4 min read53 min

The Labour government has brought forward the Representation of the People Bill to the House of Commons. In doing so, it will add itself to a proud lineage of predecessors who have passed Representation of the People Acts that have extended the franchise, building our political system into the democracy we know today.

This new Bill is a welcome stride forward in enhancing our democracy, including more of our own citizens through automated voter registration and shutting out malign foreign actors. But to truly live up to this legacy, secure our democracy and tackle political inequality at the ballot box, the government must be bolder. To become a modern representative democracy, Westminster needs proportional representation (PR).

As I argued in the House of Commons in January last year, PR is a necessary reform to ensure that our increasingly multi-party politics translates into a representative parliament. Fragmentation has only accelerated since the last general election, with five parties now receiving more than 10 per cent of the projected national vote share – more than ever before. It’s no longer inconceivable for a historic landslide to be won with barely over a quarter of the vote. We must recognise that it is unfair to voters and wrong for any party to have total control over the levers of power of the British state for a five-year term when three in four voters have explicitly voted against them.

As PoliticsHome reported, over 50 constitutional experts have sounded the alarm that first-past-the-post (FPTP) risks “random and arbitrary” results. Among them is Sir Vernon Bogdanor, who has branded Westminster’s voting system “a serious threat to the quality of British democracy”. Meanwhile, the Institute for Government has said that the Gorton and Denton byelection shows that FPTP “is creaking at the seams”. I am pleased the government has already recognised the need for electoral reform by removing FPTP in mayoral elections. We should expect the same strong representative standards for our MPs.

Electoral reform need not threaten the vital constituency link. As an MP, I know this is key to grounding my work as a representative in and of my community. A mixed-member proportional system, as used in the modern parliaments of Germany or New Zealand, and throughout the UK in Scotland, London, and, until recently, Wales, delivers both local and national representation. It’s also worth noting that internationally, the only countries with high and rising public satisfaction with democracy all use PR. Meanwhile, in the UK, public trust is at rock bottom, with NatCen research last year showing that just 12 per cent of people trusted governments to put the interests of the nation above those of their own party.

Foundational reform of our democracy can under no circumstances be done on a whim. Electoral reform must be carried out not because it may benefit any particular party or ideology, but because it puts power back into the hands of the British people. Support for change is strong among Labour MPs – I note with interest excellent interventions from my colleagues Tim Roca, Beccy Cooper, Jenny Riddell-Carptenter, Sean Woodcock and Jo Platt in recent weeks, and many speeches in favour at the Representation of the People Bill’s Second Reading. This is a chance for the government to listen and lead. The cost of inaction could not be higher – chaos for our democracy means chaos for our politics and all those who depend on it.

I was not elected by my constituents to idly stand by and defend a broken political system and failed status quo. Fifty-three per cent of the public want to change our voting system. Electoral reform would go a long way to restore faith in politics. I am proud to be an MP representing a Labour government that is taking the next steps forward to build the modern, secure and representative democracy every elected representative should demand.

I urge the government to go further. It’s time for a national commission on electoral reform.

Luke Akehurst is Labour MP for North Durham

As Skwawkbox reported on Tuesday 17 March 2026, Israeli government minister’s daughter Shoshana Strook has been found dead in suspicious circumstances. She had just appointed lawyers to pursue justice for the crimes against her. Strook had spent months speaking publicly about allegations of physical and sexual abuse. In several social media posts she outlined how her mother, father, and brother had abused her since childhood. Authorities in Israel have claimed to be investigating the circumstances of her death.

However, Strook’s own words before she died are extremely worrying, to say the least. But the evidence may have already started to be erased.

“If they tell you I committed suicide – don’t believe it”

Strook had accused her mother, far-right settlements minister Orit Strook, along with her father and one of her brothers, of raping her for years during her childhood and filming it. In December 2025, Shoshana Strook warned her Facebook followers that she was in danger of murder to silence her. And she told them not to believe a word of it if she was found dead and it was called suicide, or an ‘accident’. A screenshot of the post, translated from Hebrew, is below in case the original is scrubbed:

Strook/Strock

That Facebook post still – at the time of writing – exists. However, Shoshana’s name on that page is “Strock”, rather than “Strook”. However, the two are interchangeable in Hebrew, which does not use vowels in the same way as European languages – and “Strock” is even Orit’s name on her official Knesset profile.

Or it was, early on Tuesday evening. By the time of writing, that profile has been deleted or otherwise made inaccessible:

As such, so have any records of the same page on the Wayback Machine archive and archive.li.

