Royal Mail bosses are being called to Parliament to answer for the company’s current failures. The news comes after hundreds of people contacted BBC Your Voice to complain about late deliveries.

Of course, the news follows less than one year after the company was bought out by Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky. The move is the latest nail in the coffin of a decade-long push to privatise the once-national delivery service.

Repeated failures

In particular, disgruntled customers complained about the Royal Mail’s prioritisation of parcels over letters. This led to crucial communications – e.g. hospital appointments – being missed. Likewise, some people also highlighted that important documents, such as school certificates and bank statements, had also been lost.

Royal Mail staff told the BBC that they were stretched beyond capacity. This meant that some delivery offices were missing rounds, in turn leading to difficult decisions about prioritising some mail over others.

Back in October 2025, communications watchdog Ofcom issued a £21 million fine to Royal Mail for failing to meet delivery targets in the 2024/25 financial year. The company only delivered 92.5% of second-class and 77% of first-class mail on time. The target levels were 98.5% and 93%, respectively.

It was the third time in as many years that Ofcom found Royal Mail to be in breach of its obligations.

‘Significant concerns’

Regarding the fresh wave of complaints, the Business and Trade Committee originally gave Royal Mail two weeks to answer for itself. In a 16 February letter to interim CEO Alistair Cochrane, committee chair Liam Byrne raised:

significant concerns about the quality of postal service being provided by Royal Mail.

You will be well aware of the recent failures in service that have been reported to the press and to Members of Parliament. In recent days, the Royal Mail website has listed well over 100 postcodes across the UK at risk of service disruption due to “local issues such as high levels of sick absence, resourcing, or other local factors”.1 This chaos has continued into mid-February, well beyond the predictable pressures of the Christmas period.

Advertisement

He also asked a series of seven questions on the failures. The deadline for the Royal Mail’s response would have fallen on 2 March.

However, Byrne has reportedly decided that the allegations against the company are so severe that representatives should attend parliament to explain themselves.

Some by-elections are remembered for decades – think Oxford 1938 – Orpington 1962, Glasgow Hillhead 1981 – and others fade into obscurity almost as soon as the result is declared.

Watching Labour representatives on the media this morning try to dismiss this as a normal result and just a case of mid-term blues has been part hilarious and part tragic.  They just don’t get it. The political sands are shifting.

One by-election doesn’t necessarily signify a major change, but this one does have some major consequences. It may not signal anything new, but it does reflect some existing trends, and those are trends that Labour would be well to think about quite deeply. The trouble is, the prime minister shows no sign of doing so. His interview with Sam Coates on Sky News was the same old Airport. He just trotted out the same old lines. It seemed that he was angry with voters for failing to recognise his own brilliance. Not a good look. It was just like PMQs. He failed to engage with any question asked of him and instead just trotted out the same, tired, pre-prepared mantras which anyone watching can see through. Labour MPs will have watched this interview from behind their sofas.

So why is the result of this by-election important, and why may future electoral historians look back on it as a by-election of some consequence? Firstly, as Ben Riley-Smith has pointed out, this is the first by-election modern history where neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party has featured in the top two. It is further evidence that not only two party politics is at an end, but we are entering a period where we have to factor in five parties, or six in Wales and Scotland. This fact will be further reenforced in May’s elections. And if Your Party were to ever get its act together, we could be looking at six or seven party politics. This is a political game-changer, if only because it renders traditional political polling and constituency predictions almost irrelevant in our first past the post electoral system.

The Greens had never polled above ten per cent in any UK by- election. In Gorton and Denton they scored more than 40 per cent. There are several factors that explain this. They ran a superb campaign, they managed to tap into sectarian politics in a way that Labour, and to an extent, the LibDems have done in some areas in the past. The video they did in Urdu was shameful, but hugely effective. When Zack Polanski was running for the leadership of The Greens he told me he wanted to be the populist left wing equivalent of Nigel Farage, and that has dominated his strategy since he was elected in September. And boy has it worked. Just as Reform and Nigel Farage proved to the nemesis of the Conservative Party, Polanski and the Greens may well emulate that role and do the same for Labour.

