800 arms firms have sent an open letter to chancellor Rachel Reeves demanding she open a special ‘war’ bank just for them. These massive scroungers want guaranteed flows of state cash so they can line their pockets from global instability. Reeves doesn’t appear to have answered them yet. But Keir Starmer has pledged to build the UK economy around war — despite evidence suggesting defence spending does little for growth.

Politico reported:

More than 800 British defense companies have urged Chancellor Rachel Reeves to launch a global rearmament bank to guarantee lending to the sector as the U.K. government attempts to ramp up military spending

The letter was coordinated by Make UK Defence, a trade body for arms firms. They want the UK signed up to a Defence, Security and Resilience Bank (DSRB). A former senior NATO official is leading the charge:

The DSRB was conceived by former head of NATO innovation, Rob Murray, with the aim of creating a multilateral AAA-rated bank providing loans to allied governments, potentially allowing the U.K. to borrow directly from the institution at a lower cost.

The British government ruled out such a measure in September 2025. But now they are under pressure from the arms firms looking to guarantee a few more third homes and yachts for shareholders.

Accelerate defence spending

Make UK Defence chief Andrew Kinniburgh wrote in the letter seen by Politico:

It is therefore essential that defence spending is accelerated in a way that translates into real industrial capacity and military capability. The DSRB could be a significant pillar in achieving this, alongside our NATO and non-NATO allies.

Politico explained that arms firms are sad they don’t have all of the money:

A multinational rearmament bank would also provide credit guarantees to commercial banks, allowing them to lend at a greater scale to defense businesses, which report struggles in accessing finance, particularly among small and medium-sized firms.

Please, won’t somebody think of the arms firms?

On a side-note, if you look at Make UK Defence’s website you’ll find its backers include everything from establishment think-tanks like the Royal United Service Institute (RUSI) to arms firms like Lockheed, Boeing and Anduril. You’ll also see various military charities like the RAF Benevolent Fund and SSAFA.

Perverse. But at least they’re committed to Net Zero. Great work, team. All is forgiven…

A spokesperson for the UK treasury said:

We are committed to deepening cooperation with our allies to deter and disrupt threats — including strengthening the UK’s unshakeable commitment to NATO.

But Labour’s economic plans have holes in them so big you could drive an aircraft carrier through them.

Military Keynesianism

The Labour government has decided to build an economy around Military Keynesianism. Their logic is off. Economist Michael Burke has said:

There is an entire body of thought devoted to the idea of promoting military spending as an economic benefit dubbed by its supporters as ‘military Keynesianism’.

John Maynard Keynes was a socialist-ish economist whose work on government spending informed many positive state programs in the 20th century.  But what Starmer has proposed is a “vulgarisation of Keynes’ work”:

supporters suggest any type of government spending is beneficial to the economy, and given that military spending enhances the power and prestige of the country, then military spending should be prioritised.

It’s easy to get bogged down in complex economics here. But here is Burke’s key point:

military spending has one of the lowest ‘employment multipliers’ of all economic categories.

He added:

It ranks 70^th in terms of the employment it generates, out of 100.

So what sort of economic activity actually is good? Well:

Health is rated number 1.  Everything from agriculture to energy to food manufacture, chemicals, iron and steel, to computers, construction, and a host of others in between all have greater ‘employment multipliers’ than military spending.

Labour obsession with handing out free money to arms firms seems more ideological than useful. That said, they have stated they aren’t going to start up a war bank. But Starmer’s government is weak and getting weaker. They’re still inured to NATO, the US and the demands of global capital. Time will tell if they hold out in the face of pressure from Big Death.

Featured image via the Canary

(Alamy)

6 min read1 hr

“It’s incredibly lazy to say all Muslim voters are left-wing,” said one Labour MP. “Are you telling me that these voters look at Zack Polanski and like his drugs policy?”

The Labour Party has controlled Gorton and Denton for well over a century.

At the 2024 general election, it was one of 70 constituencies that Keir Starmer’s party won with an absolute majority, securing over 50 per cent of the vote share. Defeat in this Greater Manchester seat later this month would represent a major symbolic blow to the Prime Minister as he seeks to put his shaky leadership on firmer footing.

