In the upcoming Senedd election on 7 May, the Wales Green Party will stand candidates across all 16 constituencies. And the surging party is on course to get its best ever result in the nation, thanks to the new proportional system of voting.

Green Party: rent freezes, public ownership of water, and international law

Ahead of a likely wipeout for both Labour and the Tories, the Greens will probably stand alongside centre-left nationalists Plaid Cymru to oppose far-right Reform UK and the other right-wing parties. Welsh Green Party leader Anthony Slaughter has been clear about his party’s goals.

Slaughter, who has been leader of the Wales Green Party since 2018, has suggested that he’s ready to cooperate with Plaid Cymru. But he will be calling for speedy action on issues like “genuine public ownership” of Welsh Water and a demand for “rent freezes”. As he said in a statement, Green candidates:

will take the cost of living seriously by introducing rent controls, start cleaning up our rivers by holding Dŵr Cymru/Welsh Water to account, and stand up for international law and human rights in the face of government complicity in genocide and illegal wars.

And as the party noted:

Wales is the first nation in the UK to scrap the First-Past-The-Post system and the election in May will be the first under the full proportionate representation voting system that was introduced when the Senedd Reform Bill was approved on 9 May 2024.

Standing outside the historic Labour-Tory duopoly, the Greens will be one of the big beneficiaries of the change in the voting system:

YouGov’s first MRP of the 2026 Senedd election shows Plaid Cymru on course to be the largest party

PC: 43 (+19 from 2021*)
Ref: 30 (+30)
Lab: 12 (-32)
Grn: 10 (+10)
Con: 1 (-25)
LD: 0 (-2)

*notional results had the last election been conducted on the new system based on data… pic.twitter.com/nTpERackDc

— YouGov (@YouGov) March 25, 2026

Advertisement

This is the projections from the latest poll for Wales.

The polling was by YouGov for ITV Cymru and Cardiff Uni.

You can find the full analysis in my pinned tweet. pic.twitter.com/aRBoA4PJEG

— Will Hayward (@WillHayCardiff) March 24, 2026

The chance to challenge establishment parties via electoral reform is one reason why Green Party of England and Wales leader Zack Polanski has also promised to prioritise this change across the UK:

Zack Polanski sets out his day 1 priorities if PM:

1. Change voting system from FPTP to PR
2. Introduce a wealth tax
3. End homelessness (including by ending right to buy, building social housing and freezing rent) pic.twitter.com/AokyvYDBRa

— Rivkah Brown (@rivkahbrown) March 24, 2026

Progressives must stop Reform

As the Wales Green Party has stressed, hate-mongering Reform leader Nigel Farage:

has no respect for Wales at all

Farage has no respect for Wales at all.

His last leader turned out to be a Russian spy – now he makes glib remarks about us like one more group of people to aim his hatred at.https://t.co/dBQXEZg8A5

Advertisement

— Plaid Werdd Cymru | Wales Green Party (@WalesGreenParty) March 19, 2026

Polanski, meanwhile, has reminded Welsh voters that:

Nigel Farage had a leader in Wales who was a Russian asset go to prison for 10.5 years.

As the BBC reported, former Reform leader in Wales Nathan Gill received a sentence of:

10-and-a-half years in prison after admitting taking bribes for pro-Russia interviews and speeches.

He apparently got “up to £40,000” for this when he was a politician in the European Parliament.

Despite this record, however, Reform may do well in May’s election. So progressives across the board will need to get out and vote to show Reform that its corrupt divisiveness is not welcome in Wales.

Featured image via the Canary

Gorton and Denton had been a Labour fortress for a hundred years. In one form or another, the party held it for a century – until 2026, when the Green Party stormed in with a 27% swing. The victory marked their first ever Westminster by-election win and their first MP in the North of England in the form of Hannah Spencer. And, analysis shows that Labour lost the white working class vote to the Greens.

Now, a postmortem of the election analysis has Labour’s deputy leader, Lucy Powell, experiencing an epiphany: voters need a reason to vote Labour.

Labour sniffing out clues

The Guardian reported that, according to the party’s own internal analysis, Labour lost significant numbers of white working-class voters to the Greens. Not Reform.