Another factor in the Green victory was their candidate Hannah Spencer. Bright, breezy, human, real, she was a dream candidate for a by-election. She batted off all attacks as if she were made of Teflon and proved to made of stern stuff. Labour’s candidate, Angeliki Stogia, was not a bad candidate, but she was always on a hiding to nothing. She exuded optimism and displayed a good sense of humour, and wasn’t hidden away from the media like most Labour by-election candidates usually are. She didn’t put a drag on the Labour campaign – that was the role of the national party. Labour tried to make it a Labour versus Reform fight, but failed. It never was.

Reform’s candidate Matthew Goodwin, or “Matt” as he now likes to bill himself, was a perfect example of how a candidate can put a drag on a campaign. I remember being bemused by his selection, given he has never knowingly smiled on camera or given any sign of having a sense of humour. He is the political equivalent of a Vulcan. Dr Spock would have voted for him, but he proved alien to the ordinary folk of Gorton & Denton. In short, he failed to connect.

This is the second by-election in a row where Reform have flattered to deceive. In Caerphilly, they expected to win and then came a poor second to Plaid Cymru. In Gorton & Denton, in what was billed as too close to call, they polled twelve points behind Labour. Admittedly their 28.7 per cent vote share was 15 points up on the general election, but it does add fuel to the theory that they have a ceiling of 30 per cent in an average constituency.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats lost their deposits, scoring only 1.9 and 1.8 per cent respectively. Each party decided to sit this one out, so they were never likely to do very well, but even so, it’s an embarrassing performance, especially for the Conservatives, given it was their worst by-election performance in history. The LibDems have sometimes done well in by-elections in seats like this but they seem to have made a decision to cede the protest vote part of the electorate to Reform and the Greens. This may prove to be a strategic mistake in the long term.

Perhaps the biggest mistake that Labour made was blocking Andy Burnham from standing. I doubt very much whether he would have retained the seat, despite his undoubted popularity, but if he had fought it and lost, that would have stopped his leadership ambitions in their tracks. Keir Starmer, even in defeat, would have had a silver lining. As it stands, all he faces is the May elections, after which he faces the prospect of political oblivion and/or a leadership challenge.

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com

 Last month in Birmingham we conducted focus groups among people who will play a decisive part in the next election in constituencies around the country, as they did in the Gorton and Denton by-election: Muslim voters who backed Labour in 2024. They talked about political division, Labour’s record, alternative parties and candidates, and the role of Gaza in their voting decision.

“We’re just the common enemy at the moment”

Many said they found the general political atmosphere difficult and even hostile, and that things had got worse in recent years: “Even though we’ve been here 50 or 60 years, we’re kind of second class. I think there was always discrimination when we were growing up, with skinheads and things, but it was open discrimination. Then it became more subtle, but now it’s open again;” “Whenever something happens in the news they always pick on ‘a Muslim’. They never say if it’s a Sikh or something. They never say a Jewish Epstein. They never say Catholic, or Christian Jimmy Savile. It’s always a Muslim. Why can’t we leave that out? Why can’t we just name them?” “There’s racism and there’s Islamophobia. They’re two different things. There’s an inherent dislike of Muslims and that stems from 911 and ISIS and Osama bin Laden and the tube bombings and everything else. We’re just the common enemy at the moment, and every generation needs a common enemy.” (This was not a universal view; it should be noted: “I don’t think it’s as bad as that. My kids have never experienced racism. My dad did, but my kids haven’t”).

“Someone’s trying to cause serious problems, for different cultures to collide”

There was also a widespread view that politicians and others were deliberately stoking divisions: “I think someone’s trying to cause serious problems, for different cultures to collide. It’s like throwing a bomb, so people are going to argue and start something between different cultures and religions;” “I do think governments are to blame, and politicians. The Nigel Farages of the world and all the rest, Donald Trump, who say ‘it’s OK to be racist, look, I’m racist with you’. And then the flags come out and it’s ‘yeah, I’m just saying what everyone else is thinking’. It’s creating a divide;” “I live in an area that has more flags than when we had the Jubilee. This isn’t from the public. There’s something bigger going on behind. I drive up a street and they’re absolutely in line, as if professionals have come and put them up.”

