James Mahone is a Conservative Party member, and Founder of the Horizon Centre for Public Innovation.

The Sound Money Act was the focus of my previous article, which outlined a blueprint as to how the British government can reduce the risk premium on government debt while reclaiming sovereignty from volatile bond markets.

Critics rightly noted that simply passing a law does not generate prosperity. They went on to ask a deeper question: discipline to what end? They were right to ask. This article answers that question and sets out that counterpart. Fiscal restraint must be combined with a credible framework for economic growth. This framework is named the British Growth Covenant.

The Covenant is not a blanket spending programme or a form of state intervention driven by political incentives rather than economic efficiency. Instead, it is the framework to translate the fiscal credibility obtained from the Sound Money Act into long-term national investment. It will be translated automatically, productively, and transparently. The Sound Money Act and British Growth Covenant work together. The result will be discipline that earns trust — and trust that funds renewal.

If markets view Britain’s public finances as sustainable, there will be a reduction in the risk premium. This means that paying existing debt will be cheaper. There will also be cheaper long-term borrowing costs. A consistent blunder by successive governments has been to allow savings to become absorbed in day-to-day consumption rather than invested in Britain’s productive capacity. The British Growth Covenant will correct this issue.

A Growth Dividend Lock will be at the heart of the Covenant. This will ensure that each year an independent organisation such as the OBR will look at yields on gilts and calculate savings due to reductions in interest payable on gilts. This will be measured against a rolling baseline. From these savings a fixed percentage would be transferred automatically into a ring-fenced UK Sovereign Growth Fund. This is important for three reasons:

First, this becomes self-funding. Investment does not need to be derived from higher taxes or looser borrowing.

Second, savings will not become absorbed into consumption. Rather, these savings become locked into capital formation.

Third, it is visible. These sound money principles would become a generator of tangible national renewal.

The mechanism is also fail-safe. This is a crucial point. If in any given year the growth dividend does not materialise for any reason, credibility is not gambled. Transfers pause automatically. There could be unforeseen circumstances such as domestic shocks or global rate movements. If this were to happen then the fiscal anchor is preserved.

Britain has not lacked ambition but has lacked credible capital allocation. There has been investment but weak scrutiny, politicised project selection, and no exit discipline. The Growth Covenant therefore separates strategy from selection.

Government sets the national priorities. Project selection would sit with a UK Strategic Investment Board. The Board would be independent and assigned by cross-party parliamentary scrutiny. They would serve fixed, non-renewable terms. Parliament via statutory instrument would set the strategic mandate. This ensures democratic direction without political micromanagement. The sole task here is to allocate Growth Fund capital. This capital would be allocated according to a published National Return on Investment framework. Projects would be assessed against four criteria: Productivity and output per hour; Strategic resilience (energy, infrastructure, supply chains); Regional economic rebalancing; Long-term fiscal return through tax base expansion, driven by an increase in economic activity and job creation.

Ministers would not pick projects. Rather, they would be accountable for the system within which projects are chosen. This is how the Golden Investment Rule becomes operational rather than rhetorical.

As stated at the start of this article, the Covenant is not a blanket spending programme, it is not a blank cheque. It is a sequenced programme. Projects that are economy-wide in impact and fast to deploy must have priority in early years. Things such as digital infrastructure, core science funding, or energy grid capacity. This lays the foundations to build momentum. More capital-intensive transformation would be supported in later phases. Frontier research institutions that anchor private-sector ecosystems, modern transit links, next-generation energy, all come to mind. Credibility compounds since early delivery reinforces confidence in later ambition. Thus, sequencing matters.

Regarding prosperity, building physical infrastructure is not enough. The Growth Covenant recognises this and therefore develops a local workforce alongside construction projects. There will be initiatives such as apprenticeships and technical training to train and upskill people in the community. This would be paired with every major investment programme. Economic growth must not simply benefit a few but provide widespread benefits to society. Otherwise, it weakens political support.

The Growth Covenant helps government enable markets, not replace them. It does this by crowding in capital and taking on risks that markets find difficult to price. This could be early-stage research, or planning, for example. Private investment can scale through co-investment structures, regulated asset base models, and long-duration investment vehicles suited to pension funds and insurers. This happens once the foundations have been laid via the Growth Covenant. The goal is to turn every pound of public credibility into multiple pounds of productive private investment.

