Later today Rachel Reeves will deliver her Spring Statement to the Commons. She has not, it must be said, helmed the happiest run of these set-piece occasions. Her first Budget involved roughly £40 billion in tax rises. Another was memorably marred by an early leak of market-sensitive material. 

Yet it is not only in the grand moments that this government has struggled. Growth has been anaemic, the tax burden is at a post-war high, and there remains a sizeable contingent on the Labour benches for whom spending restraint is an unknown, perhaps faintly distasteful, concept. Even Tony Blair agrees as much.

Still, amid the familiar gloom, one piece of wage news this week may – just possibly – carry the seeds of long-term reform, albeit not for the reason its authors intended.

MPs’ salaries are now set to rise to around £110,000 by the end of this Parliament, ostensibly in recognition of growing demands on their time and swelling casework (though cynics might observe that much of this burden is borne by their long-suffering staff). The immediate uplift amounts to roughly 5 per cent – an inflation-busting figure beside the 3.3 per cent reportedly pencilled in for nurses and the 3.5 per cent for parliamentary staff.

There’s an argument to pay MPs more, to attract better talent and pull people away from their already high-paid jobs. But this particular increase has an intriguing side effect: it nudges many MPs squarely into one of Britain’s most perverse fiscal contraptions.

By placing it above £100,000 it might just push MPs into fixing the horrendous, work-discincentivising tax trap, whereby earners on between £100,000 and £125,140 face an effective 60 per cent marginal tax rate. 

For every £2 earned over £100,000, £1 of the personal allowance is lost, creating the hidden tax band on top of the 40 per cent higher rate.

Plus earners in this bracket see the end of free child support. Workers end up worse off as they earn more.

With an MP’s salary north of £100,000, many parliamentarians will now find themselves staring directly into this fiscal abyss for the first time. It would be the latest in Westminster waking up to issues that they personally feel.

Take student loans. While Kemi Badenoch has recently led the way on the issue in opposition – pledging to cut interest rates on student loans – there are young Labour MPs who have been feeling the pain of repayments personally, and it might lead to yet another U-turn from Sir Keir Starmer and his Chancellor.

Labour MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip Danny Beales last night tweeted:

“It’s time to talk about student loans and the need to deliver change. 

“The Plan 2 system has effectively become a graduate tax – with many feeling the system is unfair and regressive.

“Last week, I outlined the need for change in my letter to the Chancellor.”

Beales’ letter says he “does not regret taking out the loan” but many other new, young MPs have spoken about their £90,000 debt under the Plan 2 system, and I can’t now imagine wanting to accidentally fall into a higher marginal tax rate. With this pay rise, MPs who still have student debt will end up paying a marginal tax rate of 71 per cent over £100,000 and 77 per cent for postgrads.

Maybe this is the state we have got to, we need our parliamentarians to have directly felt an issue to want to fix it. It concentrates the mind.

But perhaps the best solution is one floated by the Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA), acknowledged by shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith, and even hinted at by Business Secretary Peter Kyle: link MPs’ pay to GDP per capita, which measures the average economic output per person.

Kyle said to link their pay to overall GDP to encourage departments to do more to boost economic growth, but doing so with GDP per capita is a better prompt for this – tying it to the prosperity of individual Brits.

And Griffith had suggested doing so with senior civil servants to “bring a sharper focus next time Whitehall is introducing more red tape on business”.

If it were to apply to MPs it would, according to research from the TPA, lead to an actual pay cut. If MPs’ pay had gone up by GDP per capita since 2010, their pay would be £81,945.

As their campaigns director and our ConHome columnist Elliot Keck writes: “That’s brutal, but it’s just a reflection of the decades of terrible policy choices made by Parliament.”

Maybe then we would see more than just a reconsideration of the tax trap, maybe we would see pro-growth policies finally enacted.

Nothing clarifies the case for economic reform quite like paying the bill yourself.

David Willetts is President of the Resolution Foundation and is a member of the House of Lords.

One of the strong themes on Conservative Home is the importance of the Conservative Party reaching out to younger voters.

So it is great to see the Conservative Party launching its New Deal for Young People which is a bold attempt to plug this gap. Any evidence of the party thinking beyond its core vote of pensioners is to be welcomed.