“They could have been more vocal about what’s going on”

Some thought similar attitudes were on display when it came to the Gaza conflict. In particular, participants cited the public reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine: “At my college, when the Ukraine thing happened, there was an email sympathising with the Ukrainian people. But when it came to Gaza there was no acknowledgment, nothing;” “We were told, if you have space in your home, open your homes to these people. That’s a big statement to make.”

Many were also disappointed with the government’s response to the conflict, which they regarded as being either much too timid or heavily pro-Israel: “Anyone that stood up and tried to tell the truth was basically tarnished. Keir Starmer pretty much said ‘this is the line and you’re going to follow this’. So the freedom of speech kind of went, even for the councillors and MPs;”

“I think they still sell arms to Israel;” “Keir Starmer specifically said Israel has a right to defend itself, to withhold food and aid from Gaza. There was a warrant issued for Netanyahu and Starmer was asked if he would arrest him if he landed on British soil, and he responded no. And you’ve got Palestine Action who are now regarded as a terrorist organisation, when then you had an EDL march where police vehicles were vandalised, but they’re not treated as a terrorist organisation. Why?”

The groups also drew a contrast between the official British position and that of other countries: “So many countries have taken this to the UN, voted against this whole thing. Where was our country?” “They could have been more vocal about what’s going on over there. Small countries like Ireland and Portugal and Greece spoke up and said it was genocide. We’re not saying anything.”

“It doesn’t feel like things are getting any better. They’re getting worse in some respects”

However, policy towards Israel and Gaza was by no means their only criticism of the Labour government, or even necessarily their biggest: “I know they’re picking up what the Conservatives left behind and that’s going to take a long time. But have we got time? I think Keir Starmer is a very weak man as well. He comes across as being very weak;” “I can’t think of anything positive that the Labour party or the government have done that has had an impact on me. We’ve spent years in austerity, and it doesn’t feel like things are getting any better. They’re getting worse in some respects;” “Digital ID. They want to keep track of us. I’ve got no confidence that they will secure that information, who accesses it, what they access it for;”

“What was their biggest election campaign on? ‘We will not raise taxes’. And they’ve done it twice;” “They sacked the chief constable of the West Midlands over a football match.”

“It’s a political career, that’s the bottom line”

None of our participants had a positive view of Birmingham MP and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood. Many felt she had let her local community down, allowed herself to be used by the political establishment, or shelved her principles in pursuit of her career: “She forgets where she’s come from and where her parents have come from;” “She’s part of the ‘yes’ team. To get to a certain position, you have to say enough yeses. And if you say no, you get dropped and you become one of the Zarahs. Shabana is the perfect ‘you tell me when to nod and I’ll nod, and when you tell me not to I’ll sit down’;” “I don’t think she’s done enough for the people to validate her being in that position of power;” “A brown face to deliver a brown message;” “If you look at Shabana Mahmood back in like 2012 or 13 or 14, she stuck up for Palestine and she’s saying so much. But if you listen to her now, she’s against people protesting. She’s got to put everything in place so it doesn’t get out of control, blah blah blah. It’s all a game to them. It’s a political career, that’s the bottom line.”

“There wasn’t much choice and I settled for Labour”

All our participants had voted Labour in 2024, but few had done so with much enthusiasm. Most had backed the party consistently over many years, though a few had voted Conservative in recent elections but thought it was time for change: “I thought, there’s loads of shite ones, and this was the best of the shite ones. So that’s what it came down to;” “There wasn’t much choice and I settled for Labour.”

Several felt there had been little to choose between Labour and the Conservatives in policy terms – a view which they said had been confirmed over the last 18 months: “He comes across very much as a Tory as well. I don’t think there’s much difference between the parties now, which is what I regret;” “Corbyn signalled a more left-leaning party, and it offered genuine choice in the UK. There’s no significant differentiating factor between the main ruling parties right now. They’re all centrist or following the same agenda or the same policies. It seems like none of them are organised or have a vision for Britain.”

