlet also noted that Peter Thiel’s recent Rome visit sparked Catholic outcry, with Italians labelling Palantir CEO a heretic and an opponent of the Church doctrine. That didn’t go down well.
References to Trump now act as a repellent for the entire Italian political class, including the right. This factor played a role in the vote against the referendum, which is a major blow for Meloni. It is also worth noting that the visit of Palantir CEO Peter Thiel to Rome in March 2026 sparked both calculated political indifference and an outcry among Catholic circles: Thiel was labelled a heretic and an opponent of the social doctrine of a religious institution that remains steadfast in its defence of democracy.
This marks a sharp contrast with the warm welcome Meloni reserved for Elon Musk until 2024.
The FT reported that while Meloni’s friends include MAGA ideologue Steve Bannon and Thiel’s PayPal co-founder and longtime friend Elon Musk, Pope Leo XIV has warned of the dangers of AI.
According to MSNBC, Thiel sold out Rome to preach that Western civilisation is crumbling. He piled the blame on “people who strive for peace, work for justice, and want to embrace diversity.”
Starmer needs to pay attention
Starmer would be wise to take note of these events. Italians have started resenting Atlanticism—like in the UK, where polling showed significant opposition to the prospect of the UK blindly supporting Trump’s Iran war.
Meloni obviously ignored these signs. ECFR polling from last November showed a significant decline in trump advocates, even among members and supporters of Meloni’s party, Brothers of Italy.
The lesson for Starmer is clear. Atlanticism has a cost. In Italy, that cost was a referendum defeat.
Labour’s recent loss of a hundred-year seat to the Greens should have been a wake-up call.
Lucy Powell had an epiphany—voters need a reason to back Labour. Perhaps Powell and her boss, Starmer, should smell the coffee and accept that piggybacking with Trump and his tech-bro allies will cost Labour what little support they have left.
Featured image via the Canary
Dr Igor Merheim-Eyre is a political strategist and advisor who has worked with conservatives across the transatlantic space.
Having returned back to Blighty last year after ten years in Brussels, I’m increasingly shocked by the failures of Brexiteers to develop a positive vision for Britain as well as their readiness to avoid accountability by finding scapegoats.
Do not get me wrong, even in Brussels, I always sought to defend the democratic will of the British people, irrespective of how unpopular that opinion may have been or however many people it alienated. I wished nothing but a bright future for Britain as it was able to chart a new course outside the European Union. But it’s time to face an uncomfortable truth.
Attending a recent event with the Bruges Group, and reading posts, letters and columns of leading Brexiteers, I’m increasingly shocked by their failure to develop a positive vision of Britain.
Even worse, after winning an unexpected referendum victory in 2016, solidified with a historical General Elections win in 2019, they blew their chance at transforming Britain for the better, leaving it even more socially divided and economically weaker.
Lord Frost in a recent letter to the FT wrote that the current government’s efforts, instead of realigning with the EU, should be expended ‘on using the benefits of British national independence, while we still have it, to deregulate and improve the business environment here in the UK’. There’s little point at finger-pointing, but I had expected such government agenda from the Brexiteers, not from Labour. At least, to Lord Frost’s credit, he has been consistently critical of the Johnson Government’s delivery of post-Brexit ‘benefits’ such as net zero, overregulation, crippling taxation or the replacement of skilled nurses with Uber drivers.
The trouble is that Brexiteers had thirty years to develop a vision of Britain ‘the day after’ and they failed spectacularly. Moreover, where they spent thirty years blaming Britain’s ills on eurocrats in Brussels, they now found new scapegoats in the Whitehall bureaucracy. There is no self-reflection nor a long-term vision for Britain. There is only scapegoating and endless calls for an illusory ‘proper Brexit’ that would solve the country’s problems.
Ironically, in this, they are increasingly behaving like the euro-federalists they hate.
For euro-federalists, Europe’s problems can only be solved by a more Federal Europe: migration? More Europe; deindustrialisation? More Europe; housing crisis? More Europe. They never consider that some issues might be better solved at a national or regional level, let alone that they should be left up to individuals, civil society or markets. For euro-federalists, the failures lie with those who simply refuse to transfer an ever-growing list of competencies to Brussels and refuse the paradise of an ‘ever closer Union’; they engage in scapegoating on one hand, and conceptual day-dreaming on the other rather than securing borders or addressing economic woes.