A minister this week told PoliticsHome that the by-election would be the next “trigger point”.

Despite Labour’s position in Gorton and Denton seeming unassailable just 18 months ago, defeat at the end of February is seen as a very real prospect, with both the Greens and Reform UK confident of victory. 

Green candidate Hannah Spencer, a plumber and councillor for nearby Hale, is the bookies’ favourite to succeed Andrew Gwynne, who resigned as the seat’s Labour MP on health grounds. “It’s really powerful to see so many people turn around and say, forget it, I’m not [voting Labour] anymore,” she told PoliticsHome.

“Labour is totally irrelevant in this constituency at this point,” Green Party leader Zack Polanski told PoliticsHome during a visit to the Greater Manchester contest.

Labour strongly rejects the suggestion that the by-election is a contest between the Greens and Nigel Farage’s Reform, with party sources in the area this week telling PoliticsHome they are increasingly confident of keeping hold of the seat. While the party and the Prime Minister poll poorly nationally, Labour possesses significant institutional knowledge of the seat, having controlled it for over 100 years, and is seen as having a strong ground campaign.

Labour currently holds 25 of the 27 MPs in the Greater Manchester region, and more than 600 councillors across the city. Andy Burnham, the popular local Labour mayor, is a regular campaigner and features prominently on literature alongside Labour candidate Angeliki Stogia, despite being blocked by Labour officials as the party’s candidate. Mancunian rock band Inspiral Carpets performed for Labour activists during PoliticsHome‘s visit to the constituency last weekend.

Labour and the Greens are engaged in a communications battle to persuade voters in Gorton and Denton that they are the best way of stopping Reform. 

How the progressive vote splits on the day will be determined to a significant degree by the seat’s Muslim residents, who make up over 30 per cent of the constituency.

Amongst Pakistani and Bangladeshi voters – who, according to the most recent data, are the predominant Muslim group in Gorton and Denton – the Greens outperform Labour in nationwide polling. A YouGov survey conducted in October found that more than half of this cohort (58 per cent) felt positive about the Greens, compared with 31 per cent who felt positive about Labour.

The decision by both George Galloway’s Workers Party of Britain and the Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana-fronted Your Party not to stand means there is no pro-Gaza voice to the left of the Greens. According to Ben Walker, co-founder of Britain Elects, this suggests there will be a few thousand votes that will “tack themselves on to the Green column”.

The Muslim Vote, an influential organisation which urges people to vote on religious lines, endorsed the Greens early in the campaign. The organisation, set up in late 2023, endorsed the four independent candidates who were elected at the 2024 general election on campaigns centred on the war in Gaza. They were Shockat Adam, Adnan Hussain, Ayoub Khan and Iqbal Mohammed.

However, the Greens face challenges in securing Muslim voters.

One reason for Labour optimism heading into the by-election is a belief that the area’s older voters, particularly older Muslim voters, remain loyal to the party. 

Labour peer Lord Wajid Khan, who has been closely involved in the review into Islamophobia, has been helping the party’s dialogue with ethnic minorities groups in the constituency.

There is also a belief among Labour figures that Gaza as an issue is not as salient as it was earlier in the conflict. Labour candidate Stogia, a local councillor, told PoliticsHome she hosted an event for several dozen Muslim women in February and Gaza was not brought up once. She also claimed that the local Labour Party had experienced less of a backlash than elsewhere in the country, as Manchester City council was one of the first authorities to call for a ceasefire after the October 2023 attacks.

Middle East minister Hamish Falconer, who is regarded as a well-respected figure within the pro-Palestine wing of the party, has been to Gorton and Denton to campaign.

There is also a logistical challenge posed by the by-election falling during Ramadan, shortening the window for when Muslim voters can go to the polling station.

“A lot of voters will have a small window on which they can get out to vote, which is a two-hour window or a two-and-a-half-hour window,” the Muslim Vote’s Abubakr Nanabawa told PoliticsHome. “And it’s very important that the Green Party have a strategy to mobilise in those two and a half hours.”

The organisation is urging community leaders to use WhatsApp chats and channels to persuade friends and family members to get out the vote on by-election day. 