Powell told activists in a call that:

There’s no doubt that we suffered from a large protest, with voters telling us to do better, be stronger about our purpose and values, and deliver the change we promised faster and more clearly,” she said. “We have ceded the political megaphone and it’s up to us to strongly and proudly get that back.

And, she said voters need a “reason” to vote Labour again.

Powell’s diagnosis? People either voted tactically to stop Reform, or they voted in protest to give Labour a kicking. Her fix? Talk more about free childcare, workers’ rights, and renters’ protections.

Activists might wonder how one can boast about Labour’s record on any of those, but Powell won’t do much reflecting. She will probably not point out that this might also be an outcome of her boss, Starmer’s, wide-reaching purge of progressives in Labour.

Burying their head in the sand

In fact, the Guardian reported she chided the:

hot-takes on what happened in the byelection, from many who weren’t even there.

Translation: don’t listen to the critics.

The Guardian report further noted that senior party figures have said in recent weeks Labour needs a thorough overhaul of its strategy, especially in long-held safe seats where the data is rarely updated. The reasoning? The current volatility of UK politics and the high numbers of voters switching parties, and previously non-voters turning out, especially for Reform UK.

Notice the framing: Reform. Always Reform.

Even after losing white working-class voters to the Greens, Labour’s strategists can’t stop staring at the right. The party that actually took the seat—the Greens—barely gets a mention. There’s a hot take for you, Lucy.

Featured image via the Canary

DWP — The Resolution Foundation is the latest to jump on the disabled young people-bashing bandwagon. On Tuesday 24 March, the think tank posted a video on its X account laying into so-called NEETs (young people not in education, employment, or training).

Naturally, the fact that disabled young people are not in jobs had nothing to do with exploitative employers or the dire lack of accessible jobs. Or you know, there’s evidently no significance to the simple fact that ‘inactive’ claimants on the health element of Universal Credit have gone through a rigorous assessment and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has quite literally found them too sick to work.

Nope, the oh-so generous benefits system is to blame for ‘incentivising’ them not to enter employment. That’s according to the actually generously paid non-disabled talking heads at the Resolution Foundation. Now where have we heard that before?

The ostensible Labour government mouthpiece was spouting this bile all as the DWP is just under two weeks away from slashing Universal Credit’s health element in fucking half for new claimants.

Of course, disabled people haven’t soon forgotten that it was the Resolution Foundation that was behind the callous idea in the first place.

Resolution Foundation: Universal Credit ‘incentivising’ young people not to work

The video in question was a conversation between its research director Lindsay Judge and its principal economist Nye Cominetti:

There are nearly a million young people neither learning nor earning in the UK.

To what extent is that being driven by the structure of our benefit system? Lindsay Judge explains ⤵️ https://t.co/WkcwQ7ZNfc pic.twitter.com/MAgBNNjp67

— Resolution Foundation (@resfoundation) March 24, 2026

Advertisement

Laying it on thick with the lazy scrounger insinuation from the get-go, Cominetti asked Judge:

To what extent do we think, you know, the incentives, structures and so on in the benefits system are to blame for our NEET rates?

Judge started by at least acknowledging the pitiful rates of Universal Credit. But at the same time, she couldn’t help but lean into the myth that benefits ‘incentivise’ people to stay out of work:

I think it’s really clear that for young people who’re unemployed who get a lower standard allowance Universal Credit rate, the incentives to be on Universal Credit are pretty dismal. So anybody who thinks that they’re languishing on kind of lavish benefits doesn’t know anything about the standard allowance.

Judge almost gets it, almost. She seemed to attempt to dispel the nonsense idea people are “languishing” on benefits. However, she then basically went on to imply disabled people claiming the health element are doing just that:

I think it’s a bit different for young people who are in the inactive category and who are on Universal Credit health element. Because that’s a significant amount more money than the UC standard allowance. And not only do they get more money if they’re in that group, but they also aren’t subject to conditionalities, so they’re not sanctioned…So I think there are financial reasons why the benefits system is pushing young people perhaps to be in that inactive category.