For all of these reasons, many were prepared to consider alternative parties and candidates at the next election. A handful said they would probably return to the Conservatives. Though some were fond of Jeremy Corbyn, none were tempted by Your Party (“A lot of infighting. A bit of a mess”). The Green Party had not yet (pre Gorton result) made much impression on most of our participants, though some had had their interest piqued: “I keep coming across him and stuff that he says, and a lot of it resonates with me. If I keep doing my research and he keeps saying that stuff, I’ll probably end up voting for him;” “I think they do support Gaza a little, but I can’t say for sure.”

“The Gaza thing to me is huge, but it’s not all about Gaza”

Most emphasised that while a candidate’s position on Gaza might play some part in their decision, this would not in itself determine their vote: “I think sometimes that’s over-pushed. Don’t get me wrong, the Gaza thing to me is huge, but it’s not all about Gaza. We care about other things beyond that;” “For me, the priority is what happens in the UK. It’s what governs my day-to-day life.”

They often felt that for those who had backed the so-called ‘Gaza Independent’ MPs in 2024, events in the Middle East had only been one part of their decision: complacent sitting MPs, weariness with the Labour Party and local issues had also played an important part: “My in-laws live on the same road as Ayoub Khan [Independent Perry Barr MP] and he’s done very, very well. He’s like the success story of the road. But that man is so approachable. He does so much for the community. If you knock on his door, come in, no problem. So the idea that he just got voted in because of Gaza – if you live in that area, there’s a lot more to him than just that;” “He kicked out Khalid Mahmood, didn’t he? He’d been around 20 years and basically done nothing. He just sat on the fence. I felt like he was just in because he was Labour.”

Some younger participants also noted that name recognition and social media profile could be a more important factor that party: “One of the independents, Ahmed Yaqoob [a candidate for West Midlands Mayor in 2024] was big on social media. So every day I’m scrolling on TikTok, and I don’t really know his policies, but it’s seeing him every day as someone you know. If I’m completely honest, all these other candidates I don’t really know. So it’s having a name that’s familiar to you.”

“They haven’t listened to their local constituents, they’ve just gone to where the party stands”

In the same way, they expected disappointment with the Labour government to prompt more local voters to look at independent alternatives next time: “I think we’ve had a lot of shake up in the last so many years that people are now being more disgruntled and unhappy, and I think that’s what’s caused it;” “As well as leading the government, an MP’s role is to listen to their constituents. So a lot of people like Shabana Mahmood, who is Ladywood, they haven’t listened to their local constituents, they’ve just gone to where the party stands;” “Jess Phillips and Shabana Mahmood – I think both of those are on borrowed time. If they stood today, they would not win the election.”

Though none wanted to see a Reform government, most were not prepared to say that they would vote Labour to stop Nigel Farage. Some were still prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt after a relatively short time in office, some worried that there would not be enough independent MPs to make much difference, and some simply thought “better the devil you know”. A few also said their vote would depend on how close things seemed to be during the campaign.

“If you get another Labour one, it will be exactly the same as it is now”

However, there was also a feeling that there was no reason to stay loyal to a party that was not doing anything for them, whether locally or nationally: “Something has to change. Not for Muslims, not for people of colour, for people of a lower class. We’re so restricted. It’s like we’ve gone into this dark old age;” “The cost of living and everything is becoming tougher. Maybe in five years it’s going to be even worse;” “My local MP Tahir Mahmood for Hall Green, he’s done sod all for Hall Green. I’ve never seen him. So based on that,’ I’ll never vote for him. Not because he’s Labour, because he’s useless. If a good independent came, I’d give him a chance. I’ve given Labour chances;” “Whether it’s the Tories or Labour nationally, the policies are going to be the same. If you choose a person that’s independent locally, at least you’ll get some local difference. If you get another Labour one, it will be exactly the same as it is now.”

