Politics
The House | Government Promises Devolution Reform But Mayors Say ‘Begging Bowl’ Culture Persists
(Tracy Worrall)
9 min read
MHCLG and the Treasury are promising more powers to the devolved regions through a series of reforms. But for all the progress, regional mayors remain frustrated at a ‘begging bowl’ culture forced on them by an untrusting Whitehall. Benedict Cooper reports
At times, delivering this year’s Mais Lecture, Rachel Reeves sounded more like a fierce critic of government devolution policy than someone involved in delivering it.
The Chancellor spoke of the “stifling Whitehall orthodoxies” that have held back the regions; the “local ambition frustrated by central government control”. She attacked the “fiction that a strong economy could be built on the success of just a few places”, and called for a “genuine break with the past” as the only true solution to all of the above.
The language of the lecture must have given some relief to the mayors and officials running England’s devolved authorities. It reflected precisely their frustrations at the slow and limited nature of change.
The lack of power to raise revenues locally and to truly decide, not merely preside over, the prescribed allocation of central Treasury funds, has been at the core of discontent about the way devolution has been delivered since the start.
For now, the details of how it might be solved are with the Chancellor’s Treasury officials. To understand what’s at stake, why frustrations persist and what should be done, we’ve gone straight to the regional mayors and devolution experts.
If a single statistic can tell the story, it must surely be the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) finding, released last year, as to how much autonomy the UK gives its regions compared to other nations.
Among the OECD countries in 2024, the average proportion of overall revenues generated by a central, national exchequer was 53.2 per cent, with the rest being raised, and spent, by regional or federal authorities. In the UK, that figure was 91.8 per cent; the highest by some distance.
The UK’s economy is as centralised as it gets. It makes the Chancellor’s plan to “liberate” the regions, by granting “control over long-term, self-sustaining capital”, extremely ambitious.
Alex Walker, senior researcher at think tank Re:State and former research assistant at the Bennett School of Public Policy, says that while the scale of the job is huge, the intention is right, and necessary to redressing a paradox of the system.
“It’s a very big development,” he says. “England is a big outlier in how fiscally centralised it is. At the moment, you’ve got this decentralisation of spending responsibilities, but not really much decentralisation of revenue raising power.”
Responsibility without power is surely a political leader’s nightmare. And, Walker says, it’s the cause of a democratic deficit at the core of English devolution.
Under the current model, he says, the money comes largely out of general taxation so the accountability is upwards to the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) and various Whitehall departments: “Once strategic authorities are more financially and fiscally independent from central government it should lead to the accountability being more towards their local electorate in terms of how they are spending that money that’s being raised and generated in the local area.”
There is the way money is raised, and there is the way it is distributed, or not, to the regional authorities.
England is a big outlier in how fiscally centralised it is
Akash Paun, devolution programme director at the Institute for Government, says: “Mayors often speak of the unhelpful ‘begging bowl culture’ created by the funding system they operate within, in which combined authority budgets are a hodgepodge of grants from across Whitehall.
“This is a system that has limited the ability of mayors and local partners to develop joined-up and long-term strategies for their regions, as they have to account separately to numerous different government departments for their use of public money.”
A proposed solution to this surely unsustainable situation is the integrated settlement, an instrument introduced into the English Devolution White Paper of December 2024 as a means to grant authorities access to a “consolidated budget across housing, regeneration, local growth, local transport, skills, retrofit, and employment support”.
The idea is sound. And few would argue with communities minister Miatta Fahnbulleh’s view, who tells The House it is based on the idea that “mayors know their areas better than Whitehall ever could”.
She adds: “That’s why we’re scrapping dozens of ring-fenced grants and giving seven city regions more control through integrated settlements – so they can spend on what their residents actually need.”
Far more contentious, and many mayors say deeply unhelpful, are the many qualifications and stipulations required to reach an integrated settlement in the first place. Namely, that only those authorities proven to have met eligibility criteria and thus elevated to the status of ‘established’ mayoral strategic authority (EMSA) may qualify for an integrated settlement.
At the moment, only seven combined authorities do: in Greater London, Greater Manchester, the North East, West and South Yorkshire, the West Midlands, and the Liverpool City Region.
Seven authorities out of 16. That leaves nine working to meet the criteria to reach the status to receive the funding they need.
Those criteria are extensive. And include a contentious detail that an authority must “have been in existence, with a directly elected mayor in place, for at least 18 months” before it can even submit a request to become an established authority, let alone actually receive the integrated funding.
It has left many mayors in a state of frustration, eager to get on with the work of investing in their regions.
Not least Labour’s Claire Ward, East Midlands Combined County Authority mayor, which has hit its 18 months, applied for established status and subsequent integrated settlement, but still finds itself in ongoing talks with MHCLG about getting to the next step.Ward says: “I want it to move much faster. I want to be in a position where I’m not being held back from the things that we can do in this region because I don’t have the flexibility over the integrated settlements or I don’t have the powers that are going to come with the established status.
“As mayor I feel it’s my duty to be challenging government to explain why I can’t have those powers, why I can’t have additional funding, why I don’t have that flexibility that would allow me to do far more in terms of being able to create that growth of an opportunity in the region.
“I do not want this region to be held back any longer than it needs to be.”
This is precisely the sentiment of Paul Bristow, the Conservative mayor for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, a new mayor elected to a new role.
“We’re ready,” he says. “The authority had already done a lot of work, before I was elected last year.
“We’re following MHCLG’s guidance on when we can get established mayoral strategic authority status. The government has said it will only consider an integrated settlement for the next spending review, which is 2027.
“I want to progress that as quickly as possible, and perhaps get elements earlier, because the right time to get Cambridgeshire and Peterborough moving is now.”
The approach that’s been increasingly taken by government departments is them telling us how we should be spending the money
The sense of being held back, it seems, isn’t confined to those authorities awaiting the crucial established status.
The South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority was granted EMSA status and promised an integrated settlement as early as the white paper in 2024. Yet still its Labour Co-op mayor, Oliver Coppard, feels deprived of the powers he was promised. Coppard isn’t holding back in his criticism of a devolution system he says is “founded on a lack of trust”.