I have studied European politics, taught European politics, worked with and in European institutions, which is why I find it curious to see that Brexiteers are, after all, increasingly behaving like euro-federalists. Perhaps, they even go further. Calling for a ‘proper Brexit’ after all those that have been tried and failed over the past decade, is reminiscent of those Marxists arguing that their ideology was never properly tried in practice and next time will be different.
I have bad news: it won’t.
The globalisation era of trade is over while the EU remains the UK’s largest trading partner by the very fact of geography. It’s also a fact that a bloc of 27 sets its own rules for trading with others, irrespective of whether we like it or not.
Lord Frost criticises the Labour government’s ‘reset’ with the EU as constituting ‘the partial re-entry to the EU’s single market…applying EU laws without any say in them, and paying for the privilege too.’ Well, yes. It should hardly come as a surprise to a man like Lord Frost who has spent considerable time in Brussels that, having left the EU, the UK is no longer able to influence key decisions.
Lord Cameron, for all his faults, already tried to explain in 2016 that the UK is too much of a large economy to be a norm-taker within a Customs Union. However, it is also not large enough to dictate to a simply larger bloc without being a full member.
Unfortunately, the Labour government is either naïve or disingenuous about this too. They cannot claim to be pursuing a membership of the EU’s single market while avoiding the freedom of movement. The EU’s four freedoms (of goods, services, capital and people) always go together, and the EU will insist on some form of free movement.
So, where does that leave Britain ten years after the Brexit referendum?
The UK now essentially has three choices: the status quo, joining the single market as a norm-taker and accepting the EU’s four freedoms, or return to full membership. This decision has to be made in a world that is once again moving towards protectionism and geopolitical blocs.
Brexiteers have proved that the status quo does not work, while a ‘proper Brexit’ is simply an illusion. They’ve had the chance to prove otherwise and they cannot hide behind Brussels or Whitehall. That leaves two other options, and I find it hard to believe that Britain, even under a Labour government lacking all ambition, would want to remain a simple norm-taker.
As for the third option, the conservative leaders of Germany and Italy are energetically pushing a new agenda that is reshaping the harmful net zero policies, cutting red tape and regaining control of external borders. Every step of the way they are proving the continued relevance of sovereign and confident states within the European Union. This will please neither Brexiteers nor euro-federalists.
Brexiteers have become like the euro-federalists they hate so much: dreaming of a fictional future without a vision for solving real-life problems, and quick to shift blame to avoid accountability. Perhaps, this should come as no surprise. Frost, Farage and Johnson are, after all, Brussels men.
Testimony given to the Undercover Policing Inquiry this week has provided further details of systematic targeting against anti-arms trade campaigners, including Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT).
On 23 March, the inquiry heard from CAAT’s media coordinator, Emily Apple. She testified to the impact of undercover police spying on CAAT and other anti-arms trade and environmentalist groups.
HN3, an undercover Met police officer operating under pseudonym ‘Jason Bishop’, had been “authorised” to target CAAT as an organisation, the inquiry heard. Among other groups Bishop targeted were Disarm DSEI and protests at the RAF Fairford base.
Bishop had even managed to become a signatory to the Disarm DSEI bank account, managed its PO Box, and had access to the organisation’s email address.
An internal police report on Bishop’s undercover activities dating to 2003 shows that the Met police’s motivation to target DSEI protesters was borne out of concern that the protests:
could influence the financial wellbeing of the State.
139 undercover officers under examination
The inquiry is examining how 139 undercover police officers working for the Met police’s Special Demonstration Squad / Special Duties Squad (SDS) spied on over a thousand anti-war and environmentalist groups between 1968 and at least 2010.
The inquiry twice refused core participant status to CAAT, despite SDS targeting it. When the inquiry initially began in 2015, it argued there was no substantive proof that the SDS had spied on CAAT.
The inquiry rejected CAAT’s second application in 2024 on the grounds that reports on CAAT were due to ‘collateral intrusion’ – meaning consequential invasion of a third party’s privacy – arising from spying on Apple.