DWP Universal Credit cuts: brainchild of the Resolution Foundation

Judge’s spiel wasn’t all that surprising. The Canary previously uncovered that the Resolution Foundation pushed the idea that the DWP should slash the health element. It proposed that the government could use this to cover increases to the standard allowance.

So of course, now it has to save face with this preposterous narrative. And right now, maligning young benefit claimants is all the right-wing rag, privileged politician rage.

Anyone actually trying to survive on woefully inadequate state support will know it’s horrendous. The billionaire-owned press is constantly demonising disabled claimants. Vilifying rhetoric that recipients are faking their conditions is rife at Westminster.

When the bloody chancellor of the exchequer is going around saying young people on benefits are “stain on this country” and the DWP boss calling the growing number of young disabled people not in work or education a “disease”, how are young disabled claimants meant to feel like anything other than a burden?

But that’s how this Labour government wants it. Because then, it can shunt them into low-paying apprenticeships with its arms manufacturer mates.

Doing the DWP’s dirty work for it

So the Resolution Foundation is doing the government’s dirty work designing and manufacturing consent for cuts for it. Of course, it’s the kind of shameless scapegoating you might expect from the think tank formerly headed by current DWP ghoul Torsten Bell-end.

The very same day it posted its bullshit video, an Independent article was circulating on X. Southampton City Council turned down a young disabled man for a paid bin worker job. He’d been doing the job for nine month – free. Slave-Labour-Soton CC is a ‘disability confident’ employer by the way – for the little that’s clearly worth.

Tell us again how the government’s flashy solution to pay employers to hire young disabled claimants is going to help. So far, it hasn’t provided any evidence its suite of new corporate bungs is going to lead to employers taking on staff they wouldn’t have already.

Rich policy wonks advising on youth unemployment

Judge and Cominetti are likely among the 12/30 Resolution Foundation employees raking in over £60k. And even if they’re not, the remaining 18 employees took home over £1m between them anyway. So it’s all but certain they have a tidy salary.

Thanks to the Resolution Foundation’s bright idea, a single disabled young person under the age of 25 will now get a whopping… £6,670 a year in Universal Credit (£4,063 standard allowance, £2,607 health element). To put that in context, that’s little over a quarter of a full-time annual salary on minimum wage. The DWP has assessed these disabled people as too ill to work.

So, social security like Universal Credit, disability benefits, if they’ve undergone the gruelling application for them, and sometimes housing benefits, will likely be their sole income.

The point being, these paltry benefits aren’t even enough for young disabled people to live on. If they’re ‘languishing’ in anything, it’s state-sanctioned and gratuitously-celebrated destitution. Perhaps these well-paid policy wonks far-removed from the realities of this shamble of a welfare system would like to answer where the fucking incentive is in that?

Featured image via the Canary

An abusive undercover cop who one expert called “misogyny personified” is facing scrutiny at the long-running Undercover Policing ‘Spycops’ Inquiry. And far from expressing genuine regret for the damage and pain he caused, he has shown disdain for the process and even tried to paint himself as the victim.

Spycops inquiry shows rampant misogyny

A decades-long political-policing project in service of the rich and powerful unjustifiably targeted hundreds of left-wing groups. One woman speaking out about it previously told the Canary that “institutional sexism” was at the heart of it. Expert Tom Fowler even described it as:

a rape gang that was covering for each other and celebrating the sexual conquest they had of women in the field.

One member of this gang was Rob Hastings (who used the fake name ‘Rob Harrison’). And as Undercover Research Group co-founder Dónal O’Driscoll told Fowler on 25 March, Hastings was one of the spycops who were “misogyny personified“.

The “unspeakable horrors” Hastings inflicted on a woman going by the pseudonym of ‘Maya’ led Fowler to describe him as:

one of the most… genuinely evil human beings I’ve ever encountered.

The #spycops officer Robert Hastings claims that the relationship was two people being difficult with each other. He essentially claims it was her fault

— Tom Fowler (@tombfowler) March 25, 2026

Hastings squirms as his abuse comes under scrutiny

O’Driscoll called Maya’s testimony in recent days:

some of the most shocking evidence heard to date in the inquiry.

