Martin Lewis has accused the Labour Party of turning student loans into a tax on young people.

At the Autumn budget, Labour froze the student loan repayment thresholds for Plan 2 loans at £29,385 from April 2026.

Lewis pointed out that this was either a targeted tax rise on young people, or a:

retrospective rewriting of the terms of a private contract.

Student loans are being turned into a tax

Either way, Rachel Reeves claimed the freeze was “fair and reasonable” – which is, of course, bullshit.

Mainly because rich kids who had the bank of mummy and daddy to pay their tuition fees up front are now exempt from this additional tax.

There are five student loan plans in operation. These cover most postgraduate courses, Scotland and three mainly English student cohorts. Namely, entrants pre-2012, those between 2012 and 2023, and those post-2023.

The current student loan controversy refers to plan 2 loans. Around 6m people took these out in England and Wales between 2012 and 2023.

According to the Guardian:

For a plan 2 graduate, every pound earned between £30,000 and £50,000 already faces 20% income tax, 8% national insurance and 9% loan repayment – a 37% marginal rate. Freezing the plan 2 threshold, as Ms Reeves proposes from 2027, penalises these graduates by holding down the point at which repayments begin (roughly £30,000), so that as wages rise, a growing share of their income faces the 9% charge. This ensures more income is taxed at 37% for longer as incomes go up.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this is equivalent to a tax rise.

£53k of debt per student

Graduates now have an average debt of £53,000. For some doctors, that figure is over £100,000. Which is messed up, considering Rachel Reeves said that the Government will use the repayment freeze to fund the NHS and keep prescription charges under £10.

As the Guardian points out:

If someone earns £60,000, they should be taxed because they earn £60,000 – not because they went to university in 2014 rather than 2009.

Campaign platforms, Organise and Rethink Repayment, previously accused the Government of acting “like a loan shark”.

Roxy Khan-William, head of campaigns at Organise, told LBC:

The evidence increasingly points to the hallmarks of mis-selling: complex terms, optimistic assurances, underplayed risks, and later rule changes that materially worsen outcomes.

In effect, the Government is acting like a loan shark.

Most banks would not approve a £50k high-interest loan for the average 18-year-old. Yet that is exactly how the Government is treating the student loans system.

Except there is no contract, no fixed terms, and no interest rate, and most graduates never recall seeing the terms and conditions.

Shitting on young people

On my previous point about Rachel Reeves talking shit – when she finished her undergraduate degree in 2000, the average student loan debt was £3,000.

The government only announced tuition fee rises in 2004. So when Reeves finished her postgraduate degree that year, they were still capped at £1,125 per year.

Both of her loans were Plan 1. This means the interest rate is linked to inflation, so there is no real cost to borrowing.

Reeves benefited from low tuition fees and not having tens of thousands of pounds in debt when she left university. Yet now she wants to take a shit on young people?

Another rule for the rich

Wealthy families can essentially buy their kids out of this ridiculous tax. From the vast connections that come with money, to private school, not having to work through education, to the mental health benefits of growing up in financial stability, it’s fair to say that kids born into rich families already have enough of a leg up.

And whilst there’s no doubt that many rich kids turn out to be massive pricks, why should they be exempt from taxes?

Reeves may as well start handing out step ladders at graduation.

How many other ways does Labour want to say “we hate poor people”? Gone are the days when Labour was the party of the working class. 

And let’s face it, yes, they hate poor people – but the only reason anyone is poor in the first place is because of the incompetence of consecutive governments.

Featured image via the Canary

In amongst Reform’s patently ridiculous announcement of its new ‘shadow cabinet’, the far-right party has announced Suella Braverman as its education, skills and equalities spokesperson.

In her first move as part of the new role, Braverman announced that Reform would rip up the Equality Act on day one. You’d think an equalities spokesperson would be less zealously committed to legalising discrimination, but that’s par for the course for the far-right party.

Braverman whines about diversity

As the Canary’s Rachel Charlton-Dailey noted, Reform aren’t the official opposition, and thus have no right to be running around announcing shadow cabinets anyway. The whole thing is a PR exercise for egomaniac Nigel Farage.

In a continuation of the bizarre, shortly after being awarded this imaginary role Braverman announced that her party would eliminate the role of equalities minister altogether. She then set off on a rant about the UK being:

ripped apart by diversity, equality and inclusion policies.

Braverman also stated that her (new) party would repeal the Equality Act on its first day of office. By way of reasoning, the ex-Tory minister claimed that she wanted to get rid of the:

divisive notion of protected characteristics.