There are three particular proposals.

First Kemi caught the mood with her proposal to get rid of interest rates on graduate debt. That is certainly a hot topic at the moment. The terms of graduate repayment for the cost of their education should be open to change with proper political debate about the trade-offs. The interest rates have always been the most unpopular feature of the model so it is understandable to try to do something about them. Hitting RPI + 3 per cent when earnings go above £51,000 is a painful blow, especially after the replacement of maintenance grants with loans and then periods of high inflation mean that total graduate debt can now be much bigger than originally envisaged.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has just done a useful analysis of this and other options and estimate that:

“For those who started courses in 2022/23, this proposal would on average reduce lifetime loan repayments by £11,000 in today’s prices on average. The 30% of graduates with the highest lifetime earnings could expect to save upwards of £20,000. Many low-earning graduates would never repay any less as a result of the Conservative proposal – with almost no change in lifetime repayments amongst the fifth of graduates with the lowest lifetime earnings.”

That is a significant boost for higher earning graduates. Once all graduates in Stage 2 are included the IFS estimate a “low-single-digit billions hit to government receipts each year, for the next 30 years.”

However this change does not affect monthly repayments – the gain comes in paying back sooner.

It you really want to help boost living standards of younger graduates you raise the repayment threshold, so their fixed monthly out-goings are cut. And it was of course the freeze of the repayment threshold which was the original trigger for the current political row.

There are tricky trade-offs here between size of debt, monthly repayment, and length of repayment period.  I continue to believe that every five years we should have a proper informed open assessment of the best way to make these trade-offs. Governments should then set the repayment terms in ways which make intuitive sense such as graduates only start paying back when their incomes are close to the average pay of non-graduates.

The Tory leadership have in their sights degrees leading to low salaries – and after long battles it is great that data is available. If those courses close then prospective students may choose a different university course instead rather than head to an apprenticeship instead. It would be wrong to stop them going to courses which appear to offer better value and I understand it is not Conservative policy to erect such barriers. Such a shift to a different course could however reduce loan write-offs which yields a type of expenditure saving.

Apprenticeships are always popular. But numbers of apprenticeship starts are falling.  The second proposal in the New Deal is to boost apprenticeships for 18–21-year-olds. This is well targeted. During the last years of Conservative Government apprenticeships moved a long way from their original purpose. They became predominantly higher-level qualifications for people aged over 25 (who are now half of all apprentices starts). It is right to refocus them on 18–21-year-olds.

There is a levy on employers to pay from apprenticeships though the intention is that these extra places should be financed differently. Nevertheless reform of the Apprenticeship levy should be on the agenda. Each employer gets first claim on the levy they have paid and understandably tend to use it on extra training for their current employees rather than new recruits. That is why the growth in apprenticeships has been in degree level apprenticeships for older employees whereas places for younger people at lower educational levels have been falling. There needs to be a strong financial incentive to get them to shift to younger people, new recruits, and perhaps a qualification at a lower education level such as A level equivalent rather than full honours degree. This could be delivered out of existing resources if degree apprenticeships were financed out of fees and loans like other higher-level qualifications.

The third proposal is a “£5,000 First Job Bonus, allowing young people to keep the first £5,000 of National Insurance they would have paid and placing it into a savings account for a first home or future security”

When we at Resolution Foundation looked at how best to help younger people we proposed a capital grant of £10,000. These types of schemes are in the tradition of council house sales and privatisation share sales as opportunities to spread ownership. But they are if anything more widely accessible.  It is a great way of helping young people build up assets. It has a cost of perhaps about £3b a year. We are entering an inheritocracy where building up assets out of income has got harder.

The real opportunity agenda is to spread property ownership and this proposal is an important part of that.

In May 2025, the Spectator ran undoubtedly one of the most attention-grabbing front covers of 2025: Scuzz Nation. As the author of the piece, wrote, summarising the concept:

“Scuzz Nation looks very much like the country of a few years ago, only worse. It’s a place where decay happens faster than repair, where crime largely goes unpunished and where the social fabric has been slashed, graffitied and left by the side of the road.”

