Parliamentary staff are outraged by MPs receiving a larger pay increase than them for the next financial year (Alamy)

3 min read48 min

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) announced on Monday that MPs’ basic salary will rise by 5 per cent to £98,599 a year from April, while also aiming to move towards a salary of around £110,000 by the end of the Parliament, due in 2029. The MPs’ pay decision for 2026-27 includes a 1.5 per cent benchmarking adjustment, as well as a 3.5 per cent cost-of-living increase.

IPSA chairman Richard Lloyd said the role of an MP had “evolved”, with parliamentarians “dealing with higher levels of complex casework, and abuse and intimidation”.

However, MPs’ staff are only being offered an ‘optional’ 3.5 per cent pay increase, despite months of lobbying by the trade union and some MPs for a substantial rise in staffing budgets due to low pay and unsustainable workloads.

One parliamentary staffer, granted anonymity to speak freely, called IPSA “a bunch of useless bean-counting morons”.

“I can’t tell you the level of fury among MPs’ staff about this announcement from IPSA,” they said.

They called the decision to raise MPs’ salaries to nearly £100k to include a “cost of living” increase “mind-blowingly tone deaf”.

“It’s staggeringly incompetent and makes MPs’ and their staff’s lives harder. In a nutshell, IPSA treats MPs’ staff with total contempt. Not just on this issue, the whole thing needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt from scratch.”

PoliticsHome understands that some parliamentary staff were on a call with IPSA to discuss the pay increase last week, with some in attendance feeling that concerns about workload were met with a dismissive response.

MPs also have the authority to block their staff from receiving the pay rise. PoliticsHome understands some parliamentarians, including Labour MPs, signed to prevent their staff from getting pay uplifts last year.

Lisa Gillmore, GMB MPs’ and peers’ staff branch president and senior parliamentary researcher, said: “The GMB MPs’ and Peers’ Staff Branch wants to see a fair pay deal for everyone working in Parliament, but struggle to understand why IPSA think the cost of living is 1.5 per cent lower for caseworkers, researchers and office managers than it is for MPs.

“Staff handle the complex casework and safeguarding issues, and face escalating abuse. Many of those same staff are earning just above the minimum wage.

“MPs’ staff have experienced a pay cut of 14.6 per cent since 2019 based on RPI, while workloads have increased significantly, leading to long hours, stress, and burnout. 58 per cent of our members feel that their salary does not reflect their responsibilities and workload. If rising living costs justify a 5 per cent increase for MPs, IPSA must explain why this does not extend to staff.”

Another parliamentary staffer said: “The most offensive thing about the 5 per cent rise for MPs is that their justification – rising casework, increasing abuse, new demands on time – are all borne first and foremost by staff. 

“We’re the ones who pick up the phone, or read the emails, or go through the social media feeds reading bile and looking for death threats. We’re the ones who, despite a significant increase in casework and demands on time, have to make do with the same budgets and staff numbers.”

Parliamentary staff have pointed out that their pay consistently lags behind the civil service, despite fewer opportunities for growth and promotion. For many junior staff working in Westminster, they now earn barely more than the living wage.

IPSA has been contacted for comment.

US President Donald Trump’s war on Iran is illegal. That’s the view of former senior US military officials. And Keir Starmer and other allies need to adjust their involvement accordingly.

Former air force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham served as chief of international law at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). She told the Intercept on 1 March:

Not only does this violate international law in numerous respects, it clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.

Here’s some of the key legal context:

The United Nations Charter generally restricts the use of force to cases of self-defense or with approval from the U.N. Security Council. The Constitution separately gives Congress the power to authorize offensive war.

Clearly Trump and Israel hit first on 28 February. There was no imminent threat. In fact, negotiations with Iran had made unprecedented advances in the hours before the attack.

The Intercept reported:

The War Powers Resolution also requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and limits how long those forces can operate without congressional approval.

VanLandingham said:

This is an introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities. It absolutely triggers the 48-hour notice requirement.

The US – and now, the UK – are at war with no democratic debate or approval having been established. The fact four US military personnel were killed in Kuwait adds more urgency to the issue:

The fact American service members died in the operation raises further legal concerns, she said, as Congress is intended to decide when American lives are placed at risk in offensive wars.

Trump and unauthorised use of force on Iran

Even Democrats – who haven’t resisted the war, but rather asked to have oversight – have been calling for a vote:

Rep. Becca Balint told the outlet:

Speaker [Mike] Johnson must immediately reconvene the House so we can pass a War Powers Resolution to rein in this unauthorized use of our military and taxpayer dollars.