Reform, whose hopes of victory in Gorton and Denton hinge largely on Labour and the Greens dividing the left-wing vote, has criticised what they describe as sectarian voting.

“We should not be having by-elections on issues which are unfolding in other parts of the world,” the party’s candidate Matt Goodwin told PoliticsHome. “National elections should be about the national economy. What we’ve seen in recent years is the Greens deliberately attempting to divide communities along lines of Gaza.”

“I have warned about [sectarian voting] for a few years,” added Reform leader Farage. “The Greens are a substitute sectarian candidate in Gorton.”

Polanski has welcomed the Muslim Vote endorsement, but stressed in an interview with PoliticsHome that voters should be treated as individuals.

“I think any organisation that wants to back the Green Party because they align with our values is something that I applaud and welcome,” he told PoliticsHome.

“I think we also know that whether they’re religious groups or any demographic groups, people don’t necessarily all vote the same way, and I think it’s important that we always treat people as individuals.”

MP Debbie Abrahams is ripping into the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) again, this time by calling out the vile culture in the department and their slowness in supporting victims of the carers scandal.

Debbie Abrahams calls out DWP culture

The letter follows DWP permanent secretary Peter Schofield’s disastrous turn in front of the Work and Pensions Committee last month. During the discussion, Lib Dem Steve Darling accused Schofield of talking “blancmange” and Abrahams asked “how on earth” he could possibly explain the DWP’s behaviour.

In a letter to the DWP’s Peter Schofield, Abrahams said that the lack of change in culture meant claimants did not trust them. She said that although Schofield said there were changes (though failed to say what), these were “too incremental and too slow”.

By all accounts, she absolutely handed him his arse in the letter:

Fundamentally, we believe that the Department is failing to put the needs of vulnerable people first, that it is unwilling to learn from its mistakes and that it shows a lack of urgency to bring about change. Until the Department changes its culture, it will always struggle to build trust with the people it is meant to serve.

Abrahams also called out how much the DWP refuses to own it’s mistakes and learn from them. She said there was a “culture of complacency” in the department. She pointed out that the committee raised several issues with Schofield, including the handling of the carers’ scandal. Schofield’s response to intense questioning was, for the most part, complete bullshit.

She told Schofield in the letter:

When things go wrong, we expect the Department to accept its faults, swiftly provide redress and to learn from its errors. The Department has shown repeated inadequacy in its response to mistakes and a lack of urgency when it comes to righting wrongs.

DWP’s great track record? Where?

In the committee hearing, when asked about the carers’ scandal, Schofield said

We’ve got a great track record of putting things right when things go wrong. This is a department that when it knows we have to get things right we put it right.

This is something the committee audibly disagreed with at the time, and something Abrahams all directly calls out in the letter

You told the Committee that DWP has “a great track record of putting right when we get things wrong” – I disagree.

The committee hearing followed the publication of the Sayce Review into carers’ allowance overpayments. The report found that 86,900 carers still had outstanding overpayment debts. Crucially it ruled that overpayments on this scale were due to “systematic issues within the department”. And not, as another DWP Civil Servant, Neil Couling, claimed, down to individual claimants.

In her letter, Abrahams addresses Couling’s comments, saying it:

raises questions about the senior team as a whole under your leadership. It undermines the sincerity of your apology and efforts to rebuild trust. Moreover, I am concerned that these attitudes may be more widespread, and indicative of a culture within the Department that blames claimants for errors and fails to recognise the needs of vulnerable people

She also called out Schofield for refusing to respond directly to questions about Couling in the committee hearing and asked him to respond in writing to the following questions:

 How do you explain the failures of Departmental culture that contributed to carers allowance overpayments?

What action will you be taking in your senior team to address the evident attitudinal issues?

Advertisement

DWP have had enough time to fix this

It’s not like the DWP hasn’t had more than enough time and opportunity to right the carers crisis, but they’ve failed time and time again.

This is something Abraham’s brought up too:

It is difficult to have confidence in your commitment to rectify DWP’s mistakes given you have had ample opportunity to fix carers allowance overpayments since at least 2019.

She reminded Schofield that back in 2019 the DWP said they had a strategy to fix the carers allowance crisis and processes in place to prevent overpayments in the future. However, this clearly isn’t the case.