Many a head has been scratched over why exactly it is that Britain, from big city to small village, feels like it’s getting that little bit worse. It goes beyond the age-old complaints about declining local high streets. It includes deteriorating social norms and a pervasive low-level sense of lawlessness.

Such a broad phenomenon will have many causes. But for the reason why the local high street hasn’t been powerwashed for months, why the graffiti still hasn’t been cleaned off the local community centre, why the pothole on your street hasn’t been filled, and why the flower-bed in your local roundabout has rotted, the explanation is actually quite simple. It’s because increasingly councils really are cash-strapped. And it’s not just down to waste and inefficiency. Westminster is to blame.

Since the early 2010s, central government has been steadily delegating responsibility for delivering social care and children’s services to local government. Responsibility, not power or autonomy. It is not for town halls to decide how to allocate resources to these services as it sees fit. You’ve been told to look after your friend’s children for the weekend, but it’s not up to you what to feed them or even how to fill their time.

Only it’s worse than that. Once they’ve been dropped off, you get a flurry of texts. You need to give them dessert, purchase a specific film for them, order a takeaway. Reimbursement is promised, but when it comes it isn’t quite enough.

Because with both SEND and social care, these responsibilities have expanded significantly over time, yet central government funding has not kept pace with rising demand. In both areas, demand is soaring, yet councils have a legal obligation to meet this demand with no cost limit attached. In the case of social care, politicians can at least try and blame demography for this. With SEND and children’s services, it’s the policy that is to blame.

The recent surge in SEND spending is the area where the central government’s role has been most direct, because of national policy changes. This began with the Children and Families Act 2014, which replaced ‘statements of special educational needs’ with ‘education, health and care plans’ (EHCPs). This act increased the age limit for SEND support, from 19 to 25, broadened the range of support to which EHCP holders are entitled and made that entitlement legally enforceable. These reforms increased demand at the same time as they constrained local discretion to manage their budgets.

That has created what can only be described as hockey stick increases in expenditure on SEND services. The most perpendicular can be found in SEN transport, with councils increasingly being obliged to fork out sometimes hundreds of pounds per day for one eligible child to be taxied back and forth to school. The resources of the parents are irrelevant – they could have half a dozen cars on their driveway, including a motability one provided for the purpose of transporting said child. Isle of Wight Council’s spending has tripled from £670,000 to just shy of £2 million in just two years. Kent is spending £70 million, up from £28 million in 2020-21.

This is all the consequence of what is a truly horrifying increase in disabilities, in particular autism, for, in particular, young children aged 4-10. In Islington, a full nine per cent of children aged 4-10 have autism, up from one per cent in 2015-16. More than half of these children have EHCPs, which entitle them to a range of additional support, including transportation. The sceptical reader may raise an eyebrow at the scale of these increases. But the council officer in charge of this area has almost no latitude to query it. Check out the figures for your area in our local authority dashboard.

The consequence, as our research has recently demonstrated, is that almost half of council budgets now goes on social care and children’s services, up from 30 per cent a decade ago. That forces councils to cut back on beautification projects and basic maintenance – potholes, power washing, flowers, lawn mowing and so on. And indeed when we sent FOIs to a sample of councils, we found cuts in real terms of 16 per cent in these areas over the last few years.

Solving this problem, and allowing councils to actually use their budgets for the things taxpayers expect may not lead to the replacement of the Kurdish barber with an artisan baker, or the American candy store with a vintage bookshop, but at least the pavement outside might have been cleaned in the last few months. That would be something.

Football is a universal language. Yet today it seems powerless to protect one of its brightest stars, Vinicius Junior, from racist abuse.

Sport’s oldest disgrace

Since his arrival at Real Madrid in 2018, he has been subjected to relentless racist chants and abuse, both in Spain and abroad. This raises an embarrassing question for football itself. Why does one player remain a constant target of discrimination based on skin colour?

The latest incident occurred during the first leg of the Champions League playoff between Real Madrid and Benfica in Lisbon. The match ended in a 1-0 victory for Real Madrid thanks to a goal by Vinicius.