And he explained that what happened to her was:

deeply disturbing, deeply misogynist… It was just pure sexual abuse. Horrible to have heard anybody went through this and she went through it at the hands of a serving police officer who was deceiving her all the way.

But as Fowler noted, there’s a pattern of lying from these “professional con men”. And as O’Driscoll added, there’s been “some outrageous lying” during the inquiry. So it was unsurprising to see Hastings behave this way too.

Fowler observed that Hastings had been “incredibly angry” when giving evidence. O’Driscoll also said:

you could see that he was getting angrier and angrier throughout the day… he felt he was being punished. You got this sense that he was like, ‘why am I being held to account? I’m the victim. My marriage failed.’… No acknowledgement that he is a serial cheater.

The inquiry was spot on in instructing a woman as barrister for Hastings’ evidence. He can’t control his misogyny. Incredible work from Sarah Hemingway. #spycops https://t.co/bXEL2jtsmW

— Donna McLean (@Donna__McLean) March 25, 2026

It seems safe to say that Robert Hastings has done a spectacularly shit job of convincing anyone at all that he isn’t/ wasn’t a controlling, contemptuous, misogynist bastard.#spycops#ACAB pic.twitter.com/jIHcbbVyV8

— COPS (@copscampaign) March 25, 2026

Unapologetic, because ‘left-wing politics is criminality’

Counterfire‘s James Simpson, meanwhile, referred to the public laughter that some of Hastings’s absurd responses got. Simpson told Fowler on 24 March that:

some of the responses from Hastings were quite frankly ridiculous… Absolutely some nonsense that he was coming up with.

Fowler highlighted that Hastings kept trying to bring the focus back onto himself and how “catastrophic” his behaviour had been for him personally:

he has very much painted himself as the victim in all this

And at the same time, Fowler continued:

at no point does [Hastings] accept that what he did might have been an overreach. He’s absolutely convinced that all his reporting is absolutely justified.

This is despite him having collected extensive, unnecessary information about targets’ families, jobs, and countless other details.

Hastings simply treated the unjustifiably intrusive monitoring and indiscriminate data collection, Fowler said, as “fair game”. Part of the justification for the spycop, Fowler added, was that he saw left-wing politics as “some form of criminality”.

In reality, the spycops scandal was something that changed the whole fabric of the country for the worse. And it’s important for us all to hold the state accountable for that. So the more Hastings and his abusive colleagues squirm, the better.

Featured image via the Canary

Liverpool’s stars were quick to praise Egyptian international Mohamed Salah after he officially announced the end of his journey with the team at the end of the 2025-2026 season, following a nine-year career filled with achievements and trophies.

The club confirmed in an official statement that:

Mohamed Salah will bring his illustrious football career with the team to a close at the end of the season, after reaching an agreement to end an exceptional nine-year journey at Anfield.

The statement added that the player was keen to announce his decision to the fans himself, out of appreciation and respect for them and in the interest of transparency regarding his future.

Salah: illustrious Liverpool career

Salah joined Liverpool from Roma in the summer of 2017 and quickly became one of the club’s greatest players of all time, contributing to winning numerous titles, including: the Premier League twice, the Champions League, the Club World Cup, the UEFA Super Cup, the FA Cup, the League Cup twice, and the FA Community Shield.

He scored 255 goals in 435 appearances, ranking third on Liverpool’s all-time top scorers list, and won the Premier League Golden Boot four times, along with numerous individual awards.

Salah’s teammates reacted to his departure on social media, emphasizing his historic place at Liverpool:

Dominik Szoboszlai posted a video of Salah and simply captioned it “Legend,” indicating that the Egyptian star’s career was truly exceptional.

Hugo Ekitikie shared a photo of them together and wrote “The Best,” clearly referring to the significant impact Salah had both on and off the team.

Harvey Elliott commented on the club’s statement: “The Greatest, Thank You,” expressing his respect and appreciation for his teammate’s career.

Meanwhile, Miloš Krkić summed up his feelings towards Salah in one word: “King.”