As a quick reminder, those divisive protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

‘A sledgehammer to hard-won rights’

Parliament instituted the Equality Act back in 2010. It prohibits the victimisation of individuals on the basis of those seven protected characteristics. It forms the basis of anti-discrimination law in the UK, preventing – for example – an employer from sacking somebody upon finding out the employee is gay.

As such, it’s not exactly hard to see why a party founded on the idea of bashing immigrants wouldn’t be a fan. However, Braverman also claimed that she didn’t want to eliminate workplace protections altogether.

In spite of that flimsy reassurance, the Trades Union Congress was quick to call Reform out on its game. TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

It’s official – Reform UK think discrimination should be legal.

Scrapping the Equality Act would be a sledgehammer to hard-won rights working people fought for over generations.

If you’re discriminated against because you’re a woman, black, disabled, pregnant or gay – that’s fine with them.

This is a blank cheque for bad employers to mistreat their staff.

Advertisement

And it wouldn’t stop there. Scrapping the Equality Act would just be the start.

From ripping up equality protections, to backing fire-and-rehire, to opposing a ban on zero-hours contracts, Reform UK have made it clear whose side they’re on – and it’s not working people.

Hypocrisy and lies

Braverman herself is hardly a stranger to trampling over human rights. As the Tory home secretary, she was a vocal promoter of the infamous Illegal Migration Act. In a clear breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, the act would have enabled the government to transport unlawful migrants to Rwanda.

In spite of her own parents’ status as immigrants, Braverman named immigrants an:

existential challenge for the political and cultural institutions of the West.

Of course, the ex-Tory is no stranger to rank hypocrisy either. She once insisted that the Conservative Party needed to do “everything we can” to win Tory voters back from Reform, before slipping off to join the far-right party instead.

Then again, Farage himself previously vowed that his retirement home for washed-up Tories would never take in Suella Braverman.

So, to recap, Reform didn’t want to take in Braverman, and Braverman wanted to win votes back from Reform. Then she joined the far-right party after all.

Following that, Reform appointed her to the post of equalities spokesperson, so Braverman promptly announced that she’d abolish her own job – and the public’s protection against discrimination into the bargain.

Is anybody else’s head spinning here?

Featured image via the Canary

A “historic success”

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) posted several pictures and updates throughout the day, declaring the strike a “historic success.”

AIKS, among other groups, have not held back in their criticism against Modi’s government. They censured the government for crushing workers rights, bowing to US corporations, and threatening India’s secular fabric.

#12thFebruaryGeneralStrike a Historic Success

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) congratulates crores of Indian workers, agricultural workers and toiling peasantry for making the 12th February 2026 General Strike a historic success. The anger of working people against the (1/n) pic.twitter.com/jfItzhDVeg

— AIKS (@KisanSabha) February 12, 2026

Advertisement

According to Maktoob Media, the strike was met heavy handedly after Modi sent in his henchmen.

They made sweeping arrests against hundreds of IT workers, trade union leaders and activists in Bengaluru.

And unsurprisingly, the crack down was captured on camera — we see you.

The Karnataka IT/ITeS Employees Union (KITU) said hundreds of IT employees were arrested on Thursday in Bengaluru, along with other leaders and activists from various Central Trade Unions, during the Bharat Bandh against the Narendra Modi government’s alleged anti-worker labour… pic.twitter.com/qYYm1p8ml0

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) February 12, 2026

Advertisement

International endorsement

We have also seen expressions of solidarity emerge internationally. London-based protesters gathered at London’s Parliament Square on Thursday evening.

They condemned Hindutva’s “fascist bulldozer raj” and demanding the withdrawal of punitive labour and farming policies.

As Brinda Karat put it, India’s sovereignty is cracking beneath Modi’s divisive policies and the working class, unafraid and unwavering, is reclaiming their nation.

Featured image via the Canary

As Ramadan begins, trade union UNISON is highlighting how thoughtful workplace adjustments and open conversations can help Muslim employees balance faith, wellbeing and work.

The holy Muslim month of Ramadan is due to begin on the evening of Tuesday 17 February, or Wednesday 18 February, depending on the moon.

Eid-al-Fitr, the celebration that marks the end of Ramadan, is expected to fall on the evening of 19 March or 20 March.

The Ramadan fast

During the month of Ramadan, Muslims spend a period of 30 days abstaining from food, drink (including water) and smoking during daylight hours, as a means of celebrating and reflecting on their faith.