However, in her testimony, Apple pointed to a report by SDS manager, HN49, who confirmed that HN3 (Bishop) had been:
authorised to target CAAT because the group was known to hold protests and demonstrations, which had the potential to result in serious public disorder.
CAAT was also the victim of systematic corporate spying by Martin Hogbin, who infiltrated the organisation from 1997-2003 and provided information to BAE Systems.
CAAT has asked the inquiry to investigate the relationship between its undercover officers and corporate spies, and whether any of the information reported by Hogbin to BAE Systems ended up with the Met / SDS, since Hogbin and Bishop (HN3) knew one another.
A spokesperson from CAAT said:
The latest revelations from the Undercover Policing Inquiry provide yet more sordid details of the Met’s systematic, invasive and manipulative spying on anti-arms trade and environmentalist campaigners.
It is now abundantly clear that Met police undercover officers were explicitly authorised to target CAAT, in brazen contempt for our right to protest and campaign against a corrupt and destructive arms trade. This revelation further calls into question the inquiry’s refusal to include CAAT as a core participant.
Given the established links between corporate spies like Hogbin, and police spies like Bishop (HN3), it is high time the inquiry corrected course and examined the links between corporate spies and undercover police.
At a time when the British state is at its most authoritarian and repressive towards anti-war and anti-genocide campaigners, a full accounting of all skeletons in the Met’s closet is a must.
Featured image via the Canary
We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.
In case you haven’t been to a supermarket – or, like, any shop – lately, there are a million new types of Easter eggs in the world.
We might have gotten used to the Creme Eggs and Lindt bunnies of our youths, but you can now buy a chocolate treat in basically any shape you like. Dinosaur? You got it. Poodle? No probs.
And while I’m not one to turn my nose up at any kind of post-roast (or just middle of the day) sweet treat, I have to confess that the thrill of eggs at Easter starts to wear off more with each year that goes by.
Honestly, I think that’s because spending so much time around family of a long weekend often calls for something stronger.
As one of the youngest of my extended family, it feels like I’m constantly calling for a cocktail or alcoholic beverage (pronounced ‘bever-ahj’, FYI) to get me through an evening of political pondering.
The best part of this particular penchant is that sweet treats and alcohol are not necessarily mutually exclusive, so I’ve taken plenty of pleasure in indulging in an espresso martini or spiced fruit G&T with my Fun Aunt™️.
But I’ve long been looking for a way to scratch my Easter chocolate itch while getting my bev on, so imagine my surprise when I found out an Irish Cream Liqueur could be the solution to all my problems – truly.
Coole Swan Irish Cream Liqueur
Until now, I foolishly thought ICLs were restricted to a glass of Baileys on Christmas day. And let me ask you this: is anyone actually fussed about a thick glass of glorified alcoholic milk after gobbling down every kind of carb under the sun at Christmas lunch?
So imagine my surprise when I decided to give the latest ICL, Coole Swan, a go in an inspired moment of attempting to make a hot chocolate martini.
If there’s one thing I learned from my bartending days, it’s that you have to give you liquor a taste au naturale before adding it to a cocktail. Even if it gets you fucked.
Not to sound dramatic, but that cool glass of Coole Swan on the rocks really rocked my world.
Now, another thing you need to know about me is I’m a white chocolate apologist. Sorry, sue me! One review of the liqueur hit the nail on the head when they described the experience as “like pouring white chocolate ice cream into a glass”.
It was vanillary, smooth and, best of all, not too sweet. And, thanks to being made with real Belgian white chocolate, it tasted exactly like a white chocolate ice cream – all while managing to be lighter than Baileys.
It’s no wonder, then, that Tasting Table rated Coole Swan as its No.1 Irish Cream Liqueur and another review claimed: “This is in a different league.”
Coole Swan Irish Cream Liqueur
Still not convinced? Coole Swan also boasts the title of the ‘World’s Best Liqueur’ alongside over 90 international awards.
Personally, it’s won the award of being the Most Surprising Liqueur on my bar cart. After my years of ICL avoidance, I now reach for this regularly to concoct a white chocolate martini, or when I feel like a pick me up after dinner.