Abrahams seethed:

Given the previous assertions by DWP that it would fix carers allowance overpayments, I’m sure you can understand my scepticism about your most recent commitments.

She has demanded Schofield sets out how the DWP will ensure the problems are “actually addressed this time”.

Still not finished, Abraham’s final blow is on how the DWP still hasn’t admitted the blame for this horrific crisis.

I was also disappointed that your admission of fault and apology only covered carers affected by flawed guidance on averaging earnings, which was only one error identified by the Sayce Review. You failed to mention at the start of the session that DWP does not accept that its guidance on allowable expenses was also flawed and does not plan to cancel debts or reimburse repayments related to this guidance

She calls Schofield’s failure to do this “disingenuous” and that it undermines the idea that he does actually want to fix things. She also points out that when she did raise the issue, Schofield made a pathetic excuse about “limiting decision makers’ discretion”. As a result, Abrahams also demanded to know the DWP’s position on allowable expenses

why it disagrees with the findings of the Sayce review; whether it will investigate how many people were affected by this issue; and what, if any, redress it is considering.

Schofield stepping down, but pressure must be kept on

It’s worth pointing out that since this letter was published, Schofield has announced he’s stepping down. It’s been insisted that this is for personal reasons, and he will remain in post until July.  In a statement, Abrahams said:

The Work and Pensions Select Committee will continue to hold the Government to account on social security and pensions policy including its culture and how policy is delivered.

What’s clear from Abraham’s letter, along with every other criticism of the DWP, is just how toxic an organisation it is. When the organisation which is supposed to support our most vulnerable instead spends all it’s time demonising and blaming them, it is one that is not fit for purpose.

Featured image via the Canary

The UK government stands accused of “sitting on the sidelines” of international nuclear weapons risk reduction diplomacy. This follows the expiration of New START (New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty). It limited the number of nuclear weapons the US and Russia could hold.

US president Barack Obama and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev signed the agreement in 2010 and it came into force in 2011.

According to the Chatham House think tank, which focuses on international affairs:

The treaty caps the US and Russia each at 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers, and up to 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers.

It also established detailed transparency and verification mechanisms, including data exchanges, notifications and on-site inspections.

Advertisement

Russia had expressed interest in a voluntary one year extension of the treaty after its scheduled expiration on 5 February 2026, which US president Donald Trump said on 5 October 2025 sounded “like a good idea”. But in the end, no legally binding nor voluntary extension was agreed.

UK government ‘regularly raises’ nuclear risk reduction with US and Russia

Later in October 2025, Liberal Democrat MP David Chadwick and Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty separately asked the UK government what it was doing to encourage extending the term of the treaty.

In response, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office minister of state Stephen Doughty said:

The New START Treaty is a bilateral agreement between the United States and Russian Federation; any replacement treaty is a matter for the US and Russia.

The UK regularly raises issues related to strategic risk reduction, including arms control with the USA and Russia through the expert-level P5 process.

Advertisement

According to the European Leadership Network, the P5 process:

brings together the five nuclear weapon states (NWS)—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—recognised by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in a dedicated forum to discuss their unique responsibilities under the Treaty.

Doughty continued:

Genuine and verifiable strategic arms control among the largest Nuclear Weapons States can be a positive step for global security.

However, following Russia’s decision to suspend participation in New START verification measures in 2023, future approaches need to be based on concrete, and verifiable actions.

On 2 February 2026, Labour MP John Grady asked prime minister Keir Starmer if he had discussed nuclear weapons risks with his Chinese counterpart, during a House of Commons debate about Starmer’s recent visit to China:

China is a significant and growing nuclear power, with more than 600 warheads, and this week the US-Russia New START treaty comes to an end.

Can the Prime Minister tell me if the UK is engaging with China at the highest levels to prevent the risk of nuclear weapons and combat nuclear proliferation?

Starmer responded:

I assure my hon. Friend that our discussions with China did include how we derisk the risk in relation to nuclear weapons.

Government accused of ‘sitting on the sidelines’ of nuclear weapons diplomacy

Reacting to the treaty’s expiration, CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) general secretary Sophie Bolt said:

The collapse of New START without a replacement represents a serious and dangerous step backwards for global arms control.