Iftar, the meal that breaks the fast when the sun has set, is often shared with family and the local community. Traditionally, the fast is broken with a date.

During this important holy period for Muslims, UNISON reminds both workers and employers that it is within the Equality Act 2010 for all employers to ensure flexible working and provide reasonable adjustments for workers wishing to observe Ramadan. This includes fasting, prayers, charity and reflecting on the Quran.

Small, thoughtful adjustments, shaped by open conversations, can make a meaningful difference for Muslim employees observing Ramadan.

UNISON spoke to two Muslim members, Raza Sadiq and Nadia Al-Farid, about how their workplaces support them during Ramadan – and what more employers can do.

Ramadan is more than fasting

Ramadan is not just about abstaining from food and drink. Many Muslims give a percentage of their wages to charity during this month and become more involved in community work. As Raza explains:

It’s not just about you personally, it’s about community.

Nadia describes how families often invite students who cannot afford proper meals to share iftar (the breaking of the fast) or attend the mosque together for extra prayers. The month strengthens community bonds and encourages generosity.

But alongside this spiritual focus comes physical impact. Many Muslims attend additional late-night Taraweeh prayers, then wake early before Fajr to prepare and eat before the fast begins. This can mean significantly less sleep.

‘It’s just small tweaks’

For Raza, a careers adviser at Skills Development Scotland, workplace support does not need to be complex. He tells UNISON:

It’s just small tweaks. A room that people could go and worship in – that would be ideal.

He believes that colleagues taking time to learn about Ramadan, or simply speaking to Muslim coworkers, helps to build bridges and create a more inclusive environment. After once giving a presentation about Ramadan, he returned to his desk to find a colleague eating a ham sandwich beside him without much thought. He laughs about it but reflects:

It just shows a lack of understanding – it’s just thinking and having self awareness.

Because fasting, late-night prayers and lack of water can lead to tiredness or dehydration, flexibility is key:

If someone is asking to swap a shift or start at a different time, colleagues helping is really important during this time.

Practical adjustments matter

Nadia, a clinical support worker in microbiology at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Glasgow, highlights the importance of suitable prayer facilities:

Our ritual cleansing is wudu – we must do it before we pray. We can’t pray in a room that has religious symbols, for example crosses or human figures.

Access to a quiet space near washing facilities is essential.

She also points to temperature control as an important but often overlooked adjustment during Ramadan. Working in lab coats in rooms that can reach 25–30°C while fasting is challenging:

Having AC, even reducing the temperature by one or two degrees, can make the difference between dehydration and just feeling a little thirsty.

Support from colleagues also makes a difference. She explains:

It helps when colleagues are supportive when we feel a little tired, to allow us to take a moment.

Coworkers often share tasks involving heavy lifting and step in when she feels lightheaded or unwell:

Anything that involves heavy lifting they are more likely to say, you can do the lighter stuff… Instead of it being a lone task they will accompany you.

Open conversations build understanding

Nadia is clear that asking respectful questions about Ramadan is not offensive:

It’s absolutely fine. Some people think if you’re religious, you don’t want to talk about it. But it’s not a personal question.

She also gently dispels common misconceptions. For example, seeing others eat does not invalidate the fast. “It doesn’t bother us at all,” she says. In fact, fasting can deepen appreciation and patience. She adds with a laugh:

During Ramadan, we are supposed to hold fast to our tongue… so maybe don’t be irritating.

Nadia and Raza emphasise that individual circumstances, rather than blanket policy, should shape the reasonable adjustments. Family responsibilities, caring duties, and job roles all affect what support looks like. Nadia says:

The reasonable adjustments framework should be implemented and led by the employee rather than the employer. Two people don’t have the same reasonable adjustment frameworks.

Ultimately, supporting employees during Ramadan is about understanding, kindness, and flexibility. Small, thoughtful changes – a quiet room, temperature adjustments, shift swaps, a supportive team – can ensure Muslim staff feel valued, respected, and able to observe their faith without unnecessary barriers.

Featured image via the Canary

A “chance” meeting with strangers on a night out led to the “callous attack” and murder of a young deaf woman in Romford, last summer, by a man nicknamed “Nasty”, a court has heard.

Zahwa Mukhtar, 27, was by herself socialising outside a pub in Stoke Newington Road, Hackney, when she first encountered Duane Owusu, 36, and a group he was with in the early hours of Saturday 16 August 2025.

Within a few hours, Zahwa was dead, having suffered a fatal head injury after being punched in the neck and assaulted by Owusu, who had first thrown her out of a parked car.