The Growth Covenant is also designed to prevent delays or avoid being taken over by special interests. Funded projects would face a mid-term performance review which would be mandatory, with termination required if benchmarks are not met. The Covenant would expire after ten years at the programme level unless Parliament voted to renew it. This would be based on results which are independently verified. This becomes a results-driven intervention which is disciplined. This is not a permanent expansion of the state.

Credibility must be visible. The Covenant would be accompanied by a public digital dashboard showing debt-interest savings, transfers into the Growth Fund, projects approved, private capital leveraged and estimated fiscal returns. Citizens would be able to see, clearly and continuously, whether discipline is being honoured and growth delivered.

The Sound Money Act and the British Growth Covenant together form a new social contract for the 21st century. To markets, Britain offers discipline while earning cheaper capital in return. To its people, Britain offers not austerity, but ambition: a decade of national rebuilding funded by the credibility we choose to restore. This is the bargain: restraint where necessary, investment where it matters, and transparency at every stage.

First, we secure our finances. Then, we build our future.

Lush and Migrant’s Rights Network have launched a nationwide campaign on Monday 16 March 2026 to help to highlight and challenge the racism being used to divide our communities. This new initiative runs across 101 of Lush’s stores until Monday 30 March. And highlights how politicians and media outlets blame migrant workers for the sick failings of the state.

The campaign uses stunningly bold graphics created by migrant-led studio Migrants in Culture to transform store fronts into active sites of resistance. These graphics aim to expose how anti-migrant rhetoric distracts and scapegoats from issues that the white male-led government has created. At a time when our NHS is crumbling around our ears, wealth inequality is at an all-time extreme and people struggle to just survive, Lush is hoping to show the UK just where the real blame lies. With the rich, the powerful and the fucking elite.

Lush — challenging the fear

At a time when racism is being weaponised by incredibly weak white people as a shortcut to power, this campaign cannot come at a better time. Rats such as Tommy Robinson are prowling the streets and GBNews is poisoning the population’s minds. But Lush has found a way to speak to people. By stoking fear, leaders are avoiding all accountability for decades of underinvestment in social housing and public infrastructure. They would rather the public turn their gaze on the terrified immigrant fleeing war and riot in the streets than realise our biggest threat to a fairer world is those pointing the fucking finger.

MRN is a UK charity that advocates for the rights of all migrants by bridging the gap between grassroots organising and political policy change. This stunning organisation campaigns against the hostile environment which turns doctors and teachers into border guards. It focuses on empowering migrant-led leadership to dismantle the structures that cause harm to marginalised groups.

Fizza Qureshi, chief executive officer of MRN says:

“Across the UK, people are being encouraged to blame migrants for problems caused by political choices. This campaign challenges these lies. Racism harms all of us — it weakens our communities, undermines our rights and distracts from the real issues we face.”

Funding the fight for change

During the campaign, Lush is selling a Hand of Friendship bath bomb for £6.50 to raise funds for the cause. The company donates 75% of the sale price, minus tax, to MRN to support grassroots migrant-led organisations. These groups fight hard for transformational change rather than just providing temporary aid.

Stores are also distributing a free, abridged version of the Words Matter publication to help customers resist racist rhetoric. The campaign comes as 92% of people believe the way we talk about immigration has changed for the worse. This disgusting statistic highlights the urgent need to change the conversation around migration and human rights. And where better to do that than on one of the best smelling shops on the high street?

This fucking beautiful stance is familiar territory for Lush, which has a long history of disruptive activism. In 2018 the company launched its SpyCops campaign to highlight the undercover policing scandal where officers infiltrated and, in some cases, even had children, within activist groups. Lush’s #SOSSumatra campaign also raised over £125,000 to buy 50 hectares of palm oil plantation land to restore the native rainforest.

Confronting the real enemy

Andrew Butler, campaigns manager at Lush says:

“We believe that all people should enjoy freedom of movement across the world. This is a core part of who we are and what we stand for as a business. We are proud to partner with Migrants’ Rights Network to directly challenge the anti-immigration narratives.”

Look outside of your window. At a time when our streets are filled with rubbish, roads are fucked and older people can’t afford to eat, surely it’s time to wake the fuck up? Political choices have driven down living standards for decades. Meanwhile, war and climate breakdown continues to displace millions of people globally. This campaign serves as a reminder that migrants are not the threat to our society, but racism and inequality are. When communities stand together against these manufactured divisions, they become powerful enough to demand real change.