Retired Air Force special operations member Wes Bryant also spoke to the Intercept. He also served as:

chief of civilian harm assessments at the Pentagon’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence.

Bryant warned:

To say there’s no risk to U.S. troops … I wouldn’t call it naive. I’d call it a pure lie.

He was concerned about ‘mission creep’ as the war escalated:

Bryant said the scope of the strikes suggested major combat operations that could quickly tip toward large-scale conflict in a densely populated country, with predictable risks to both U.S. troops and civilians.

Adding:

I’m surprised it’s only been three deaths. It will be more if this continues and we lose the initial shock value.

Former US Marine and State Department official Matt Hoh told the Intercept:

If these reports are accurate, this should be very concerning to U.S. forces. Iranian missiles and drones were able to breach U.S. defenses very early in the conflict.

But what role is domestic ambition playing in Trump’s drive to war?

Domestic politics drives Trump

After the strikes began Trump repeated an old conspiracy theory that Iran had interfered with the 2020 election results. VanLandingham said this was important. Trump’s attack is partly driven by domestic politics and an urge for revenge.

What’s chilling is that he’s tying this attack against another country to domestic politics as a way to further consolidate power over his base and potentially link the use of force to domestic use of force this fall.

She added:

It’s mind-boggling. But when you look at it, it makes rational sense for him to say, ‘I’m doing this because I’m taking out everyone who stood in my way in 2020″.

VanLandingham said:

He is linking it to his own domestic grievances because he is laying the groundwork, I strongly believe, to use the U.S. military improperly.

The Pentagon has confirmed that Iran had no intention of launching strikes prior to the US-Israel bombardment.

The US seems determined to keep bombing for now. And Trump seems determined to use the opportunity to shore up his power at home. The fact that his ambitions have already cost hundreds of lives in Iran, across the region and among his own citizens is unlikely to slow him down.

Featured image via the Canary

Hollywood is still hell-bent on attacking a man with Tourette’s. Most disgusting of all was Saturday Night Live’s (SNL) sketch in which celebrities who’ve been accused of various harmful actions ‘jokingly’ blamed their actions on Tourette’s.

Last week was absolutely horrific to witness as a disabled person. In the aftermath of the BBC airing a man with Tourette’s shouting the N word at two black actors, disabled people, and particularly people with Tourette’s, faced off-the-scale hatred.

SNL airs fucking disgusting sketch

Don’t get me wrong, Black people had every right to be hurt and upset about what happened, even though many attacked them for being hurt. And, disabled people were shot down when it came to correcting misinformation. Social media, the papers and TV were full of people essentially saying that people with Tourette’s should not be allowed in public.

Seeing that was bad enough, but then Saturday Night Live aired a fucking horrific sketch.

brought to you by the national workforce of rethinking disabilities pic.twitter.com/F5Fj1wpPhJ

— Saturday Night Live (@nbcsnl) March 1, 2026

In the skit, celebrities who are seen as ‘controversial’ speak to the camera in a personal service announcement style. They tell the audience that actually their horrific behaviour isn’t their fault. In the scenario they realised, thanks to the BAFTA incident, that they have Tourette’s.

Firstly, we see a comedian playing Mel Gibson excusing his own behaviour with Tourette’s. Just to remind everyone, Gibson previously said that Jews rule the world and told his ex-girlfriend she should be raped by Black men. This attempts to place intentional racism as somehow comparable to something involuntary i.e. Tourette’s tics. Thus, the ‘joke’ suggests says that John Davidson was intentionally racist.

But it gets worse.

The sketch also features several known abusers, excusing their actions with Tourette’s. Louis CK blaming exposing himself to women on Tourette’s; Armie Hammer excusing mentally and physically abusing women via Tourette’s; Bill Cosby saying he drugged and raped multiple women because he has Tourette’s.

The message is clear: we don’t believe you

By ‘excusing’ intentional abuse, harm, and other heinous actions via Tourette’s, it’s portraying the condition itself as an excuse. As last week has brought to the fore, Tourette’s is not intentional, and people with the condition are often deeply distressed by their tics.

The message to people with Tourette’s is clear: we don’t believe you and think you’re weaponising your disability

But it also sends a clear message to all disabled people who’ve been trying to raise awareness of a deeply misunderstood condition.