Fans heartbroken

All social media platforms were abuzz with various tweets about Mohamed Salah’s life, journey, and history from the moment his departure from Liverpool was announced.

To say Mohamed Salah is a legend of the club is an understatement. He’s surpassed all of our wildest dreams with his performances over the past 9 seasons and been absolutely vital in us winning the lot. 🏆

The Egyptian King. 🇪🇬👑 https://t.co/xsAbn22H0W

Advertisement

— Mick Moran (@Mick_Moran_) March 24, 2026

Thank you for absolutely EVERYTHING Mohamed ❤️ You came, you saw, you conquered. Leaving a club legend, leaving us with so many incredible memories & things none of us could have imagined in recent times. Focal part of the best LFC team in my life time ❤️ #YNWA #KING #SALAH #LFC https://t.co/R05u2HxZ6x

— Jackie Hall (@Kopitlikeitshot) March 24, 2026

A Level Never Reached Before ⚽️

Mohamed Salah leaves Liverpool Football Club as one of the greatest in its history.

Mo reached a level no one in Arab football has achieved before.

Advertisement

Salah is not just a success story. He is a case study.#LFC #EPL pic.twitter.com/bbH2ICrRmR

— Eslam Nour (@EslamEgyptian) March 24, 2026

Featured image via the Canary

New analysis has shown the number of long-term unemployed young people has more than doubled over the past three years.

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) held its annual Young Workers’ Conference on 21-22 March. And it used the occasion to call on the government to turbocharge its efforts to support young workers.

New TUC analysis reveals the number of long-term unemployed young people has more than doubled over the past three years, from 53,000 to 129,000.

Now 1 in 5 unemployed 18-24 year olds have been out of work for longer than 12 months.

The Jobs Guarantee scheme

The government’s recent commitment to increase the Jobs Guarantee scheme to 90,000 places and expand to 18–24-year-olds will make an important difference to young people.

But the TUC says these figures underline the need for the government to go further and faster on the Jobs Guarantee.

The union body is calling for the government to:

• Shorten eligibility period. Young people currently have to wait 18 months on Universal Credit to be eligible for the scheme, which the TUC says is far too long. Earlier eligibility would be particularly beneficial for those living in area with few vacancies and high unemployment.
• Accelerate delivery and increase the number of placements. Recent increases in placements are welcome. But the current target of 90,000 placements over three years, averaging 30,000 annually, is still insufficient given the scale of the challenge. There still need to be further increases in the number of available placements.

The TUC would also like to see the scheme expanded to those not on Universal Credit, as nearly half (44%) of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) don’t receive an out-of-work benefit.

The TUC says that whilst Job Guarantee schemes need initial upfront investment, they result in a return on investment for the government.

Recent TUC analysis revealed that the benefit to cost ratio of the programme is estimated at 2.81. Every £1,000 of (net) government spending on the programme generates £2,810 of net revenue for the Exchequer. With these outcomes assessed over 30 years, the scheme pays for itself within a decade.

The union body says that early experience of good quality paid work can make a massive difference to young people’s job prospects in the long term.

Trumpflation threat to young workers and unemployed young people

The TUC says “Trumpflation” is a threat to workers up and down the country – especially young workers.

The union body is calling on government to pull out all the stops to protect households and firms from the economic fallout of Donald Trump’s illegal war on Iran.

With young workers especially vulnerable to economic chaos, the TUC says that must include future action to increase the scale and scope of the Jobs Guarantee.

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

Too many young people in the UK are stuck out of work for extended periods of time. And that has long-lasting effects for their own prospects and for the country as a whole. We know that early experience of good quality paid work makes a huge difference to young people’s prospects across their lifetimes.

The government was right to expand the Jobs Guarantee to more young people and encourage businesses to hire those who have been out of work for more than six months. But ministers must now be ready to turbocharge the scheme, going further and faster.

Trumpflation is a real threat to workers up and down the country, particularly young workers living in parts of the country where unemployment is already higher.

Advertisement

That’s why eligibility and number of places should be expanded, and young people shouldn’t have to wait until they have been unemployed for 18 months to access support.