But too late – Skwawkbox had already saved a screenshot of the Knesset page proof:

Strock has not, at the time of writing, announced her resignation from her ministerial post or her position as a member of the Knesset, so that potential excuse for deleting her page doesn’t apply. And the scrubbing of the Strook-Strock interchangeability hasn’t – at least yet – been thorough enough. Orit Strock is still demonstrably named in coverage of Shoshana’s ‘suicide’ (archive) by the Times of Israel:

She is also named as “Strock” by the Jewish News Syndicate, Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post and others. Shoshana Strock’s Facebook page is that of Shoshana Strook and vice versa, as also shown by the numerous videos she uploaded straight to it.

Israel has a paedophile problem

As Skwawkbox said in its first report of Shoshana Strock’s death, the issue of child rape among Zionists is not limited to Israelis or the Israeli extreme right. The Netanyahu regime is currently ignoring well over 2,000 extradition requests for alleged and convicted paedophiles who fled there from other countries. Others have been convicted in the US, while the Zionist UK Labour party right also has a long record of paedophiles and other sex offenders.

Israeli psychotherapist and trauma expert Dr Anat Gur, head of the Bar-Ilan University trauma therapy program, has said that she believes organised child rape in Israel is widespread:

Organized child rape is one of the most horrific things I’ve encountered. It’s likely much more widespread than we think. It’s happening in places we least expect.

Strook’s death mirrors the long list of suspicious deaths among victims and associates of serial child-rapist and Israeli spy Jeffrey Epstein. These deaths include that of Virginia Giuffre, Epstein’s most well-known victim – who was also found dead after saying she would not. Jean-Luc Brunel, the French ‘modelling agent’ accused of procuring underage girls for Epstein, was found dead of supposed suicide in a French prison in 2022.

If Shoshana Strock’s death is suspicious because of her recent comment that claims of her suicide would be false, then the disappearance of her mother’s official “Strock” page does nothing to dispel those suspicions.

Featured image via the Canary

The founders of the Boycott Water Bills movement are holding a protest in Margate on Thursday 19 March. It comes ahead of long-time boycotter Julie Wassmer’s showdown with Southern Water.

Kent-based author and environmental campaigner Wassmer faces imminent court action for her four year payment boycott of Southern Water bills. She has maintained this in protest at the company’s unacceptable sewage pollution record.

Wassmer, a co-founder of award-winning campaign group Boycott Water Bills, said:

Southern Water is a criminal company – a serious serial offender regarding sewage pollution and I aim to highlight how UK water companies are evading responsibility for poor service via a selective use of the Water Industry Act 1991.

Fellow Boycott Water Bills co-founder Katy Colley says the website has seen a flood of new sign-ups following the screening of the Channel 4 drama Dirty Business.

The three-part series exposes the collusion between water companies and regulators at the heart of the current sewage crisis.

Colley, from Hastings, said:

Every day people from all over the country are getting in touch to say they will join the boycott.

We should be pursing the criminal polluters who poison our waters with impunity instead of weaponising the law against a few brave individuals in the interests of big business.

Wassmer will be joined by Kent and Sussex boycotters and Green councillors, as well as local clean water campaign groups.

Mark Hood, Green group leader on Kent county council, said:

We fully support Julie Wassmer who has bravely stood up to the water companies whose monopoly has been a disaster for Kent and our environment and who have consistently put profit before tackling pollution.

Nonpayment isn’t a course of action which people take lightly but when Julie became aware of Southern Water’s record of sewage pollution to the beaches and seas she loves, she decided that she had no other choice.

The water industry needs to be returned to public ownership so that every penny of profit can be used to improve infrastructure instead of paying shareholders.

Featured image via the Canary

1. Prince William surprises Greg James for a spot of tandem bike riding

2. Prince William also had a pretty savage ‘unpopular opinion’ for Greg James as they rode together

3. Greg James’ emotional support from his mum has been a highlight for many of those following his challenge

4. Day six of the challenge began with a poignant moment in honour of Greg James’ dad on Wednesday

5. Reaching that £1 million mark was a real moment

6. Crowds of supporters have gathered over the course of the route to encourage Greg James on his way

7. His welcome in York was particularly impressive

8. The tear-jerking surprises just keep on coming

9. Oh, and if you’re wondering how Greg has been recuperating after a long day of cycling…

What are ‘clamshell’ exercises?

What are the benefits of ‘clamshell’ exercises?

Ben Fletcher is the Conservative candidate to be mayor of Cheshire and Warrington. He was previously CEO of Boots Opticians and CFO of The Very Group.

The best Conservative governments have been those that grasped the difficult job of fundamental tax reform to ensure stable finances that allow the economy to flourish. In the 1840s the Peel government ushered in a generation of prosperity through the combination of income tax reform and free trade. Disraeli oversaw significant local taxation reform, and, of course, the Howe/Lawson reforms in the 1980s were crucial to changing the trajectory of Britain’s economic performance.