The mental health benefits of positive self affirmations

How to get started with positive affirmations

Two new digital tools have been released for the sole aim of stopping the tourism industry’s complicity with Israeli apartheid and war crimes against Palestinians.

The coalition of Palestinian groups calling for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) against Israel began its “No Room for Genocide” campaign in 2025. And now, it has released new tools to support this, including:

• A website for “B&B, hostel, or hotel” hosts to make their accommodation “a Sanctuary of Peace”.
• An Action Network petition for tourists to promise they will stop using Booking.com and Airbnb, which have profited from Israel’s crimes against humanity.

The BDS movement says many have already supported the No Room for Genocide campaign. But it wants even more people in the tourist industry to push government’s to fulfil their obligation under international law by ending “all forms of complicity” in Israel’s crimes.

Are you running a hotel or a B&B, a trek or a café, etc.?

You can do your part now, joining businesses, communities, and neighbourhoods to ensure they don’t host war criminals and genocidaires: Sign the pledge to be a Sanctuary of Peace and join a growing number of businesses… pic.twitter.com/WLX6H7wAV7

— BDS movement (@BDSmovement) February 24, 2026

Advertisement

Explaining its targeting of Booking.com and Airbnb, the campaign said:

Digital travel companies and aggregators, especially @bookingcom and @Airbnb , are complicit in Israel’s apartheid and ethnic cleansing of Indigenous Palestinian communities. They list illegal settlement properties built on stolen Palestinian land, a war crime under international law, as Israeli rentals on their sites.

Digital travel companies and aggregators, especially @bookingcom and @Airbnb, are complicit in Israel’s apartheid and ethnic cleansing of Indigenous Palestinian communities. They list illegal settlement properties built on stolen Palestinian land, a war crime under international… pic.twitter.com/ckbdM7SVLt

— BDS movement (@BDSmovement) February 24, 2026

No Room for Genocide!

The No Room for Genocide campaign, the BDS website explains, is:

calling on global civil society to pressure governments to amend immigration and visa policies to align with international legal standards and obligations… International law is clear on legal obligations of Third States to end all forms of complicity in the commission of Israel’s war crimes, crimes against humanity (including apartheid), and “plausible” genocide.

These include the responsibility to ensure war criminals are denied passage or haven by Third States and prosecuted for their crimes.

Advertisement

There is an overwhelming consensus among ethical experts that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza. As the Canary has documented in detail:

Genocide scholars, human rights groups, and ethical legal experts agree that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza.

The BDS campaign laments, however, that the response of many governments has been woefully insufficient. And that’s why it has been calling for action from ordinary people:

Countering the wilful negligence of states in upholding this responsibility and responding to the Palestinian civil society call to ensure there is No Room for Genocide, small businesses in the hospitality and tourism sector as well as solidarity groups are taking courageous actions. To amplify this campaign and support hospitality business owners, ethical tourism movements and solidarity groups in taking effective action, read and share this campaign toolkit.

The BDS movement launches two new tools for ethical tourism.

If you are a hospitality host, pledge to make your B&B, hostel, or hotel a Sanctuary of Peace – https://t.co/fz5bOrUfZb

If you are a traveler, pledge to drop @bookingcom and @Airbnb from your travel plans -… pic.twitter.com/Po7XS4vEMQ

Advertisement

— BDS movement (@BDSmovement) February 24, 2026

Featured image via the Canary

Lana Hempsall is a Policy Fellow at Onward, a County Councillor and founder and director of the Welfare Information Network, looking to raise awareness of the flaws and misuse of the welfare system.

The Motability scheme, which provides taxpayer funded vehicles to disabled people, has come in for increasing criticism over rapidly growing costs. In response, in the last Budget, the Chancellor announced changes to prevent luxury vehicles being offered. But that was never more than the most minor cosmetic adjustment, designed to deliver a quick positive headline while avoiding addressing the more fundamental problems with the current scheme.