I’ve even stocked up on a fresh bottle for my Easter weekend cocktails – and Tesco has £6.50 off online and in select stores when you swipe your clubcard until 4 April to mark the occasion.
For almost a year now, I’ve been taking creatine to get stronger and age better.
The supplement, traditionally associated with gym bunnies hoping to bulk up, is increasingly becoming known for effects like a better mood, an easier menopause, and better cognitive ability, too.
Some research suggests it could help to extend your attention span, too.
What is creatine?
It is not a steroid-style supplement. Creatine is a naturally occurring compound produced in our bodies by our liver, kidneys, and pancreas.
We also get about half of our creatine intake from our diet through foods like red meat, milk, and seafood.
Creatine is an energy source that helps your muscles to contract. It contributes to adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production, which helps to power our bodies, especially during exercise.
That’s partly why it’s associated with greater strength and better muscle growth. It can make running that extra kilometre, or pushing that added rep, a bit easier.
How might creatine help with attention span, memory, and mood?
OK, that explains why athletes sometimes take creatine.
But scientists are researching creatine’s effect on our brains, too.
It might, for instance, help your brain to use energy more efficiently, potentially boosting your cognitive ability.
Speaking to the University of Missouri Health, neurologist Dr Kamal Ashraf said: “The brain is a huge consumer of energy in the body. Creatine helps replenish those energy sources to help us think better and keep our mental health strong”.
A systematic review of studies from 1993-2024 concluded that creatine may have “beneficial effects on cognitive function in adults, particularly in the domains of memory, attention, time, and information processing speed”.
And a narrative review found that creatine might help to manage the symptoms of depression, too.
How much creatine should I take?
Speaking to HuffPost UK previously, GP and medical director of Midland Health, Dr Rupa Parmar, warned that creatine has “limitations” and isn’t ideal for everyone.
“If you have kidney disease or bipolar disorder, creatine may make symptoms worse,” she said. “It’s always a good idea to talk to a GP before introducing any new supplement into your diet.”
However, if you can safely take it, about 3-5g a day seems to be well-tolerated and effective (overdoing it can lead to “gastrointestinal issues like diarrhoea and bloating,” Dr Parmar told us).
BBC Question Time has defended the decision not to include Nigel Farage in this week’s episode after an attack from a Labour minister.
But when the Clacton MP did not appear on the guest panel, Home Office minister Mike Tapp wrote on X: “I seem to remember being on Question Time, a few months ago, in Dover…my constituency.
“You were too scared to even put a Reform MP up for tonight it seems. Weak.”
As the minister’s post began to go viral, BBC Question Time used its official social media account to hit back.
It wrote: “There is a longstanding policy on Question Time not to invite MPs on in their local constituencies unless it’s for a single-issue special programme.
“This is why Mike Tapp MP appeared on the panel in his constituency for the immigration special in Dover.”
Tapp’s post came in response to an explanation from Farage on social media, as he claimed that he had not been permitted to be part of the show.
The Reform MP wrote: “I wasn’t able to take part in #BBCQT from Clacton tonight, as we were told MPs are not allowed to appear on the show in their own constituencies. I’m sure I’ll be back on before too long!”
This week’s panel did include a guest who supports Reform UK – TV personality, Tom Skinner.
Question Time has previously been criticised for often platforming Zia Yusuf, who is not an elected politician but does work as Reform’s spokesperson for Home Affairs.
Farage has also been accused of rarely visiting his Essex constituency since winning the seat in July 2024.
The mainstream media – led by the ever-toxic BBC – are frothing at the mouth over a disabled woman who ‘stole’ £23,000 in benefits, then was ‘caught’ zip-lining on holiday.
You can barely move for news stories about benefits. And no, I’m not talking about the news that Motability plan to restrict how far disabled people travel. Or that the DWP will be using AI to read responses to the PIP review. Or even that MPs are calling for another carers allowance inquiry
No, the story taking up so many column inches is that of a ‘benefit cheat’. or more accurately, a disabled woman who dared to live her life and go on holiday.