“We’ve found the process to be not in the spirit of devolution,” he says. “The principle is not being adhered to by the government. The government wants to hold onto the reins.
“And we’ve had concerns about various departments and what we are being asked to achieve with the money we’re being given. It’s the wrong way around. The approach that’s been increasingly taken by government departments is them telling us how we should be spending the money.”
Precisely what devolution was meant to undo.
There have undoubtedly been big steps forward, and real legislative action. There is grand talk of liberating the regions. But clearly, too, there is residual resistance, bureaucratic or otherwise, to releasing the reins.
“That attitude is still there in central government,” says Walker, “where the local state can’t be trusted to deliver people’s priorities. And when something goes wrong the instinct is to take it back to central government control.
“We’ve been hamstrung by a model where central government micromanages things across all of government.”
The Chancellor has identified the problems and recognised the frustrations of the regions: the begging bowl culture needs to end, and the gross imbalance in mayors’ powers and responsibility needs to be redressed.
And she has drawn broad rhetorical strokes for a solution which could truly transform the devolution process for the better.
There are risks. Vividly voicing the frustrations of regional leaders is fine, if you then fix the problems. Fail to find the right formula – or, worse, do a U-turn – and the tensions between Westminster and Whitehall on the one side, and the hamstrung devolved authorities on the other, could escalate.
Labour could find itself overseeing yet another “exercise in local ambition frustrated by central government control”, and the great opportunity devolution offers the nation as much as the regions could be lost.
An MHCLG spokesperson said: “We have a proud record on devolution. We’ve already rolled out more integrated settlements and cut bureaucracy for mayors so they have more freedom to spend in ways that they think work best for their communities. We’re not stopping there, with our English Devolution Bill, fiscal devolution roadmap, and Right to Request process we’re going even further in moving power and money out of Whitehall and into the hands of those who know their areas best.”
Politics
The House | “An evocative tale of intrigue and manipulation”: Baroness Hayter reviews ‘In The Print’
Alan Cox as Rupert Murdoch and Claudia Jolly as Brenda Dean | Image by: Charlie Flint Photography
4 min read
Tightly written and well-directed, Robert Khan and Tom Salinsky’s retelling of the 1986 Wapping dispute is a timely reflection on the human cost of technological change
Back in 1986, battles raged between police and print workers almost every night for 54 weeks at Rupert Murdoch’s new plant in Wapping, east London.
For those of us on the red benches, these events remain a vivid memory, while for most of those sitting on the green benches it is a bit of history brought to life on stage.
In The Print is a docudrama that focuses on two central characters in the dispute: the newspaper baron Rupert Murdoch, owner of four national titles, and Brenda Dean, the strong female leader of print trades union Sogat (which, several mergers later, became part of Unite).
This play manages to transport the audience into the murky world of Fleet Street at a time when the print unions wielded enormous power. The briefest of stoppages could mean no papers delivered through the nation’s letterboxes in the morning, which explains both the bargaining power of the unions – and also their weakness.
When Murdoch comes along with computer-generated pages and the ability to send these over the wires to remote print and distribution centres, the balance of power is changed.
Dean faced a heartless, rich and determined Murdoch
Playwrights Robert Khan and Tom Salinsky detail a dark but human story; one of intrigue and manipulation. They recall the calculated disinformation Murdoch uses to build his Wapping empire, claiming his new print works was for the sole production of a new evening paper, the London Post. But a leaked blueprint for the works reveals to union bosses its true purpose… to print all four titles in the Murdoch stable, The Sun, News of the World, The Times and Sunday Times.
Brenda Dean – later our much-loved and missed colleague Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde – fights a focused, tightly organised attempt to save her members’ livelihoods and future. But she faces a heartless, rich and determined Murdoch.
In a calculated move, taking the unions by surprise, a ruthless Murdoch sacks the strikers immediately after the industrial action is called, saving himself some £40m in redundancy payments.
We witness clandestine negotiations between the two, where Dean (played by Claudia Jolly) secretly meets Murdoch, played by Alan Cox (who embodies some of the character of Logan Roy portrayed by his father, Brian Cox in the TV series Succession), with scenes playing out in Dean’s home and later in Murdoch’s Californian residence.
Dean tries to negotiate a settlement for the 6,000 striking members of the print unions – only a small number of whom were highly paid printers – hoping that some jobs would be saved, and for improved redundancy offers for the rest. But she is ultimately outmanoeuvred by Murdoch, who leaves her empty handed – and ends the era of print union power.
The play is tightly written, well-directed and enlivened by a believable cast. I watched it in the company of at least one of the ‘refusenicks’ – journalists who declined the move to Wapping at the cost of their own jobs. Another companion recounted an earlier strike by Sun journalists which the print unions refused to support – perhaps heralding the reverse when printers sought solidarity.
For MPs from all parties new to the story, it portrays a lost time of strong working class bonds – when industry-based, expert union leaders had the power to tame dictatorial bosses. For older theatre-goers, it is a reminder of lost times and fights well-fought, and of the extraordinary role played by a pioneering female leader.
And for all of us, in the age of AI, an important reflection on both the inevitability and the human cost of technological change.
Baroness Hayter is a Labour peer
In The Print: Rupert Murdoch vs Brenda Dean in the Battle for Fleet Street
Written by: Robert Khan & Tom Salinsky
Directed by: Josh Roche
Venue: King’s Head Theatre, London, N1 – until 3 May
Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) edged Bayern Munich 5-4 in a first-leg Champions League semi-final that delivered everything the fixture promised, plus more.
An electric pace, finishing and a tactical chess match that rarely settled into a defensive contest. The scoreline tells the crazy story, nine goals, momentum swings and a slender advantage for the holders to take to Munich next week.
How the PSG vs Bayern Munich match unfolded
Bayern struck first when Harry Kane converted a penalty in the 17th minute, but PSG responded quickly.
Khvicha Kvaratskhelia levelled with a high-quality strike before João Neves headed the hosts in front from a corner.
Michael Olise pulled Bayern level again just before half-time, and Ousmane Dembélé restored PSG’s lead from the spot in stoppage time to make it 3-2 at the break.