It’s bad enough to see a disabled man mocked by the biggest comedy show in the world. But to then have his disability used to excuse some of the most horrific celebrities who have committed the very worst crimes is inexcusable. SNL knew exactly what they were doing. They took a scenario that sparked widespread anti-Blackness and ableism, and made a further mockery of people with Tourette’s.

The video is the very definition of punching down.

Featured image via X

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) announced that it is pausing the Pathways puberty blocker trial for trans youth healthcare.

A week later, the MHRA announced that it was recusing Professor Jacob George from the trial due to his social media posts. Although the medications watchdog didn’t go into detail, it turns out that George has a history of posting transphobic bile.

Except, George isn’t just some guy who was working on the trial. He’s the chief medical and scientific officer of the agency – a role that was created just one month ago. George also happens to be the one who raised the ‘concerns’ that led to pausing the trial.

Are we even pretending that this isn’t a fucking stitch-up any more?

Puberty blocker trial

As a quick recap for the situation – we’re testing puberty blockers in the first place on the recommendation of Dr Hilary Cass. The government appointed Cass to review trans youth healthcare in the UK in spite of the fact that she has no experience in trans care whatsoever.

Her review has been roundly criticised as bunk science based on the foundational assumption that being trans is a bad thing. Nevertheless, her conclusions were used as an excuse to justify the continued halt of the use of puberty blockers in the UK.

That gutting of trans youth healthcare caused a massive spike in suicides. The government lied about it repeatedly.

Meanwhile, the same puberty-blocking medications are still used routinely for children with precocious puberty. For some reason, we’re not at all concerned about the safety of these medications when they’re not given to trans people. Funny, that.

When Cass’ recommended trial rolled around, it was criticised for coercing trans kids to participate in a study in order to access healthcare. Likewise, advocacy group TransActual highlighted that the senior personnel of the study were a who’s who of medical transphobia.

Cue Professor Jacob George.

Anybody checking for bigots?

George entered his position as the MHRA’s chief medical and scientific officer on 5 January, just two months ago.  The newly-minted civil service role would have him oversee the agency’s scientific, research, and innovation activities.

George’s posts characterised trans people as a “militant minority” opposed to women’s rights, and urged:

Citizens, wake up and smell the coffee.

He called the inclusion of Imane Khelif – a cis woman boxer – in the sport a:

denial of biological reality [who] means that women are being put at risk of brain injury

Likewise, George also fawned over notable transphobes like JK Rowling and Ted Cruz, calling the former “a treasure of our time”.

On 27 February, the MHRA quietly announced that it was removing George from overseeing the puberty blocker trial. The agency stated that:

Following the identification of social media posts made prior to his appointment, Professor Jacob George is recused from further involvement on the Pathways clinical trial as a precaution.

Because the abundance of caution in trans youth medicine apparently only extends to making sure an open bigot isn’t in charge once it gets aired on the fucking radio.

Suddenly, the MHRA has issues

On George’s recommendation, just a month into his new job, the MHRA paused its puberty blocker trial. A letter from the agency to the Department of Health and Social Care ( DHSC) cited a need for more stringent bone density monitoring, among others. It also stated that:

Since potentially significant and, as yet, unquantified risk of long-term biological harms is present to participants and biological safety has not been definitively demonstrated in this proposed cohort, at the very least, there should be a graded/stepwise approach starting with those aged 14 as the lower limit of eligibility.

In spite of George’s recusal, the pause is still in place. King’s College London, the trial sponsor, is now in talks with the MHRA to address the ‘concerns’. A DHSC spokesperson said:

‘Political pressure’

To be clear: the MHRA previously approved the Pathways trial methodology, before George was appointed (and before his job even existed). However, the study later met with objections from vocal transphobes in society. Even Hilary Cass identified the fucking stitch-up:

There are no new research findings and the MHRA hasn’t presented any new evidence. It feels to me like they are responding to political pressure rather than to science.

She added that raising the age limit to 14 made no sense:

will make the results invalid. It would make the design really, really flawed and you should not be subjecting children to a flawed study.

And highlighted other, even more nonsensical points in the MHRA’s letter:

There were some bizarre things, that children won’t be able to tell you if they’re bleeding. Well, anyone who can’t tell you if they’re bleeding can’t consent to this treatment. That seemed completely bizarre.

‘No compelling scientific reason’

Likewise, Dr Max Davie, a paediatrician with experience at the NHS Children and Young People’s Gender Service, was more direct in naming Prof George as the issue:

The tweets by Professor George give a clear indication of his personal views on the topic. He is quite at liberty to hold whatever views on gender identity he may, but what he cannot do is allow these views to affect the fulfilment of his public duty.