Featured image via the Canary

Shadow Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) boss Helen Whately couldn’t help but get in the Tories’ punches on disabled people. On Tuesday 24 March, the latest DWP wet wipe (in a long line of DWP wet wipes) took to GB News to shit on those claiming Personal Independence Payment (PIP):

Government could save £2bn by bringing back face-to-face PIP assessments.

Ministers say they’re doing that, but the numbers tell a different story. So do the empty assessment centres.

Time to get a grip of the benefits bill. pic.twitter.com/ANMZWDBzAv

— Helen Whately MP (@Helen_Whately) March 23, 2026

Advertisement

The main thrust was that disabled people doing PIP assessments over the phone are just ‘faking it’, because of course it was.

DWP PIP: Whately on a warpath over remote assessments

Whately was referring to an ‘analysis’ the Tories hyped up in shitrag the Sun. Supposedly, this found that:

when a person is assessed face-to-face for PIP, 44 per cent end up getting the benefit.

But when it is done remotely the rate is far higher at 57 per cent.

Of course, the article is sparse on the actual detail of quite how the Tories came to these numbers. However, it does seem to chime with figures DWP minister Stephen Timms previously put out via an answer to a parliamentary written question.

Regardless, the analysis doesn’t actually prove what Whately wants it to. It went on to claim that:

It has led to an extra 259,000 successful claims a year on average — equal to a higher annual welfare bill of £1.8billion.

That remote assessments have higher success rates doesn’t evidence that people are “gaming the system” as she suggested. More likely, what it shows is that when disabled people are given assessments appropriate to their health circumstances, they’re better able to articulate their lived realities and resulting needs.

The fact is, the latest DWP statistics show that 65% of PIP decisions cleared at tribunal between October 2020 and September 2025 were overturned in the applicants’ favour. The DWP has also changed its decision and awarded PIP to 20% of people who made an appeal. In other words, the DWP is wrongly refusing PIP to disabled people who are eligible for it.

And disabled folks who’ve applied for PIP report plenty of terrible experiences with assessors.

The PIP assessment is not easy. People who should get it, don’t. The assessment is long and gruelling, and regularly degrading.

The analysis’s £1.8m savings claim is total nonsense — because there’s no proof those 259,000 people weren’t eligible.

But naturally, Whately and her colleagues — who aren’t medically trained — want to decide who’s ‘deserving’ and ‘disabled enough’ to get support.

Face-to-face assessments unsafe and inaccessible

Hilariously, DWP boss Pat McFadden and DWP minister Torsten Bell were both scoring political points on X:

The Tories reduced face to face appointments to almost zero when in power.

They then agreed new contracts embedding the reduction just months before the election.

Now they attack their own record and legacy while we sort out what they left behind. https://t.co/zYsCWfieMG

— Pat McFadden (@patmcfaddenmp) March 23, 2026

Sigh. Absolutely no shame. Of course it was the Tories that:
– dialled down face to face assessments
– signed contracts with providers to embed that decision post-covid
– now assume journalists won’t bother asking them basic questions when they attack their own record https://t.co/TQ2BIiBRCH

— Torsten Bell (@TorstenBell) March 23, 2026

Advertisement

Of course, both were evidently loathe to mention that the former Conservative government brought in this shift to remote assessments because of the deadly COVID-19 pandemic. A pandemic where repeated government mismanagement forced clinically vulnerable disabled people to ‘shield’ in lockdown long after their non-disabled peers.

A pandemic in which disabled people were up to 3 times more likely to die. In the early months of the pandemic, learning disabled people were 30 times more likely to die from it.

Props to the Tories for forgetting again that clinically vulnerable disabled people exist. Forcing face-to-face appointments will put many disabled people at risk. And this would also be a barrier for many disabled and chronically ill folks who either simply can’t travel to appointments, or risk worsening their health by doing so:

Disgusting. It can be difficult for people to travel to assessments, axing phone interviews will just mean people who genuinely need help will be unable to get it… and the face-to-face meetings are NOT more accurate, as I have experienced. The DWP needs major change now.