The second half began in similar fashion, Kvaratskhelia and Dembélé scored within minutes to push PSG 5-2 ahead, only for Bayern to rally with headers from Dayot Upamecano and a Luis Díaz finish that reduced the deficit to 5-4.
What mattered?
Clinical finishing.
PSG scored with all five of their shots on target, an efficiency rarely seen at this level and a decisive factor in a game where both defences were stretched.
And big-game players really delivered.
In this game, Dembélé and Kvaratskhelia both scored twice, carrying PSG’s attacking threat through moments when Bayern looked set to dominate. Harry Kane’s penalty underlined Bayern’s threat, but the German side were repeatedly undone by quick transitions and individual moments of quality.
VAR and fine margins for PSG and Bayern
The match featured a contentious stoppage-time penalty for PSG after a VAR review. A later VAR check that allowed Díaz’s goal to stand after an initial offside flag was also overturned.
Those marginal decisions shaped the scoreboard and the tactical choices both managers will make ahead of the return leg.
Tactical takeaways
Luis Enrique set PSG up to attack and to invite moments of chaos. The plan worked because PSG’s forwards were sharper and more decisive in the final third.
Bayern, coached to press and probe, created chances but were vulnerable to quick counters and set-piece moments, the route by which Neves scored.
Both teams showed an appetite to win rather than to protect a result, which explains the open nature of the game and the high goal count.
Attack vs defence
Defensively, neither side can be absolved. There were positional lapses and moments of poor concentration, but the quality of the goals, long-range strikes, well-worked finishes and clinical headers, suggests this was as much about attacking excellence as defensive failure.
That context matters when assessing how the tie might play out in Munich. It has all the ingredients for another goal fest.
View this post on Instagram
What does this mean for the tie?
PSG take a one-goal lead to the Allianz Arena. In isolation that is not decisive.
Bayern showed they can score away from home and will be confident of overturning a single-goal deficit in front of their crowd. But PSG’s five goals in Paris give them a psychological edge and force Bayern to balance attack with caution in the return.
If Bayern score twice in Munich, the tie will be wide open. If PSG can nick an early goal, the pressure on Bayern increases significantly.
Players to watch in the return leg
- Ousmane Dembélé — He proves how decisive he is in the final third and how comfortable he is taking responsibility in big moments.
- Khvicha Kvaratskhelia — The timings of his two goals underline how dangerous he is in transition. When given space on the flank, he is able to change the dynamics of a game in an instant.
- Harry Kane — He is still Bayern’s focal point, as he has been for most of this season. Kane’s penalty and general ball movement will be central to Bayern’s plan to unsettle PSG. The fourth goal scored by Diaz was created by a killer pass from Kane.
The final verdict?
This was not a football match that will be remembered for defensive masterclasses, but it will be remembered for entertainment and for the way both teams committed to attack.
PSG leave Paris with a lead that is valuable but fragile. Bayern leave with belief that the tie is far from over.
The second leg promises to be tactical, intense and, given what we saw in Paris, likely to produce more goals. For neutral observers, that is exactly the kind of semi-final football the Champions League exists to provide.
An exciting potential awaits us in the second leg. If five goals are scored in the return leg, this tie would set a new record for the highest-scoring Champions League knockout tie in history.
Featured image via Getty Images/ Alexander Hassenstein
By Faz Ali
In the latest ‘turkeys voting for Christmas news’, a professional ‘diversity champion’ is running to become a Member of Scottish Parliament (MSP) for Reform UK.
This is a deeply hypocritical move for the party because Reform is supposedly against this sort of thing.
Reform UK candidate runs diversity training courses which her party wants scrappedhttps://t.co/ykV7PXti9A
— Reform Party UK Exposed
(@reformexposed) April 28, 2026
Reform’s Ross will not advocate scrapping DEI
As reported by the Edinburgh Inquirer, Angela Ross isn’t just a regular diversity champion. Ross is the co-founder of a company that provides compliance training and DEI courses.
The company ran diversity training for Northumbria Police in 2020, and Ms Ross delivered a talk promoting National Inclusion Week in 2022, including a section on “unconscious bias” and how to identify protected characteristics.
Given this, do you think Ross actually wants DEI scrapping? Or do you think she knows what we know — i.e. that Reform is a Tory-style status quo party which will make far fewer changes than it threatens to because it relies on its supporters being mad all the time?
Make no mistake, Farage has said he plans to scrap DEI as BBC Radio 5 Live reported in May last year.
Nigel Farage says Reform would end promotion of diversity programmes in the workplace.
He says it’s costing the taxpayer £7bn.
What will actually happen is: Farage gets in power, he says he can’t scrap the Equality Act because of lefty judges, and then he dines on the outrage for as long as possible. Eventually — like with the Tories — voters will wise up to the fact that this stuff was mostly just window dressing.
Oh, and according to Byline Times, the real DEI bill is actually £27 million, not £7 billion.
Is it a problem that Reform can’t do maths? Maybe the real ‘equality’ they should be worried about is that of the numbers they’re adding together.
Difficulties
Of course, none of this is to say Reform won’t do actual, serious damage to the country nor is it saying they won’t make people’s lives miserable. While Reform is incredibly unlikely to deliver on the universal deportations many of their supporters desire, that doesn’t mean they won’t make the system as pointlessly cruel as possible.
DEI stuff will be harder for them because many Britons don’t like to think of themselves as racist, ableist or sexist. Should Reform actually try to abolish DEI, they’d have to explain which bits of the Equality Act need abolishing and why. When pressed on the matter, this is something they’ve struggled with.
So… Essentially, millionaire Zia Yusuf wants to ADD a section on economic inequality to the protections under the Equality Act?
Because he claims he doesn’t want to get rid of any other protected characteristics, just also make sure white working class men are protected? — Zoe Gardner (@ZoeJardiniere) February 18, 2026
OK
https://t.co/AfB8ZS6dHP
In response to their diversity champion candidate being exposed, Reform said that Ross:
shares our view that many diversity, equity and inclusion programmes have gone too far, becoming bureaucratic, divisive and often ineffective. Having seen these initiatives from the inside, she is well placed to understand their shortcomings.
Reform UK’s position is clear: we support equality under the law and merit-based opportunity, but we oppose costly, box-ticking exercises that do not deliver real results.