So, tell me. Who is the real threat to our society? The cocaine-soaked Tommy Robinson and his Israeli backers? Or the immigrant nurse who ran across half a world, fleeing terror, to help heal our sick within the NHS? Is it Nigel Farage and his legion of misogynistic pricks? Or the little girl and her family who crossed the sea in a tiny boat, just to try to feel safe again?

And will we continue to let scapegoating distract us from the real causes of our problems, or will we stand up and fight together against the real fucking enemy?

The rich and the powerful.

Featured image via author

The Unbound the Greyhound coalition is staging a rally at the Scottish parliament on Wednesday 18 March. Nine animal welfare organisations are working together to ban greyhound racing in Scotland.

And the rally comes ahead of the Stage 3 vote for the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill. In Wales, the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill is due to have its final vote on 17 March.

The groups will gather at 10.30-11.30am and will be joined by greyhounds rescued from the racing industry. Mark Ruskell MSP, who brought the Bill, will also be there, along with supportive members of the public, MSPs and organisations.

Coalition member group OneKind points to the industry’s own data. It recorded 2,751 deaths and 26,522 injuries in the UK between 2018-2023. OneKind suggests that greyhound racing is rife with mistreatment and bad practice. This ranges from “dank, dirty kennels” to the use of performance enhancing drugs, including cocaine. The charity claims the root of the problems is that:

These dogs aren’t valued as sentient beings, but rather are regarded as commodities to make trainers money.

Head of campaigns and media for OneKind, Eve Massie Bishop, speaking on behalf of the Unbound the Greyhound coalition, says:

For nearly three years, the Unbound the Greyhound coalition has worked tirelessly, alongside tens of thousands of compassionate members of the public, to shine a light on the suffering these gentle dogs have endured in the racing industry and to push for an end to this cruel and archaic industry in Scotland.

Our message has always been clear: greyhounds are not commodities to be exploited for financial gain. They are sensitive, affectionate, and gentle dogs who deserve to be safe and loved in homes where they are truly cared for. We are grateful to Mark Ruskell MSP for his unwavering commitment to ending greyhound racing in Scotland.

Our rally at Holyrood, joined by supporters from across Scotland and greyhounds rescued from the racing industry, will show the strength of public support behind this Bill. Scotland now has the chance to put this dying industry out of its misery. We hope every MSP will seize this opportunity and vote in favour of the Bill.

The Unbound the Greyhound coalition includes OneKind, GREY2K USA Worldwide, Say No To Greyhound Racing in Scotland, Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation (SAGE), the League Against Cruel Sports, Hope Rescue, Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home, All-Party Parliamentary Dog Advisory Welfare Group (APDAWG) and Animal Concern.

Featured image via the Canary

Dua Lipa has called out the media for the way it’s reporting on the Epstein Files and completely disregarding the feelings of the victims.

The singer was interviewing the author Roxanne Gay on her podcast Service 95 Book Club. The Women’s Day episode specifically covered misogyny in society and the media. This included many topics, but especially how victims are talked about and treated.

The conversation inevitably turned to the Epstein files and the way his victims were being treated.

Lipa said:

The way that the crimes have been reported, and the language that’s been used, has been doing such a disservice to all the victims.

I keep thinking about all the stories that talk about the underage girls and the sex parties, rather than writing about the victims that were children who were trafficked

She continued:

It’s putting everything under some kind of veil to protect — I don’t know who, the reader — or trying to mask what is happening.

It’s so interesting how the media takes and twists things, even in the darkest hour

Epstein’s victims erased for a good story

This is something The Canary has covered extensively. Our journalist Maddison Wheeldon called out how the media circus around the January release of the files erased the experiences of victims and survivors.

Writing about how the Wheeldon wrote thousands of documents had to be removed by the Department of Justice after they compromised the identities of the victims, Wheeldon said:

The mainstream media circus around the release of the files is conveniently diminishing both the horror and scrutiny of these atrocious crimes, as well as the accountability of the powerful figures responsible for them.

One thing is clear. The release of the Epstein files was certainly not to protect the victims and survivors of Epstein’s depraved network. The women and girls who bore the brunt of these atrocities have been sidelined even in the official reveal of their experiences.