— Andrew Fisher (@merman1974) March 23, 2026

Advertisement

PIP success rates have plummeted

The rate of DWP approving applications for PIP has also actually plummeted:

Since face to face assessments have moved to mainly virtual ones, the success rate for PIP applications has plummeted from 52% to 35%. The idea that it is making it easier for “fakers” is so inaccurate and widespread that I have lost 3 stone from eye rolling alone. https://t.co/qfJHWInZJ7

— Spin Decoders (@leith1076) March 23, 2026

Specifically, successful awards sat at 55% in 2018-19 and decreased slightly to an average of 52% the following financial year.

By comparison, as Benefits and Work recently reported, this rate has continued to drop. For the quarter ending January 2026, the DWP approved just 35% of new claims. This was down from 43% the same quarter last year. In other words, a little over one in three applicants are actually getting awards of PIP. It’s also a decrease from the previous quarter that saw success rates reach just 38% (also a fall from 44% Q3 in 2024).

So contrary to the Tories’ rhetoric, no, the DWP isn’t handing out PIP more readily since the former Tory government implemented remote assessments.

DWP — more people should get PIP anyway

But why would Whately and co. let facts get in the way of a good vilifying soundbite?

When Whately bandies about her dubious figures, it’s the number of people claiming PIP she’s attacking. And of course, in this context, it’s easy to spin that PIP claims are spiralling. Because quite simply, more people are indeed applying for it.

It’s not rocket science to recognise that off the back of a disabling pandemic, more people will in fact be disabled.

What’s more, it’s also a good thing more disabled people are actually applying for it. As the Canary’s Rachel Charlton-Dailey recently highlighted:

There’s also the fact that just 3.9 million people claim PIP. The DWP and press make this sound like a huge number, but it’s only a fraction of how many disabled people there are in the country. 16.8 million people self-identify as disabled in the UK, so that’s less than a quarter of them claiming PIP.

There might be a huge uproar over ‘1 in 10 people claiming PIP’, but disabled people make up 25% of the population. It should be 1 in 4.

Instead then, it’s the above proportion figures that matter. Let’s not forget that PIP is to level the playing field for disabled people. It helps with the extra £1,095 a month costs disabled people incur.

However, the Tories would still have you believe it’s bullshit about the “bloated benefits bill”.

It didn’t go unnoticed either that Whately was banging on about this days after the Labour government announced its call for evidence for the Timms Review.

Ironically, the review should address all the above issues with the assessment system. As the Canary pointed out however, this is already shaping up to be a monumental stitch-up.

The simple fact of the matter is that to politicians on both sides of the House, disabled people are a convenient scapegoat to justify their austerity agendas. While these cronies of corporate capitalism run this country, disabled lives will only ever be a political football to kick to the sidelines.

Featured image via the Canary

UEFA has made its decision on the lists of teams participating in the Champions League. It rejected a proposal submitted by English clubs to increase the number of players to 28 players starting next season. Instead, UEFA preferred to maintain the current system that limits the list to 25 players.

According to the Guardian, the decision came after discussions witnessed by the Club Competitions Committee. However, these discussions did not succeed in reaching a consensus. This lack of agreement led to the proposal being excluded from the agenda of the next Executive Committee. This meeting is scheduled before the European League final in Istanbul on May 20.

UEFA tackle English demands and Spanish concerns

English Premier League clubs have pushed to expand the rosters, in light of the increasing number of matches as a result of the new tournament system. They consider that increasing the number of players is necessary. The main goal is to protect teams from injuries and increasing fatigue.

In contrast, prominent Spanish clubs, led by Atletico Madrid, Sevilla, and Real Sociedad, led the rejection front. They were motivated by concerns about devoting financial superiority to English clubs. Furthermore, they feared giving them an additional advantage by having deeper and more powerful rosters.

These concerns were clearly reflected this season, after all six English clubs succeeded in reaching the round of 16. However, only Arsenal and Liverpool continued their journey to the quarter-finals.

New system increases stress

This controversy comes amid changes to the Champions League system. There is now the adoption of a new format comprising 36 teams in the league stage, which has led to an increase in the number of matches.