Okay, so which bits are you planning to remove, lads? Can’t answer? It’s a very simple question and one which Reform is refusing to provide any detail on.
Local election section
In other local election news, another Reform politician has demonstrated an inability to understand numbers.
Reform Senedd candidate mocked for blasting 20mph speed limit while standing on a 50mph roadhttps://t.co/zJ99fZRSMp
— Reform Party UK Exposed
(@reformexposed) April 28, 2026
The party also has a politician who has decided they’re afraid to show their face online.
— Cllr Wayne Dixon (@Wayne_Dixon) April 27, 2026
The Canary’s coverage of Reform’s local election campaign includes the following stories:
- Reform UK now ‘rejecting’ Tory defectors following poll slump
- Reform candidates are making promises they can’t keep
- Reform activist said ‘Hitler was right’
- Reform candidate wants to ‘tear down’ the NHS
- Reform candidate exposed as a horny nincompoop
Featured image via Flickr/ European Parliament
By Willem Moore
On Sunday 26 April, Green Party MP Hannah Spencer complained that MPs are boozing at work. Her comments went down incredibly poorly with soused MPs and journalists, but the public overwhelmingly backed her.
Now, the debate has turned nasty, because the only establishment figures left fighting are the grimmest perverts imaginable:
Great to see that the Spectator have wheeled out their finest to attack Hannah Spencer. Only in the UK can you write a column about how you cannot be trusted not to r*pe children and still keep your job. https://t.co/REJSHUnpDn pic.twitter.com/aehRlPbsO0
— Dr Iain Darcy
(@doctoriaindarcy) April 28, 2026
Send in the creeps
Self-confessed mind-paedophile Rod Liddle’s article begins:
I think the best and most succinct description of the Green party was Tim Stanley’s ‘Stalin with a nose ring’. It gives a nod to the witless middle-class skankery of the party’s members and supporters but posits that there might be, underneath, a darker undercurrent.
This ‘dark undercurrent’ he’s talking about is not wanting MPs to drink at work – something the public overwhelmingly backs:
A total of 76% of people agree that it is unacceptable — and 52% completely unacceptable — for MPs to be drinking at work.
Labour MPs and grifter lobby journalists spent 48 hours telling us that this is a working class tradition! And that the Greens are “puritanical.” pic.twitter.com/E2f2qn3CwK — Philip Proudfoot (@PhilipProudfoot) April 27, 2026
Liddle also said:
I’m sorry Spencer doesn’t like the smell. I suspect her fellow MPs aren’t too keen on the stench of semi-digested kale which emanates from the woman, either, but we have to put these minor inconveniences aside. She represents a party which sees no harm in legalising Class A drugs, but cavils at alcohol. And she does so because alcohol is enjoyed largely by people who don’t like the Greens. It is alcohol as a signifier which annoys her, not the state of being incapacitated by it.
Rod – like your establishment media friends – you’re pretending not to understand what she said:
The UK's political culture relies on performative and aggressive stupidity to make sure nothing actually ever changes for the better. https://t.co/qlF7ePXWyX
— Marl Karx (@BareLeft) April 27, 2026
To make it simple for you:
- The Greens have spoken about legalising drugs to remove a source of income for criminal enterprise and to ensure that anyone taking hard drugs does so safely; they’re not advocating for crack pipes in the office.
- Spencer very clearly said her issue was with MPs drinking at work – not with people drinking in general.
We’d provide a longer numbered list, but we suspect Liddle wouldn’t be interested in anything past 16.
Menace to society
The next establishment figure to wade in is literally famous for being a drunken menace in Parliament. Here’s what MP Neil Coyle had to say:
I haven’t drunk alcohol in over 4 years but I don’t believe a total ban is necessary in Parliament and know Southwark brewers have loved being the guest beer in Strangers.
I’m also unaware of any Labour MP who took money from women to hypnotise their breasts larger. https://t.co/CaamewxhhD
— Neil Coyle (@coyleneil) April 28, 2026
First off, fair play to Labour politicians for sticking with the ‘hypno-boobitism’ schtick. Since they first cracked it out, the Green have overtaken them in the polls and nearly quadrupled their membership, and yet Labour MPs are still convinced the attack line is going to land at some point – an attack line which originated with the Sun, no less!
A Scottish Labour candidate in next months election using the S*n to attack Zack Polanski.
I stood on the picket line at Wapping in 1986 (I went with my mum & dad!) and I saw at first hand what the Murdoch owned scum thinks of the labour movement. https://t.co/vz0up5xbvV — Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 28, 2026
Back to Coyle, people were quick to point out he’s literally the poster boy for not allowing alcohol at work:
Four years ago he got drunk, sexually harassed a woman and was racially abusive to a journalist. And got away with it. Coyle should have maybe kept out of this one. https://t.co/mE7nBXomLi
— Dr Iain Darcy
(@doctoriaindarcy) April 28, 2026
Neil Coyle has been reinstated as a Labour MP, following a Commons suspension for breaching Parliament’s harassment rules.
He was suspended as an MP for five days in March, after a parliamentary probe found he had made racist comments towards a journalist.
He was also found to have engaged in “foul-mouthed and drunken abuse” of a parliamentary assistant to another MP.
Labour sources said his conduct would be monitored by its chief whip.
Mr Coyle, the MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, was suspended by the party last year after allegations about his comments to the reporter emerged.
The move meant he had to sit as an independent MP in the House of Commons. He was also banned from bars in Parliament for six months.
The problem with giving MPs access to cheap booze at work is it essentially encourages them to drink.
This is just another way our political establishment is at odds with the public, because Britons are overall drinking less and less. Largely, this is because people’s increased awareness of health and fitness means they understand they shouldn’t feel rundown and tetchy all the time; they should actually feel alive and happy.
Do the MPs attacking Spencer seem alive and happy to you?