To get this back on track, we need global public pressure to push for interim measures that could be agreed between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin today!

Advertisement

This could involve a one-year moratorium on exceeding New START caps, the resumption of inspections, and a moratorium on deploying new anti-ballistic missile systems like Trump’s Golden Dome.

A new treaty is possible if pressure is put on these governments to come to an agreement, which will build momentum to further nuclear arms control agreements involving more nuclear powers.

As a nuclear-armed state, Britain has clear obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue disarmament in good faith.

Rather than sitting on the sidelines, the government could show leadership and use its diplomatic influence to push for the US and Russia to extend New START.

Advertisement

CND has written to David Riley UK Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament and our members are lobbying Yvette Cooper, Foreign Secretary, urging them to use their influence to secure the extension of the Treaty.

Treaty expiration raises risk of ‘accidental catastrophic launches’

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) describes itself as:

the international campaign to stigmatise, prohibit & eliminate nuclear weapons.

Speaking just ahead of the expiration, ICAN director of programmes Susi Snyder told the Canary:

When New START expires, there will no longer be any controls on the number and types of weapons that Russia and the US can deploy which could increase tensions between them and increase the risk of a major nuclear conflict that would devastate the world.

The existence of the New START treaty helped to reduce the risk of conflict by engendering trust and improving understanding between the two countries’ personnel on nuclear weapons-related issues.

Advertisement

Once the treaty is defunct, this distrust can only deepen, increasing risks of accidental catastrophic launches.

Russia had already suspended some of these confidence building measures in response to US support for Ukraine, and distrust has already been growing between the two countries about their nuclear weapons intentions and policies, increasing the risk of misunderstandings and accidental conflict.

In response to the discussions about a possible voluntary extension of the treaty, Snyder said:

In the short term, the US and Russia should publicly commit to respect New START’s limits while a new framework is negotiated.

They should restart serious disarmament talks and bring their warhead numbers down significantly, which would build confidence with the other nuclear-armed states that it is worthwhile engaging in broader disarmament discussions.

Advertisement

All nuclear armed countries have to recognise that arms control alone is no longer enough.

These weapons need to be eliminated before they are used again and the way to do that is through the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which a majority of countries have already signed or ratified only five years after it came into force.

On 5 February 2026, Trump posted on social media, saying:

Rather than extend ‘NEW START’ (A badly negotiated deal by the United States that, aside from everything else, is being grossly violated), we should have our Nuclear Experts work on a new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future.

Looking to the future of international cooperation on nuclear weapons risks, Snyder said:

Despite the collapse of this last arms control agreement, there is a bright spot on the disarmament horizon – the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) which came into force five years ago and a majority of countries have already signed and ratified.

More countries are set to sign and ratify it soon. The more countries that join, the more the diplomatic pressure on the nuclear-armed countries and their allies that endorse the use of nuclear weapons to take action to get rid of these weapons grows.

She said this could work:

in the same way it did for other weapons that cause disproportionate, lingering harm to civilians, such as landmines and cluster munitions.

The TPNW countries will be meeting later in the year for the treaty’s first review conference where they will agree on steps to strengthen the treaty, including in its important work to support the people and communities around the world harmed by the more than 2000 nuclear test explosions since 1945.

According to Snyder, the expiration of New START has created:

a real danger the new arms race will accelerate between the US and Russia – more warheads, more delivery systems, more exercises – and other nuclear-armed states will feel pressure to keep up.

That makes every crisis more dangerous and increases the risk of mistakes and miscalculation. It also sends the worst possible signal to the rest of the world: that the nuclear powers are going backwards on disarmament, just when they should be leading.

New START failure shows world ‘tipping back towards conflict’ – peer

The Green Party peer Jenny Jones told the Canary:

The failure to renew the New START nuclear treaty shows how the world is tipping back towards conflict.

The threat of nuclear weapons being used hasn’t been this high for years, but instead of stepping back and negotiating, we have the possibility of Washington and Moscow unleashing a new nuclear arms race.

I’m worried that this sends all the wrong messages ahead of the review of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty later this year.