However, the sporting result was overshadowed by a shocking incident – racist abuse directed at the Brazilian player by Argentinian Gianluca Brestiani. French referee François Letissier halted the match for ten minutes to investigate. Meanwhile, Portuguese coach José Mourinho intervened to defuse the situation. In addition, football authorities looked on.

Racism on the pitch

The attacks did not stop there. After his goal, Vinicius was subjected to further racist chants and had bottles thrown at him by some fans, marking another dark moment for football.

The European Union opened a formal investigation, and Prisciani was provisionally suspended for one match pending a final decision. Furthermore, the penalty could be increased to several matches. This would be similar to the 2021 incident between Ondré Kodéla and Glenn Camara. That case resulted in lengthy suspensions.

It is noteworthy that Real Madrid boasts other Black stars such as Eduardo Camavinga, Aurélien Tchouaméni, Antonio Rüdiger, Kylian Mbappé, and David Alaba.

David Alaba is receiving racist comments from Real Madrid fans in his latest IG post, after Alaba voted Leo Messi ahead of Benzema for The Best 2022 award.

Embarrassing. pic.twitter.com/6Ljo9OJNKN

Advertisement

— Barça Universal (@BarcaUniversal) February 28, 2023

Yet Vinicius remains the most targeted. Is it his flamboyant style and unrivalled dribbling skills that irk his opponents? Or his celebrations, which combine dancing and gestures of silence in front of the fans? The problem is worryingly far deeper. It is rooted in a stadium culture that tolerates racist abuse across football clubs.

Calls for stricter penalties

In 2023, Rio de Janeiro state authorities attempted to send a powerful symbolic message by naming an anti-racism law in stadiums after the player. But symbolism alone is not enough for the football community.

The demand today is clear. Football fans are urging FIFA and UEFA to implement strict penalties, including hefty fines, point deductions for clubs, fan bans, lengthy suspensions, and potentially match cancellations for repeated offences.

Additionally, they must establish rigorous protocols for referees to immediately stop any racist abuse and reinforce football’s integrity at every opportunity.

Sticking points

Racism in stadiums is not just fleeting chants. It threatens the very essence of football, which is built on fair competition, equality, and mutual respect.

The Vinicius case today transcends a single player; it is a true test of the football system’s ability to protect its core values. Either stadiums become spaces of justice and respect, or they become a mirror reflecting the worst aspects of society.

With all these recurring incidents, the question always remains: When will racism in football finally end?

Featured image via the Canary

Holly Dougan, a student, told the BBC that food bank use is now ‘essential’ for many students. Meanwhile, the wealth accumulated by the richest 50 households exceeds that of the bottom 50 percent of the country.

Crippling consequences

The cost of living crisis and lack of student funding – both a consequence of economic inequality – have crippled students and driven greater reliance on food banks.

Meanwhile, if the super-rich continue to accumulate wealth at the rate of recent years, 200 families will have more wealth than the entire country’s GDP by 2035, according to the Equality Trust.

One student union has seen a 20% rise in students using The Pantry, a university food bank. The president of the union in Belfast said:

It is unbelievable the amount of students that use The Pantry, we have over 200 students visiting every day

She continued:

A lot of our students would struggle to eat and have meals, and have three meals a day let alone one so it’s really something for our students to not have to choose between heating or eating… A lot of this comes from students not having enough money within loans, rent prices are increasing a lot and I think that’s very much a contributing factor.

Ben Friel, the National Union of Students NI president, added:

Maybe 10 or 15 years ago a students’ union would just be a place that people went on nights out, had a fun time, but now we’re in a situation where students’ unions have had to step up to the plate… Students aren’t just here for a night out, students get degrees, they come and contribute to the economy… Fundamentally we need to rethink how we look at students as a whole.

Wider food bank use

It’s not just students using food banks. From 2010-2025, their use in the UK surged by 5000 percent.

Moreover, 15 percent of UK households are living in food insecurity, effecting eight million adults and three million children. In September, union leaders called on Keir Starmer to put a stop to the issue:

We simply cannot allow food banks to be seen as a normal part of life in the 21st Century. People are already at breaking point. You must tackle food insecurity and end food bank Britain.

With obscene levels of inequality, there’s no place for food bank use in modern Britain.

Featured image via Unsplash/the Canary