Fresh, un-bloodshot eyes
While the attacks on Spencer are getting grimmer, they’re also getting lazier:
I thought this was a Green making a joke but their account is anti-Green. They thought people were gonna fall for that beer png they photoshopped onto it — cez (@cezthesocialist) April 28, 2026
I mean I commend them for not using AI at least. https://t.co/zIyHKszBLC
We predict that, a year from now, you’ll struggle to find a single MP who publicly condones drinking at work. This is the benefit of having politicians like Spencer who aren’t a product of the establishment pipeline. They point out things that are obvious to the rest of us, but are completely mystifying to the degenerates who rule the country.
Featured image via Parliament
By Willem Moore
Alan Mak MP is a former Treasury and Business Minister and Conservative MP for Havant.
The last Conservative government protected access to cash, helping small business owners, older people and others who struggle to bank online. Now, we must secure more access to face-to-face banking. High streets have changed massively over the last decade. Since 2015, over 6,600 bank branches have shut – some places have lost 90 per cent of theirs. Nearly 50 constituencies have zero branches left, and more than 90 are down to just one.
For many people, that is not just an inconvenience. It has meant losing the ability to bank at all. In coastal and rural communities like Hayling Island and small towns such as Emsworth in my constituency, if you can’t bank online and can’t easily get elsewhere, you’re cut off. This is not an abstract policy problem. It hits the everyday life of real people hard.
The Conservatives took an important and necessary step to address this before the last election. Through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which I sat on the Bill Committee for in Parliament, we placed access to cash on a statutory footing and supported the rollout of shared Banking Hubs. That was the right approach. It is already making a difference. LINK, the organisation that assesses where Hubs are needed, has carried out over 1,600 community assessments, leading to 276 Banking Hubs being recommended and delivered. But the current framework does not go far enough. It defines the problem too narrowly.
Today, the system is designed to ensure access to cash. But access to cash is not the same as access to banking, especially face-to-face banking. Being able to withdraw or deposit money is only part of what people need. Banking is also about resolving a blocked card, fixing a failed payment, getting help after fraud, or simply speaking to someone for advice or when something has gone wrong. These are not edge cases. They are everyday realities that MPs encounter from constituents all the time. For example, there are now over 3 million cases of banking and payment fraud each year, and around 70 per cent begin online. When something goes wrong, being able to speak to someone face-to-face can make the difference between stopping fraud early and losing life savings.
Nor is this a marginal issue. The FCA’s Financial Lives Survey shows that around 3.3 million people in the UK do not use online banking. More broadly, a significant minority still rely on physical services: around a quarter of people use cash frequently, and among those who are digitally excluded, that figure is even higher. The current rules do not reflect this reality. Under the existing system, communities are often judged to have sufficient provision if there is a Post Office or cash machine within one kilometre.
Of course, post offices play a vital role in providing access to cash and already form part of the solution because they operate banking hubs, separate from post office branches. But while they can facilitate access, they do not replace the full range of face-to-face banking services people rely on. As a result, too many communities fall through the cracks. They may have access to cash, but not access to banking.
This is not a failure of the model. Banking hubs are working. It is a gap in the design, which now needs to evolve to meet changing needs. That’s why I am introducing the In-Person Banking Services Bill in Parliament. My Bill will build on the success of the existing framework by placing access to face-to-face banking services on a statutory footing for the first time. It would ensure that decisions by LINK about where hubs are needed reflect access to banking services, not just cash. The Bill’s aspiration is to ensure every town or village with a population over 10,000 is eligible for face-to-face banking services through a banking hub.
The Bill is supported by AgeUK and Which? the consumer rights group, plus senior MPs including former Chancellor Sir Jeremy Hunt, former Chief Secretary to the Treasury Laura Trott MP, former City Minister John Glen MP and current Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith MP in his constituency MP capacity. Other Conservative MPs from across the country are also backing the Bill.
This is not about turning back the clock. I am a strong supporter of online banking, the wider digitisation of financial services, and indeed the UK being a leader in technology and innovation. Digital banking works well for many and will continue to do so, and most young/ working-age people rarely go into a bank branch or a hub. But a modern financial system must work for all its users, not just the majority. Older people, small business owners, people in rural, suburban and coastal communities and the digitally excluded also need access to the banking system. UK Finance, the trade body for banks, who I consulted when developing the Bill, accept this.
The Conservatives were right to act to protect access to cash. Now we must go further and secure access to face-to-face banking. Because no one should be excluded from managing their own money simply because they cannot do it online.
The government’s barrister Sir James Eadie KC has this morning told the Court of Appeal that the government’s ‘proscription’ (terrorism ban) on Palestine Action does not mean that people are not free to show support for the group.
Palestine Action appeal
The Home Office is trying to overturn the High Court’s decision that the ban is unlawful:
This is untrue. The Terrorism Act 2000 makes support for a proscribed organisation a criminal offence with sentences of up to 14 years. Some 3,300 people have so far been arrested for showing support for Palestine Action, mostly older and disabled people. The Metropolitan Police recently re-started arrested people for showing support for the group, even though the High Court ruled the ban was unlawful.
The hearing continues. Let’s hope the judges know enough to ignore the false claim and look at what Keir Starmer’s police state is actually doing.
Featured image via the Canary
By Skwawkbox
Equity, the performing arts and entertainment trade union, is asking West End performers and stage management to vote in an indicative ballot on strike action. The intention is to move producers closer to a reasonable multi-year settlement on pay, terms, and conditions.
Negotiations for a new West End agreement covering performers and stage management have been going on since December 2025. So far, they’ve been constructive. Equity is pleased with tentative proposals around improvements to maternity and paternity pay, wigs, hair, and makeup, and other terms.
Society of London Theatre (SOLT) is an industry body for London theatre owners and operators. Many, though not all, of its member venues are in the West End. It leads negotiations with unions.
However, SOLT’s proposals don’t add up to a package which meets the union’s reasonable expectations. Outstanding issues include pay, holiday, rehearsal working time, injury, and stage management differentials.
SOLT has also declined to offer payments for newly defined roles, like fight and social media captains, or resolve issues around stage management covering other roles.
Around 1,000 performers and stage management currently working across the West End come under the collective agreement. The overwhelming majority are Equity members. Members will take part in an online ballot to indicate their willingness to take strike action on Saturdays and implement an overtime ban.