Motability’s flaws do not start with the relatively small number of people who are driving BMWs or Mercedes. The problem is its sheer scale, cost and direction. Symptoms of a scheme that was designed with the best of intentions in the 1970s but which has grown far beyond its original purpose.

The scheme’s latest annual report lays this bare.

As of 30 September 2025, the Motability fleet has grown by 9.8 per cent in a single year to 890,000 vehicles. That is an extraordinary figure. Nearly one in five new cars sold in Britain now goes through this taxpayer funded scheme. In the past year alone there were 186,000 new applications including renewals, reflecting a 7.1 per cent increase in the eligible base of recipients of qualifying disability allowances.

Financially, the numbers are equally striking. Rental revenue, funded through taxpayer money, has risen to £3.464 billion, up from £2.806 billion the previous year. And yet despite generating more than £3.4 billion in income, Motability reported an operating loss before tax of £158 million.

Those aren’t the numbers of a marginal programme helping those unable to use traditional transport that Motability claims to be. Instead they tell the story of a vast, expanding leasing operation embedded within, and leaching off the benefits system and yet still making a loss.

But how is it possible for a scheme that is funneled customers by the government to be losing £158 million a year?

Part of the explanation lies in the rise in insurance claim expenses, increasing sharply from £491 million in 2024 to £655 million in 2025. However much of the blame lies with the additional services and products the scheme offers to participants. The annual report also highlights a series of one-off initiatives that Motability says were designed to help customers cope with the cost-of-living pressures in that year. including a £750 one off payment to 894,000 customers. But the taxpayers paying for this generous payment – which cost in total over £600 million – received no such financial support for them. In addition, Motability cars come bundled with insurance, servicing, road tax, breakdown cover and RAC membership – again, an option not available to other drivers at such a generous rate.  That year, as part of its push to support net zero, the scheme also installed 28,000 home EV charging points last year at no extra charge.

Each of these elements may be defensible in isolation. Taken together, they demonstrate an almost willful negligence that for any normal business would spell the end of its senior leadership. Instead the operation continues to expand, and executives are paid as though they run a FTSE 100 powerhouse.

From March 2025, CEO Andrew Miller’s salary rose to £522,000, with bonuses taking his total package to roughly £924,000 including pension. The Chief Financial Officer’s total remuneration was around £766,000, while the Chair now receives £187,000. Even the lowest paid non-executive director received £58,000.

Is it any surprise then that many feel the Chancellor’s decision to remove luxury vehicles is barely scratching the service in tackling Motability’s failings?

At the heart of the issue, as with the wider welfare system, is the excessive eligibility of the scheme. Access to Motability depends almost entirely on receipt of the higher mobility component of Personal Independence Payment or Disability Living Allowance. As the number of people qualifying for those benefits has risen dramatically, particularly for those with mental health conditions, the fleet and costs have ballooned.

If the Government is serious about restoring Motability to its original purpose, it must look beyond brand marques. It must consider whether eligibility should be more tightly linked to severe physical mobility needs. It must examine whether vehicles should be replaced less frequently and whether the range should be more clearly capped at practical, cost-effective models, instead of simply banning a few “luxury” models. It must also consider whether executive remuneration in a scheme of this nature should be subject to closer oversight.

However, above all, it must confront the wider welfare dynamic driving this expansion. When disability caseloads rise rapidly among working age individuals, the consequences ripple across the entire system. Motability is just one of the most visible and politically sensitive manifestations of that growth, a visible demonstration of the confused, expensive mess that the welfare system has become.

Motability is a warning, showing that a system that expands without clear boundaries risks undermining its own legitimacy. Every pound spent extending generous car leasing packages to those who may not require them is a pound not able to be used for those with the most severe needs, or a pound added to a welfare bill that is already stretching the public finances.

Removing a handful of high-end models may quieten criticism in the short term. However it is not reform. It is appeasement.

If the Government was honest with itself, it would tighten eligibility, redefine the scheme’s mission and ensure that mobility support is targeted, sustainable and fair.

Until that happens, the fleet will continue to grow, the costs mount, and public confidence erode.