BBC rabid for ‘benefit cheat’
The BBC ‘reported’:
A woman who claimed more than £23,000 in benefits, saying she was too ill to go outside, was caught surfing and ziplining in Mexico.
Catherine Wieland, 33, claimed she suffered anxiety so crippling she was housebound but the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) found evidence of her surfing in Cancun and visiting Thorpe Park three times.
Wieland, from Goring-by-Sea, West Sussex, claimed tens of thousands of pounds in Personal Independence Payments (Pip) over more than two years, spending the money on manicures, tanning sessions and trips to a private Harley Street dentist.
Obviously, the BBC is a bin fire, but fuck me, they could at least pretend to be unbiased. This reads as if it came straight from The Sun, not the BBC.
And while the BBC article was disgusting, it set the tone for the rest of the media to be just as disgusting. There are so many stories spewing the same hatred that when you Google DWP and click the news tab, there’s a whole section dedicated to just this story.
At one point the BBC ‘news’ article even details exactly how many times Wieland treated herself:
While claiming her health was so poor she could not cook or wash herself, Wieland made 76 beauty appointments, visited 60 pubs, clubs and restaurants and spent money in foreign currencies.
Media turning public against benefit claimants
Unfortunately, this all makes sense when you consider that a YouGov survey found that just 11% of people think those on benefits should be able to afford beauty treatments. 27% said you should be able to afford to go out if you’re on benefits. In the same survey, 26% said people on benefits shouldn’t be able to afford to eat a balanced diet.
Most people on benefits have experienced being asked, ‘how can you afford that?’ when they buy themselves a treat. The implication is always ‘you shouldn’t be able to afford that’. And that’s a direct effect of stories like this, where the media are screaming about how benefit cheats are ‘stealing’ taxpayers hard earned cash.
It’s also not just the media finding these stories coincidentally. As the Canary’s Hannah Sharland reported, the DWP plants benefit fraud propaganda when they need to turn the public against disabled people
It’s absolutely no coincidence that this is happening whilst the government is trying their hardest to cut disability benefits. The fact that Wieland’s anxiety was highlighted plays nicely into the DWP trying to tighten the criteria for PIP and exclude mental health conditions.
It’s also coincidentally at the same time that they’re still trying to find a way to cut the LCWRA element of Universal Credit and move it to PIP. Meaning many will be forced to work despite being too unwell to.
Disabled people should be allowed to live
This absolutely rabid coverage from the media shows just how willingly our papers are prepared to throw disabled people under the bus if it means they’ll make more money. But more than anything, it shows that society has been so turned against disabled people that it’ll only be happy if we’re all miserable and destitute.
Disabled people deserve to live full lives, without fear that our benefits will be cut for daring to enjoy ourselves. But until the media stops working for the DWP and turning the public against us, they’ll keep us afraid. And that’s exactly where the DWP wants us so we don’t attempt to fight their cruel cuts.
Featured image via the Canary
‘The Tasters’ | Image by: Luca Zontini /Busch Media
3 min read
A tense and atmospheric tale of a group of German women forced to eat Hitler’s food to check for poison, don’t watch it late at night by yourself as I did…
As our TV screens fill with images of war, it was perhaps not the right time for me personally to preview The Tasters. Though ostensibly telling the story of seven young East Prussian women coerced into being food tasters for Adolf Hitler in 1943, it is actually a tense portrayal of the cost of war for both its victims and its perpetrators.
At one level, it’s a moving tale of love, hurt, betrayal and loss in a small, deprived landscape where the toll of war on ordinary family members is achingly deep.
On another, it’s about friendship and courage surviving amid coercion, suspicion and fear. Reminiscent of the plight of the ‘comfort women’ of Japan, these seven local women are conscripted into sampling all of the food on Hitler’s vegetarian-only menu before he eats it, to ensure he’s not poisoned. This all happens in a cauldron of supressed violence. The women begin to rely on and support each other, sharing risks and hidden secrets.
The tension holds throughout, with longing for missing husbands, food and normality, and with distrust and threat lurking in every scene
The film draws on Italian author Rosella Postorino’s 2018 novel At the Wolf’s Table – a fictionalised account based on the (unsubstantiated) claims of the late Margot Wölk – the veracity of which have been questioned by some German historians. It tells the story a group of women kept at the ‘Wolf’s Lair’ (Hitler’s Eastern Front headquarters), only one of whom survives the war to tell the tale.