First such ballot in West End since Thatcher
Additionally, members both currently working on a show and those who have worked on the West End in the past three years are being asked whether they back the union’s negotiating position. The union is balloting almost 3,000 members in total for their view. Equity is urging members to vote yes on both questions to help move talks forwards.
Equity has not conducted an indicative ballot of this type on the West End since Margaret Thatcher’s restrictions of trades union freedom in the 1980s.
Paul W Fleming, Equity general secretary, said:
Despite a positive and constructive start to negotiations, SOLT have made it clear that they are unwilling to make significant changes to the packages they have proposed. Those packages offer only a small percent above inflation over four years, after a record breaking period for West End revenue.
We hope a strong message from the workforce backing the core elements of our revised claim will support SOLT negotiators in moving their members to an acceptable settlement. Members and producers alike should be in no doubt that if a strong result in these ballots do not result in serious movement from SOLT, then a summer of disruption awaits.
SOLT has repeatedly reported record revenue over the last three years, where our members’ pay has barely kept pace with inflation, and minima have not yet returned to their pre-pandemic value. Whilst record revenue will not mean record profit for all producers, it’s clear that when suppliers, some of whom have doubled their costs since the pandemic, refuse to service productions, money is found to pay them.
Our members have waited in line to see their wages rise, and to have a more modern work-life balance in a precarious industry. In the smallest theatres, performers on the minimum earn less than the UK median wage per week, and all artists receive 20% less holiday weeks than most workers. If SOLT is serious about a modern industry, these negotiations must be a meaningful step forward. Producers need to pay up.
The ballot is online and is an indicative (ie consultative only, not statutory) ballot. It opened on Monday 27 April and will close on Monday 18 May.
Featured image via Equity
By The Canary
The former head of Mossad, Tamir Pardo, has compared Israeli settler violence in the occupied West Bank to the Holocaust.
Tamir Pardo, former Mossad head, on a tour documenting Jewish settler terror in the West Bank: “My mother is a Holocaust survivor, and what I saw here reminded me of the events of the previous century against the Jews.“ pic.twitter.com/o1eJ9vkhDi
— Etan Nechin (@Etanetan23) April 28, 2026
Former Mossad boss speaks out
Of course, if anyone in the West said that, Zionists would accuse them of antisemitism. But seen as though an Israeli said it…
The former head of the Mossad is comparing the actions of Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank to Nazis in the Holocaust.
If someone said that in the West they’d be accused of antisemitism under the IHRA definition. https://t.co/6eJGdJDr8F
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) April 28, 2026
Worth pointing out that under the definition of antisemitism pushed by the ADL, this former head of Mossad and son of a Holocaust survivor would be considered antisemitic. https://t.co/7hDL34slXM
— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) April 28, 2026
Just wait for the headlines accusing left-wing activists of being antisemitic. Oh, wait, it was the former head of Mossad.
another clueless lifelong peacenik activist
oh wait no, a former head of the Mossad https://t.co/VePgYt2PdY
— Globalize Humanity #NAFO (@uavictory22) April 28, 2026
Eighty-two percent of Jewish Israelis support expelling Palestinians from Gaza. Meanwhile, 56% back the expulsion of Arab citizens of Israel. This means that the majority of Israelis have either directly taken part in the genocide because of conscription laws or support it, which means their feelings are irrelevant.
Meanwhile, the West refuses to call Israeli’s what they are – modern-day Nazi’s.
Israeli officials when they stop being in charge: “Everything this country does reminds me of the nazis”
Some dumbfuck in the west: “Nooo don’t call them nazis that’s mean >:( Israel can do no wrong, they told me so!” https://t.co/0FgNEgD5Ry
— Kat
(@Katauroraaa) April 28, 2026
Increasing violence
The ex-Mossad boss’s intervention comes as settlers in the West Bank continue to be increasingly violent towards Arabs.
As the Canary previously reported:
According to the Colonisation and Wall Resistance Commission, as of 22 April, 49 Palestinians have been murdered by illegal settlers in the West Bank since 7 October, 2023. 14 of these Palestinians lost their lives in 2025, while since 1 January, 2026, 15 Palestinians have been murdered by these colonists as of 22 April.
Only this week, the Red Crescent announced that Israeli settlers wounded a 14-year-old Palestinian in the village of Jalud, south of Nablus.
Several dozen settlers were documented arriving at the outskirts of the village and throwing stones. They then attempted to set a house on fire.
הסהר האדום הודיע כי פלסטיני בן 14 נפצע מוקדם יותר בתקיפת מתנחלים בכפר ג’אלוד דרומית לשכם. כמה עשרות מתנחלים תועדו מגיעים לפאתי הכפר ומיידים אבנים ובסרטון אחר יידוי אבנים הדדי של פלסטינים ומתנחלים במקום. תועד גם ניסיון להצית בית, לא ידוע על נפגעים מההצתה. במשטרה הודיעו כי ישראלי… pic.twitter.com/WZzOoYWJXb
— Nurit Yohanan (@nurityohanan) April 27, 2026
Settlers also demolished an EU-funded school.
Amid continued vandalism, thefts and arson, Israeli settlers demolished an EU-funded school in the West Bank.
Over 40 children lost their right to education. Their community was forced to flee, fearing for their lives.
The EU demands accountability and respect for IHL. pic.twitter.com/gRCDttMg6s
— Hadja Lahbib (@hadjalahbib) April 27, 2026
On Saturday, 25 April, settlers carried out widespread attacks across the occupied West Bank. This included forced displacement, arson, and armed assaults.
It starts at the top
Importantly, though, the rot starts at the top. Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Sharren Haskel, visited an illegal outpost in the village of Umm al-Khair, armed with a pistol.
Armed with a pistol, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel visited the illegal outpost built by sanctioned Israeli settler terrorist Yinon Levy — the settler who murdered Awad Hathaleen — in the village of Umm al-Khair in the West Bank.
This is not a remote outpost run… pic.twitter.com/XqFRxhtll3
— Ihab Hassan (@IhabHassane) April 27, 2026
This is the same place where illegal settlers put up a fence to cut off children from their school. When the children tried to go around the fence, IOF soldiers launched tear gas and sound grenades at them. The children were as young as five years old.