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

Three beginner-friendly plants

Lavender

Pheasant’s tail grass

Catmint

UK-based autism charity Ambitious About Autism has released results of a survey which show that one in six autistic pupils have not been to school since the beginning of this academic year. They polled nearly one thousand young people and their families, finding a variety of reasons for their absence.

One thing is crystal clear: the consistent factor amongst the reasons for absence is the hostility caused by the school system and the government failing disabled students. 62% cited mental health issues, and a fifth said their school was not suitable.

For autistic people who have made it through to the other side of education, these statistics are entirely unsurprising. Schools are hostile environments in more ways than one, based in both the sensory and the social. Fluorescent lighting, loud echoing hallways, and intense dining room smells are just a few of the offensive sensory inputs that all combine with the heavy load of masking needed in order to try to fit in, navigate harsh rules, and attempt to focus on your work.

Autistic children are not your scapegoat

In the survey, 45% of the respondents said they felt blamed by the government for the absences. This should be validated, seen through the endless attacks on autistic people and their families to make the public see them as the enemy of the working class for needing more funding and support.

Neoliberalism sees these children as inconvenient. Not only do they cost more money, they cannot fit into the cookie-cutter system meant to spit out adults who are ready to assimilate straight into a workplace. This is where ableism is shown to be deeply intertwined with capitalism, where anyone who does not fit the mould is seen as a problem.

You may have heard autistic people referred to as ‘canaries in the coal mine’ before. This is the idea that we are the first to see threats or distress, which should be seen as a warning of something more systemic that will come to affect everyone. In the neoliberal education system, autistic children fit this: these environments are not truly built for anyone, and the higher levels of distress faced are only indicative of the fact that all children are being treated in a way that is problematic and misaligned with their needs.

This is a crucial moment for SEND support

This survey comes at a point in time where the government is planning to reform the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system. This proposes that it will improve outcomes for disabled children, but those more cynical can argue it is a money mission.

The reforms are apparently aiming to address delays and poor outcomes – and, of course, ‘unsustainable costs’. At this stage, Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) are apparently not being scrapped, but it appears that schools will have their own responsibilities around assessment. This is significantly concerning due to lack of expertise and the possible lack of accountability.

It should not matter that more children than ever fall into the SEND category or need EHCPs. Every single individual deserves access to the support they need, whether that is in a specialist setting or in mainstream, where 70% of (diagnosed) autistic children are educated. We need more specialist settings where autistic children can thrive in environments that are built for them, with the right transport, properly trained staff, and supported transitions. 20% of those surveyed were out of school due to unsuitable school placement.

If schools were changed at a fundamental level, given an entirely different culture, accommodating many autistic young people would still be necessary but could become an easier task. Softer sensory environments, more regulated nervous systems and social support help every child regardless of their need. We will always need individual accommodations, and many autistic children will still need specialist support, but the current system sets everyone up for failure.

This is a critical moment in how we see, hear and support autistic children and their families. They deserve holistic care, in the right environment, and an inclusive system. The focus remaining on money is not the answer.

We have to take autistic children and families seriously

While Ambitious About Autism is using these statistics to raise awareness of why non-attendance occurs for autistic young people, mass media has latched onto them to fuel their debates on the lives of disabled people. Many of the discussions are intentionally inflammatory and lead to further stigma for autistic children and their families, who are simply trying to survive a system that is built to work against them.

Terms like ‘school refusal’ and ‘non-compliance’ are thrown around constantly. The implication is heavily that this is a choice, that young people are simply acting up or their parents should just be parenting better. That is not the reality faced by thousands of families. They have been abandoned by the system and are having to fight every day, often losing their jobs or income as collateral.

Mental health crisis, autistic burnout, and exclusions are almost normalised when it comes to autistic children and young people. It should not be seen as acceptable that huge swathes of children are being failed.

There is a deep irony at how many people on the right use ‘we need to look after our own’ to justify their bigotry, until it is disabled children and parents who are drowning in a system that refuses to care.

This survey should prove the gaps we know exist, not justify the perpetuation of horrific narratives which target such a vulnerable group. Autistic children and their families are not asking for too much: simply advocating for something that is their right.

Featured image via the Canary