He added:

To be clear, there is no compelling scientific reason to halt the Pathways trial. While Prof George’s personal convictions are not the only possible explanation for the MHRA’s abrupt volte-face, it is the only one for which we have evidence.

The current pause on the Pathways trial is just another chapter in this whole sordid and biased affair. Trans healthcare is being held to an impossible double standard.

Transphobes know that the government will seize on their every criticism, no matter how spurious. If they can’t halt gender-affirming care entirely, they’ll delay and reduce it, causing death by a thousand cuts.

First, we needed to deny hormone therapy in favour of puberty blockers. Then, we needed to stop blockers in favour of a trial. Now, we need to stop the trial in favour of sweet fuck all.

Meanwhile, it’s the UK’s trans youth paying the price for this open bigotry.

Featured image via the Canary

Prime Minister Keir Starmer addressed the House of Commons on Monday afternoon (Alamy)

4 min read21 min

Over the weekend, the US and Israel carried out military strikes deep inside Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior officials.

Iran has retaliated by firing missiles and drones across the Middle East, targeting Gulf states and military positions. The states targeted by Iran are UK allies, and where thousands of Brits are based.

British officials publicly stated the UK military did not participate in the US/Israeli strikes and did not endorse the offensive military actions.

However, on Sunday evening, Starmer announced that the UK had agreed to grant the US permission to use British military bases for “limited and specific” defensive strikes against Iranian missile sites and launchers.

The government says that it is protecting British people in the region by targeting Iranian military capability “at source” to stop Tehran releasing missiles. 

Since the conflict escalated, the RAF has intercepted an Iranian drone that was headed for a base in Iraq where British military personnel are based. Iran has also launched a drone at a British base in Cyprus. The latter, which took place before Starmer’s statement on Sunday, caused minimal damage but no casualties.

Speaking to MPs on Monday, Starmer said: “President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest; that is what I’ve done, and I stand by it.”

He added that the UK would continue its “defensive actions” in the region, which he described as the “collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies”.

“We believe that the best way forward for the region and for the world is a negotiated settlement in which Iran agrees to give up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon and ceases its destabilising activity across the region,” he said, adding that this had been the “long-standing position of successive British governments”.

He said that any UK action must have a “lawful basis and a viable thought-through plan”, adding that “we all remember the mistakes of Iraq and have learned those lessons”.

There is a belief among British security officials that Iran has the capacity to continue attacks on British allies in the Gulf for at least a week. So far, Tehran has launched attacks on states including Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The government estimates that there are around 300,000 British people in the region.

“Iran has hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. It is deeply concerning for the whole house and the whole country,” he told MPs.

“I’ve been speaking to our Gulf partners over the weekend, they’re outraged by Iran’s acts, particularly as they played no part in any strikes, and they’ve asked us to do more to defend them. Moreover, it is my duty, the highest duty of my office, to protect British lives.”

Starmer urged all British citizens in the affected areas to register their presence so they can be given support. He said that the government was in close contact with the travel industry and governments in the region to help them “return home as swiftly and safely as possible”.

“We’re looking at all options to support our people,” the PM said.

Starmer said that there would not be a parliamentary vote on the action taken by the government so far, as it has been limited to defensive, rather than offensive, action.

He added that the government was also reaching out to communities across the United Kingdom, including Muslim and Jewish community organisations, amid concern that the conflict in the Middle East could impact community tensions in the UK.

“We’re making sure that sites across the country, including places of worship, have appropriate protective security in place,” Starmer said.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticised the government for not offering more support to US strikes on Iran, highlighting that the UK’s allies in Canada and Australia “immediately backed the action taken by America against this despotic regime in Tehran”.

“I have made it very clear that the Conservative Party also stands behind America taking this necessary action against state-sponsored terror,” she said, accusing Starmer of hesitating over the decision to allow the US to use British air bases. 

US President Donald Trump has said that while it was “useful” that the UK had agreed on Sunday evening, “it took far too much time” to come to the decision.

Badenoch continued: “It took Iranian missiles hitting allies in the Gulf before he finally made a decision, and even after that, the foreign secretary said this morning that the government has put limits on the actions of our allies, operating from our bases.

“Unbelievably, in his statement today, the Prime Minister still cannot say whether he backs the strikes or not.”