Then, Sharren Haskel showed up, armed, and in solidarity with settler terrorists, not with Palestinian victims.
The Israeli government has openly funded and built illegal settlements for Jews to live in.
Several Israeli laws enable illegal settlers to steal Palestinian land.
Firstly, Israel has declared about 26% of the West Bank’s territory as “state land”. This means settlements can be built on it.
Secondly, Israel has used legal means to expropriate Palestinian property for public needs such as roads, settlements and parks.
According to Al Jazeera,
There are also Israeli “nongovernmental” organisations that work to evict Palestinians from their land using loopholes in the land laws.
Israeli authorities also regularly seize and demolish Palestinian properties citing the lack of Israeli-issued building permits and land documents.
But international rights groups say acquiring an Israeli building permit is nearly impossible.
Settler terrorism is literally Israeli government policy, funded by the state and protected by the IOF. Israel is operating exactly like Nazi Germany, through a system of apartheid, forced expulsion, violence and starvation, all because a man in the sky promised Jews the land 3000 years ago. Yet westerners are regularly called antisemitic for comparing Israel to Nazi Germany.
But who are we to argue with the former head of the Israeli secret service?
Feature image via Times Originals/YouTube
By HG
On Tuesday 28 April, Morgan McSweeney appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee. In doing so, he no doubt hoped to weasel out of the recent scrutiny he’s faced for his role in making Peter Mandelson the ambassador to the US. Instead, he exposed the existence of a secret meeting between himself and the PM:
McSweeney says there was a meeting in which Starmer decided to appoint Mandelson. But apparently there is no record of that meeting.
— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) April 28, 2026
Secrets upon secrets from McSweeney
Times political editor Steven Swinford reported the following:
Morgan McSweeney reveals that Sir Keir Starmer held a meeting in mid-December where a decision was made to appoint Lord Mandelson as US ambassador
To be clear, this was before Mandelson was vetted. This provides further evidence that Starmer and those around him were planning to appoint Mandelson regardless.
Swinford also said:
There is no record of this meeting. There is no minute of the discussions or the reasoning behind the appointment at the time. The Cabinet Office simply can’t find it. It does not appear to exist.
So a really significant meeting on the appointment of the US ambassador – one which has had huge ramifications for Starmer’s premiership – only appears to exist in the memory of those who were present.
This is probably obvious, but government officials aren’t supposed to be having secret meetings; everything is supposed to be recorded.
This isn’t the only secret meeting Starmer is facing questions over either. As we reported, Starmer also secretly met with Palantir (with Peter Mandelson in tow no less). Starmer’s defence for this was that the meeting was not in fact a ‘meeting’; something he claimed despite personally referring to it as a “meeting” on at least one other occassion.
The amount that Starmer's team thinks they can get away with on technicalities is obscene, but this one really takes the piss. What the fuck do you mean it wasn't a meeting. Was it a Subbuteo tournament? https://t.co/QiA1Rgnasb
— Willibee
(@Willibee64) April 25, 2026
Weasel words
McSweeney contradicted himself at points in the hearing. As Swinford reported:
Morgan McSweeney says that he was concerned that Lord Mandelson was not telling the ‘full truth’ in response to questions about his links to Jeffrey Epstein
But the appointment went ahead anyway.
This would have been a staggering revelation. The assumption up until now has been that McSweeney was the key driver behind the decision to make Mandelson the ambassador. If he’d been a Mandelson-doubter, that would have made Keir Starmer look even worse than he already does.
In his own words, McSweeney said:
It was the prime minister’s decision
I certainly think it would have been much, much better if I’d asked PET to ask those follow-up questions. I guess my thinking at the time was I’d put follow up questions to him in writing, and that if a senior member of staff did that, that he would feel more obligated to give the truth and the full truth.
I didn’t feel that I got that back from him, but it wasn’t my decision. It was the prime minister’s decision, and he saw the DV as part of that decision.
As Swinford later noted, however:
McSweeney is now going back on this. He says: ‘When he wrote back to me I assumed, wrongly, that he was telling the truth’
Earlier he said he didn’t feel he got the ‘full truth’ back from him
— Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) April 28, 2026
Given this, you can see why McSweeney has avoided speaking in public before now.
The guy clearly has no ability to keep track of his own lies.
Epic
Paul Holden – author of The Fraud – noted that McSweeney and Labour Together worked together on an “epic campaign to destroy the left”:
Fitting the Committee ends with a poorly posed question about Labour Together, which McSweeney can then claim was a kumbaya effort to stop the Party imploding.
Sorry, pal, your besties like @SteveReedMP already spilled the beans & bragged about LT's epic campaign to destroy the… pic.twitter.com/ePucUdWRGn
— The Fraud (@StarmertheFraud) April 28, 2026
McSweeney was actually very successful in his mission to destroy the left…
…kind of.
He and Starmer managed to banish left-wingers from the Labour Party, but those people didn’t cease to exist. If you’re wondering what they’re doing now, the answer is ‘voting Green’.
This is how that’s predicted to shape up in the fast-approaching local elections:
Median estimate via @Moreincommon_, April '26 pic.twitter.com/OFxPMxmoUV
— Stats for Lefties
Projected net changes for local elections:
Ref +1,437
Grn +926
Lib +327
Con -627
Lab -1,738
(@LeftieStats) April 21, 2026
This is Morgan McSweeney’s legacy.
He can pretend to be a moderate sensiblist in committee hearings all he likes, but this man’s rampant incompetence jump-started the terminal decline of one of the world’s longest-running labour parties.
Featured image via Foreign Affairs Committee
By Willem Moore
Tony Blair’s think tank has called for people with anxiety, depression and ADHD to be banned from claiming Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) disability benefits.
The latest in a long line of murky think tanks weighing in on benefits, the Tony Blair Institute says the government should pull the ’emergency handbrake’ on benefit claims. Whatever the fuck that means. The institute, founded by the former Prime Minister and war criminal, is claiming that the current system is ‘vulnerable to misuse’.
This is a ridiculous statement clearly made by someone who has never had to claim benefits. Anyone who knows how complex it is to navigate the system.