Victims later claimed that the DoJ’s Pam Bondi intentionally un-redacted their names to intimidate them into silence.

Focus needs to be brought back to the victims

Meanwhile, journalist Vannessa Viljoen highlighted how racialised Epstein’s trafficking was. She wrote:

Rabid media coverage of the Epstein files has breathlessly focused on political gossip at the expense of centring victims and survivors. As such, public discussion of elite sexual abuse often gravitates towards spectacle: powerful men, hidden networks and institutional failure. Of course, coverage from mainstream media is complicit in upholding power structures that decide who counts as a victim – and who doesn’t.

Instead, the newly released Epstein files point to an uncomfortable reality. It has been noted from FBI interview records and grand jury testimony that Epstein’s “preference was short, little, white girls.” Crucially, Epstein’s operation did not rely on chance or opportunism. Instead, Epstein paid girls to recruit other minors and enforced his preferences through discipline and reward. When recruiters failed to comply, the system reprimanded them. In practice, race did not sit in the background. Rather, it structured how the trafficking itself operated.

All throughout this, we’ve seen the focus around ‘scandals’ involving Peter Mandelson, Andrew Mountbatten and Donald Trump. But there’s been very little focus on the actual victims who have had to live with the abuse they endured for the rest of their lives.

It must be absolutely heartbreaking to see your most feared memories play out on the worlds stage, and the focus once again being on the powerful men who used their power over your body.

It’s time the media took a long, hard look at itself, stopped seeing pound signs and thought about the real victims.

Featured image via the Canary

1) Bowel cancer

2) Pancreatic cancer

3) Liver cancer

Still, cancer treatment has progressed overall

UEFA is facing mounting political pressure in Switzerland following a parliamentary move that could threaten its tax privileges after failing to impose any sanctions on Israel.

The French newspaper L’Équipe revealed that a group of left-wing members of parliament in the Swiss canton of Vaud submitted a draft resolution questioning whether the conditions for UEFA’s tax exemption are still met.

If the draft resolution passes, UEFA will be summoned to justify why it hasn’t sanctioned Israel, especially since the Swiss federal government has previously linked tax privileges for international sports federations to their role in promoting peace through sport.

The initiators of the proposal believe UEFA is no longer fulfilling its role, which could open the door to a review of its tax status in Switzerland, where its headquarters are located.

According to internal estimates within UEFA, canceling the tax exemption could cost the organisation about €30 million annually (£26 million). Tax authorities may also demand clarification on how its annual revenues, estimated at about €5 billion (£4 billion), are distributed.

The cantonal parliament is scheduled to debate the draft resolution on 24 March. A close vote is expected in the 150-member assembly, where left-wing parties hold only 64 seats, leaving the outcome uncertain.

UEFA’s president must call for a vote

This pressure comes at a time of escalating international campaign led by the campaign group, Game Over Israel, which wants global sports organisations to boycott Israel, similarly to what happened with Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.

Former Manchester United player, Eric Cantona, reignited the debate when he highlighted the disparity in treatment of both countries at a solidarity event in London last year.

According to sources within UEFA, communications and pressure from federations, sponsors and sports media have continued unabated in recent months, indicating how prominent this issue has become within European football.

Any decision to suspend Israel’s participation in European competitions requires a vote within UEFA’s 21-member executive committee, including its president, Aleksander Čeferin, who is the only person authorised to call for such a vote.

Internal sources indicate a number of committee members are inclined to support a ban. However, Čeferin —known for his meticulous calculations — only calls for a vote when he is certain of a clear majority.

The Israeli Football Association, on the other hand, categorically denied the existence of any upcoming vote to suspend its membership, describing the circulating reports as “fake news” and affirming its commitment to all FIFA and UEFA regulations.

Mounting pressure

But the pressure is no longer solely political or moral; it has also extended to the financial sphere. Several European federations have incurred significant losses during matches played by their national teams against Israel due to the stringent security measures and low attendance.

For example, the 2024 France-Israel match at the 80,000 capacity Stade de France attracted only about 16,000 spectators. Security costs for the Europa League match between VfB Stuttgart and Maccabi Tel Aviv last December were estimated at about €10 million (£9 million).

As pressure mounts from parliaments, players and national federations, European football appears to be facing a new political test that could determine not only Israel’s participation in continental tournaments but also the boundaries of the relationship between sport and politics in Europe.

Featured image via the Canary