Their story is the frame on which the Italian director Silvio Soldini tells a wider story of the struggles endured by German women as their men fight for their country. They are daughters, mothers, sisters and widows. On the one hand they represent the universal plight of women in a conflict in which they’ve had little say in its beginning, its end or how it unfolds; on the other, the film also touches on the moral ambiguity of when the struggle to survive becomes complicity.
This German language film is an Italian, Belgian and Swiss co-production, starring the scene-stealing, entrancing Elisa Schlott, with fellow German actor Max Riemelt playing the troubled SS lieutenant Albert Ziegler. The pair form an unlikely and risky alliance.
It doesn’t make for easy viewing as the tension holds throughout, with longing for missing husbands, food and normality, and with distrust and threat lurking in every scene. Its somewhat languid, sombre, atmospheric cinematography and taut dialogue are also engaging and slightly hypnotic.
Whilst the film is a jarring personal reminder that these events took place only a short time before I was born (in Germany as it happens), it is reassuring to acknowledge that for all the awfulness of the events portrayed, Germany is now a thriving democracy, a strong ally of Britain, and a country realistic about the traumas of conflict but also the harms which can necessitate intervention. But don’t watch by yourself late at night as I did…
Baroness Hayter is a Labour peer
The Tasters
Directed by: Silvio Soldini
Venue: Selected cinemas
Caption Contest (Mona Reeves-a Edition)
The pre-written obituaries for Keir Starmer’s time in Downing Street are unlikely to be published this year.
Labour MPs from across all wings of the party have told HuffPost UK that the under-fire prime minister will survive what promises to be a catastrophic set of election results on May 7 – and see in 2027 in No.10 as well.
Voters will go to the polls in Scotland, Wales and England in what will be the biggest test of public opinion since the general election in 2024.
Even previously-defiant Labour MPs now accept that they will be catastrophic for the party.
The SNP will comfortably win the Scottish Parliament election, with Labour in a fight with Reform UK to be Holyrood’s official opposition party.
For the first time since devolution was established in 1999, Labour will no longer run the Welsh government. A YouGov poll this week suggested that Plaid Cymru will win, with Labour a distant third behind Reform.
A similar trend will be seen in local councils across England, where Labour could lose up to 2,000 seats as Reform and the Greens enjoy big gains.
And yet, despite all that, the long-expected challenge to Starmer’s leadership is not expected to materialise.
There are three main reasons for this.
The first is the fact that Parliament will be prorogued – effectively shut down – from the end of April until May 13, when the King’s Speech sets out the government’s legislative plans for the year ahead.
This will buy Starmer some time, and mean that much of the post-elections anger and thirst for retribution from the Parliamentary Labour Party will have dissipated by the time MPs meet up again.
“No.10 have pulled off a masterstroke by removing the opportunity for people to properly organise against the prime minister,” one MP told HuffPost UK.
The second reason is that there is a war on, which has undoubtedly cooled many MPs’ desire for a change of prime minister.
Even the PM’s critics acknowledge that he has handled the conflict in Iran well, and – for the moment at least – finds himself on the same side as the public on the extent to which the UK should get involved.
“Why on earth, with everything going on in the world at the moment, would we want to respond by have a leadership contest?” one MP told HuffPost UK.
“This isn’t the time to be getting rid of Starmer, it’s a time to circle the wagons.”
The third, and perhaps the main, reason why the PM’s position is more secure than it has been for months is that none of his main rivals are in a position to mount a challenge.
Even supporters of Angela Rayner agree that her decision to make a speech criticising the government and warning Starmer that he is “running out of time” was a mis-step.
“She’s annoyed lots of MPs,” one backbencher said. “It’s also made a lot of us think about the prospect of Angie being prime minister in the middle of a war, which is giving us pause for thought.”
Andy Burnham remains stymied by the fact that he is not even an MP, while Wes Streeting told The Guardian’s podcast this week that now was not the time to be contemplating a change of personnel in 10 Downing Street.