Warmonger attempts to make disabled people the enemy
The Tony Blair Institute wants to make what they call ‘non-working limiting conditions’ ineligible for benefits. This includes, instead, these people would be pointed towards treatment. Which is hilarious when you consider how much stress the NHS is already under and the backlog there already is for ADHD and mental health diagnosis and treatment.
Speaking to the Telegraph the Tony Blair Institute said
The handbrake is based on a simple idea: there are certain conditions that in the vast majority of cases do not limit an individual’s ability to work, and the default presumption should be that these non-work-limiting conditions no longer attract cash benefits
This is yet another think tank that wants to cut benefits for people with mental health and neurodivergent conditions whilst at the same time the government is trying to prove they’re over-diagnosed. This is despite experts already coming out and saying otherwise
And once again, they rely on this false idea that you do not need medical proof to get disability benefits. The Telegraph article said:
While it stressed there would be no blanket ban on claims, the TBI said claimants would have to support them with medical evidence.
It’s absolutely absurd that we’re expected to believe that neither the Telegraph nor a think tank ran by Tony sodding Blair knows you need mountains of evidence to qualify for Personal Independence Payment or the health element of Universal Credit.
But once again, they’re relying on the general public, who they’re attempting to turn against disabled people, not knowing.
They’re also relying on the public not knowing that PIP isn’t awarded based on what condition you have, but how the conditions affect your life and your ability to do things. During the 2025 PIP cut proposals, the DWP wanted to make mental health and neurodivergent conditions ineligible by changing the daily living criteria scoring system. They failed on that, so the Tony Blair Institute wants to bypass that completely.
There’s also the fact that it almost definitely won’t be medical professionals who decide which conditions are ‘work-limiting’ or not. It’ll be politicians and shadowy think tanks who want to do everything they can to cut benefits.
Tony Blair Institute policy quickly falls apart
In theory, it’s enough to get all the right wing disability haters rubbing their trousers, but practically it doesn’t work.
Most disabled people don’t just have one health condition; I’ve got thirteen. In theory I’d be disqualified because I have mental health and neurodivergent conditions, but I’ve also got a whole host of other things. Would I only be able to claim for them? Or would I be blanket-banned?
And there’s the big elephant in the room here that the right wing shitrags and the think tanks started by fucking ghouls like Blair and Iain Duncan Smith want us to ignore. Say it loudly: PIP isn’t an out-of-work benefit. And that while UC Health element is at the minute, the DWP plans to move it over to PIP too.
I, and many others, claim PIP and work – and the DWP know this. It’s absurd to propose restricting benefits only to conditions that stop you from working, when many disabled people rely on PIP so that they can work in a way that is safest for them without having to worry about not earning enough.
It’s clear this is yet another ‘policy’ that has been created so the bullshit rags on the right have another excuse to turn the public against disabled people.
Another way to turn the public against disabled people
And that’s exactly what this is designed to do, so that it’s easier for the DWP to cut benefits in the first place.
To back up this bullshit, the Tony Blair Institute also commissioned YouGov to ask a section of the UK public their thoughts on benefits claimants. One question, which shows you how vile their polling is was
Do you personally know anyone who you believe is receiving health-related welfare benefits, but you think does not genuinely need them?
This question doesn’t really do anything to further the Tony Blair Institute’s point except show that the DWP’s propaganda is working. These people have no proof, they just think they know someone who is gaming the system, based on what the media and government saturating them with constant stories of ‘lazy benefit skivers’.
In the current climate when working class people are spending every bloody hour working and still not being able to afford a good life, you can see why so many have been turned against those on benefits. But what this really speaks to is who holds all the power.
At the end of the day, your wages aren’t going to increase if your neighbour who you think doesn’t deserve it loses their benefits. Food and bills will still continue to go up. And when they’ve turned us all against disabled people, immigrants and every other minority, they’ll come for you too.
Featured image via the Canary
Kylie Jenner Clutches Timothee Chalamet on Courtside Date
Nigel Farage reveals home was firebombed – and billionaire funds his security
Earnings call transcript: Fortum Q1 2026 sees solid profit growth amid market challenges
Manchester United reach agreement with Casemiro over contract clause amid transfer speculation
US brings back mandatory military draft registration
Steven Gerrard disagrees with Gary Neville over ‘shock’ Chelsea and Arsenal claim | Football
-
Tech2 days agoRegister Renaming | Hackaday
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World4 days agoHyperliquid $HYPE Rally Builds Momentum as AI Sector Enters Prove-It Phase
-
Politics7 days agoMaking troops accountable for war crimes threatens US alliance, ex-SAS colonel warns
-
Politics7 days agoDisabled people challenge government SEND proposals over segregation concerns
-
Business5 days agoPatterson-UTI Energy, Inc. (PTEN) Q1 2026 Earnings Call Transcript
-
Business7 days agoRolls-Royce Voted UK’s Most Iconic Trade Mark as IPO Register Hits 150
-
Sports3 days agoIPL 2026: Ruturaj Gaikwad registers slowest fifty of the season, enters all-time unwanted list | Cricket News
-
Politics2 days agoDrax board avoid their own AGM, accused of greenwashing & environmental racism
-
Politics7 days agoZack Polanski responds to home secretary’s taser threat
-
Politics7 days agoStarmer handler McSweeney to be dragged from shadows by Foreign Affairs Committee
-
Politics7 days ago
Wings Over Scotland | How To Get Away With Crimes
-
Politics7 days ago‘Iran is still a nuclear threat’
-
NewsBeat3 days agoLK Bennett closes all stores after entering administration
-
Sports6 days agoTim Bradley names the current best in the world: “Better than Inoue and Usyk”
-
Crypto World5 days agoMichael Saylor says BTC winter is over. Market analyst disagrees, says bitcoin was in a pullback
-
Entertainment4 days agoMariah Carey Slams Deposition Claims In Brother’s Lawsuit
-
Business6 days ago
Altimmune prices $225 million public offering at $3 per share
-
Entertainment6 days ago
Michael B. Jordan and Austin Butler's “Miami Vice” movie will bring the action back to the '80s
-
NewsBeat5 days agoTrump threatens to review UK’s claim to Falkland Islands and punish Nato allies over Iran war disagreement
You must be logged in to post a comment Login