Teams are now required to play at least two additional matches. There is also the possibility of playing two additional matches in the January playoff for teams that do not occupy the top eight places. As a result, this has doubled the physical pressure on the players.

The file was postponed and not closed

Although the proposal is currently rejected, the Guardian reported that the file has not been closed permanently. Available data indicates the possibility of re-offering it before the 2027-2028 season. This would coincide with the launch of a new cycle for television broadcasting rights.

Between English demands driven by the pressure of matches, and European reservations that fear an imbalance, UEFA remains committed to the status quo. For now, it is awaiting a moment of consensus that may reopen the discussion again.

Featured image via the Canary

The 2026 World Cup ticket dispute has escalated into legal action after the Football Supporters’ Association of Europe (FSE), in collaboration with Euroconsumers, filed an official complaint with the European Commission against FIFA, accusing it of abusing its monopoly position in ticket sales.

According to the official statement issued by the two organizations, the complaint was filed on March 24, 2026, in Brussels, Belgium, marking the first time such a large-scale action has been taken against FIFA at the level of the European Union institutions. The group said:

The cheapest openly available final tickets now start at $4,185 – more than seven times the cost of the cheapest 2022 World Cup final ticket. Last month FIFA president Gianni Infantino also defended the use of surge pricing at the tournament.

FIFA dabble in ‘dynamic pricing’

The complaint also focused on the adoption of a “dynamic pricing” system, which allows prices to change according to demand. The organisations concerned considered this a violation of the principle of transparency and an infringement on consumer rights.

The complaint also included sharp criticism of the ticketing mechanisms, pointing to ambiguity in essential details such as seat locations and team identities, as well as accusations of using pressured sales tactics and imposing fees of up to 15% on resale tickets.

Both parties also raised the issue of promoting low-priced tickets ($60) for group stage matches, asserting that these tickets were not actually available to the public when sales opened.

The crisis began in December 2025 when a supporters’ association criticized FIFA’s pricing policies in statements reported by European media outlets. The issue later escalated into formal legal action supported by consumer protection organizations.

Clear demands for European Commission

The complaint called on the European Commission to intervene and compel FIFA to:

• Halt the dynamic pricing system
• Fix prices at previously announced levels
• Publish the number of remaining tickets for each category before the next sales phases

This move presents FIFA with a new legal test in Europe, at a time of increasing public and media pressure, which could pave the way for fundamental changes in the ticketing mechanism for the world’s biggest football event.

Featured image via the Canary

Labour’s answer to the energy crisis, spurred on by the war on Iran, is to subsidise the profits of fossil fuel companies. According to the Times, only households on benefits will receive the money that helps prop up energy companies.

Instead, Labour should bring energy into public ownership, while transitioning to a Green New Deal to address not only the climate crisis, but volatile international markets and sky high costs, in one fell swoop.

Corporate stranglehold

While energy is privatised, companies have a stranglehold on individuals in our society. The free market is supposed to be about an individual choice, but everyone needs energy so there is no choice but to purchase it from a provider. Households and businesses’ costs may deviate across companies, but publicly owned energy could provide the absolute cheapest through wholesaling renewables for the entire country.

Labour has so far announced a £53 million support package for “vulnerable” households who use heated oil.

Labour — welfare for large companies

Again, the market is supposed to be ‘free’, yet corporations receive huge benefits from the government. 22% of The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers receive universal credit (UC). That means the public purse is significantly subsidising the profits of companies like Tesco, which makes £6,150 of profit per employee.

Direct subsidies is another way the public purse delivers corporate welfare. The government is providing £2.5bn to the steel industry this parliament, without taking a stake in steel companies that would provide public monetary benefit.

This is a continuation of the Conservative agenda. In the 2023/24 year, some of the government’s subsidies to corporations amounted to a whopping £32bn. The year before, they were £53bn because gas inflation not only increased bills but also the government increased corporate handouts to profiteering fossil fuel companies. And now Starmer has announced a further £22bn bung to the fossil fuel sector for carbon capture projects that don’t work.

Government intervention appears to be focused on benefiting corporations, rather than the whole of society.

Featured image via the Canary