Kemi Badenoch has rightly said she wants us to create a high growth, low immigration economy. There is a big argument that we need to win before the next general election: to reduce tax rates, we must reform the system. High rates are a consequence of the design of the tax system, and just reducing rates will not cut it. Successive chancellors have, in pursuit of a budget day ‘rabbit out of the hat’, tinkered with the system, creating distortions and anomalies that stunt economic growth. This has created a distorted tax system. There has been little sense of what type of tax system we want, what behaviour do we want to reward, and how do we create the environment for faster economic growth.

Reforming the tax system is going to be controversial. Since 1997 the tax code (as measured by Tolleys) has grown nearly fourfold from 7,250 pages to c.24,000 The tax code is now so long, with so many exceptions, that there will, inevitably, be opposition to almost any major change because there are bound to be losers. The need for reform though is immense. We have a Council Tax system based on 1991 housing values, an Income tax system where the marginal rate of tax rises to 70 per cent at certain income levels, meanwhile tax lawyers debate whether product is a cake or biscuit.

As the famous New Zealand Finance Minister, Roger Douglas, showed and argued, reform succeeds when the changes are big enough to create winners who can champion reform alongside the short-term losers. To sustain a reforming agenda in a way that commands the confidence of markets, fends off the ‘losers’ from any reform, and creates a clear direction of travel, we need a set of principles that can be seen to be adhered to over a series of Budgets.

A good tax system has four elements: There are as few taxes as possible, the base for those taxes is as broad as possible, so that the rate can be as low and least distorted as possible, and there are as few exceptions as possible. Adherence to these principles across the tax system would create one that was simpler, which better rewarded hard work and risk taking, and which was much less onerous for the individual or organisation being taxed.

These can be applied to any tax, but it’s VAT that’s urgent. It has become so distorted that it is now killing critical sectors of the economy, most noticeably hospitality. In Cheshire this is particularly acute as hospitality is 10 per cent of our economy, employing 40,000 people. Reforming VAT would be the tax reform that potentially does most to stimulate economic growth.

The current VAT system breaks all four of the principles I described: it is levied on a narrow base meaning the rate is high, the number of exceptions is high, and it is distortive in key sectors. The threshold is set in such a way as businesses manage with the aim of avoiding it, causing growth to be capped.

VAT is levied on only c.40 per cent of consumption. There is no longer any rationale for why the base remains so narrow. Our consumption habits have changed hugely since the introduction of the tax in 1973. In particular, the percentage of household income spent on food has fallen by two thirds, and the exclusions for books and newspapers speaks to a pre-digital age. We’re having fewer children (another VAT exception) and real wages have risen faster than the cost of products.

This has distortive effects. In hospitality, most of their costs are zero rated for VAT meaning it cannot be reclaimed. The consequence for this is that 20 per cent of their income goes straight to HMRC, an unusually high amount. This puts sustained pressure on their cashflow such that when other costs are raised, they have very little left to manage with.

The narrow base causes the rate to be high. We have the highest rate in Western Europe which drives the second distortive effect: incessant lobbying for exceptions to the rate. Food in a pub? Taxed. Food at home? Not taxed. Plain biscuit? No VAT. Chocolate Biscuit? 20 per cent. Buying a pet? Taxed. A Rabbit, though? Not taxed. No wonder the lawyers are doing well.

The other aspect which narrows the base is the threshold for VAT registration, currently £90,000. Entirely unsurprisingly small businesses manage their revenue to the threshold to avoid the rate. The presence of this cliff edge (a lamentable feature of many taxes) means there are sudden movements in tax liabilities for small businesses which hamper growth as owners seek to minimise their cash outflow. We need businesses focused entirely on growing their income, not managing to an effective revenue cap.

The next Conservative government should go big. Taxing consumption is preferable to taxing income or risk taking. We need people to want to work, and found businesses risking their capital, and for that to be rewarding. What families spend their money on is their business.

Extended VAT to all consumption and radically reduce the rate. Extending the base should allow the rate to come in at c. 8 per cent and still raise the same revenue as today. In the same package of reform, we should cut the threshold from £90,000 to zero, so that every company pays VAT from day one. This removes the growth cap of the cliff-edge and because the rate has been cut makes it manageable for all companies. For new companies there should be a three-year transition where a VAT rebate is provided of 75 per cent in year one, 50 per cent in year two, and 25 per cent in year three to support cashflow in the critical early years.

Big changes always mean there are some losers, such as those businesses not currently paying VAT, and tax lawyers. Others, such as hospitality would have their growth prospects transformed. Our highly competitive retail industry would work hard to keep prices keen for the consumer.

Kemi Badenoch and Mel Stride have shown with their announcement on Stamp Duty that they are prepared to be radical about tax. This willingness to make bold choices will be essential in creating a growing economy.

Reforming VAT in a first Conservative budget would create the basis for accelerated economic growth and be consistent with the reforming approach shown by the best of our predecessors.