“We all know that there are lots of people in this country who voted for change, who are still demanding change and are finding us wanting because of some of the mistakes we’ve made and because they’re not yet feeling change in their own lives,” he said.
“We all know this. Keir knows this. But look at the scale of the challenges we inherited when we came in. There was never going to be an overnight transformation.
“We are beginning to see this country moving in the right direction. He’s only been prime minister for 20 months. Give the guy and the government a chance.”
Another senior Labour figure said there was a more practical reason why Starmer is safe, at least for now.
“The right of the party know none of their candidates can win, and the soft left are already getting everything they want, so why bother changing leader?,” he said
Ed Miliband’s decision to let the New Statesman follow him around for four months for an in-depth article on what makes him tick has not gone unnoticed among his MP colleagues.
Many of them are now convinced it is a case of when, rather than if, he decides to make a bid for Starmer’s job.
But few expect that to be this year – and even if he did, he would face significant opposition from within the PLP.
“The feeling I get from speaking to colleagues is that the prime minister is safer now than he has been for a long time,” said an MP, “He’s steadied the ship in the last few weeks, and is handling the war in the Middle East well.”
Keir Starmer has made a virtue of his ability to prove people wrong, be it by winning the Labour leadership in the first place, surviving the disastrous Hartlepool by-election loss in 2021, or by delivering a landslide general election victory in 2024.
Most MPs believed last Christmas would be his last one as prime minister.
Remarkably, the smart money is now on Starmer still being in charge when the decorations are taken down again next year.
Meloni faces referendum defeat due to her Trump ties
Nabung #nabung #tabungan #menabung #budgeting #uang #money
Person rushed to hospital after car and lorry crash
-
Crypto World7 days agoNIO (NIO) Stock Plunges 6.5% as Shelf Registration Sparks Dilution Worries
-
NewsBeat2 days agoManchester United reach agreement with Casemiro over contract clause amid transfer speculation
-
Fashion7 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Adidas – Corporette.com
-
Politics7 days agoJenni Murray, Long-Serving Woman’s Hour Presenter, Dies Aged 75
-
Crypto World6 days agoBest Crypto to Buy Now: Strategy Just Spent $1.57 Billion on Bitcoin During Fear While Early Investors Quietly Enter Pepeto for 150x Potential
-
Crypto World6 days agoBitcoin Price News: Bhutan Sells $72 Million in BTC Under Fiscal Pressure, but the Smart Money Entering Pepeto Sees What the Market Does Not
-
News Videos2 days agoParliament publishes latest register of MPs’ financial interests
-
Sports4 days agoRemo Stars and Kano Pillars Strengthen Survival Hopes in NPFL
-
Sports4 days agoGary Kirsten Accuses Pakistan Cricket Board Of ‘Interference’, Mohsin Naqvi Responds
-
Tech5 days agoGive Your Phone a Huge (and Free) Upgrade by Switching to Another Keyboard
-
Business5 days agoNo Winner in March 21 Drawing as Prize Rolls to $133 Million for Next
-
Sports7 days ago2026 Kentucky Derby horses, odds, futures, preview, date: Expert who nailed 12 Derby-Oaks Doubles enters picks
-
Tech5 days agoAI enters the chat: New Seattle dating app relies on tech to facilitate meaningful human connections
-
News Videos4 days agoCh 9 Financial Management Part 1 | Detailed One Shot | Class 12 Business Studies Boards 2026
-
Business7 days ago
Columbia Sportswear enters $500 million credit agreement with JPMorgan Chase
-
Tech6 days agoToday’s NYT Connections Hints, Answers for March 22 #1015
-
Business19 hours agoInstagram, YouTube Found Responsible for Teen’s Mental Health Struggle in Historic Ruling
-
Crypto World7 days agoSmall-cap Russell 2000 enters correction territory
-
Business5 days agoWill Duke Basketball Win It All? Duke Basketball Enters Second Round as Third Favorite to Claim NCAA Title
-
Sports4 days ago2026 Kentucky Derby horses, odds, futures, preview, date: Expert who hit 12 Derby-Oaks Doubles enters picks
You must be logged in to post a comment Login