Her tragic murder, described as a “senseless killing of a vulnerable young woman” by prosecutor Henrietta Paget KC, was captured on CCTV outside Chadwell House care home, in Romford, and shown to jurors at the Old Bailey on Tuesday.

Owusu, of Althorne Way, Dagenham, denies murder and manslaughter.

Zahwa Mukhtar: killed last year

Ms Paget told the court how Zahwa had gotten into a silver Mercedes with Owusu and four others, including two women, who had driven from a “rave” in another area of Hackney.

Ms Paget said:

The occupants of the vehicle had been drinking and taking drugs, Ms Mukhtar included.

You will hear evidence that she was behaving erratically within the car, flirting with the boys and picking fights with the girls. Nobody knew her, and it appears that her behaviour was causing increasing annoyance.

The group were making their way towards Dagenham with Zahwa sitting on Owusu’s lap in the overcrowded car.

As they neared Chadwell Heath, she began filming with her mobile phone. The footage was brief, Ms Paget explained, but was a “trigger” for Owusu, who had been “agitated and acting aggressively” earlier that night according to one of the group.

Jurors saw roadside CCTV footage of him sucking nitrous oxide, or “laughing gas” from a balloon before the car journey, and were told that Zahwa had popped one of the occupant’s balloons inside the car.

After telling the driver to stop, Owusu threw out her phone before pushing her from the car. She “landed on her backside on the pavement”.

As Zahwa shuffled backwards, the defendant left the car and aimed a kick towards her face and then a second “savage kick towards her head”. One of the group who tried to intervene, a woman, was swung out of the way, leaving Owusu free to deliver the “blow that killed [Zahwa]”.

Ms Paget said Owusu “punched her hard, to the neck, knocking her to the ground where she lay motionless”. She suffered “a fractured skull and fatal brain injury” having fallen backwards.

Instead of helping her, he allegedly got into the car, shouted at others to do the same, and told the driver to drive off, Ms Paget said.

“There was no stopping him”

When Zahwa Mukhtar was attacked, jurors heard Owusu was “so mad there was no stopping him”:

Ms Mukhtar was scared and pleading with him to stop.

A minute later the car returned to the scene in Chadwell Heath Lane, where Zahwa lay motionless, “with headlights illuminating her”. The car stayed for only a few seconds and nobody left it.

The court heard there was a discussion about Zahwa, and helping her, but nobody did.

She was eventually found unresponsive by a police officer at 5.31am on Saturday morning when two separate passersby alerted police to a woman lying in the road. They thought she was either drunk or had fallen asleep. Despite the efforts of the emergency services Zahwa was pronounced dead at the scene less than an hour later.

Before reaching Zahwa, officers had spent 50 minutes with Owusu and the group in the Mercedes nearby after stopping the car on suspicion of drugs at about 4.40am.

Police found nitrous oxide canisters in the boot of the car, a small amount of cannabis in the defendant’s gilet pocket and a “man bag” with a “small bag of white powder in it”. No arrests were made, but officers told the group to find alternative ways home.

While Owusu and the Mercedes driver waited for a taxi, their conversation was picked up by neighbourhood security systems, the court was told.

The case continues

Ms Paget said:

Far from showing any concern for Ms Mukhtar, [Owusu’s] concern was that their presence in the area had come to the attention of the police.

The pair began to blame one another and Owusu “berates” the driver for not being “militant”, calling him “soft” and a “weak link”. In response, Owusu was told he “can’t control his emotions”.

The defendant was arrested for Zahwa Mukhtar’s murder on 17 August 2025 and answered no comment to questions during his interview.

Aspiring accountant, Zahwa, worked as a financial assistant at the Young Vic theatre in the Waterloo area of London. Ms Paget described her in court as “bright, bubbly, enthusiastic and very eager to learn”.

She was deaf in one ear as a result of contracting meningitis at three years old — so she wore a hearing aid — but “coped well and was adept at lip reading” as well as British sign language.

Zahwa, from Hackney, came from a traditional background, but wanted to live like any other young person in their twenties, the court heard.

“She had tattoos, piercings and enjoyed food and travel, and remained close to her siblings, especially her younger sister,” Ms Paget added.

The Old Bailey trial continues.

Featured image via the Canary

Keir Starmer’s Labour party has deselected three Labour councillors and blocked them contesting May’s local elections — punishment for demanding:

an independent inquiry into the election of a paedophile councillor.

When Clare Johnson, one of the three, successfully overturned the centralised deselection, she says the party orchestrated the local branch’s selection vote to ensure she couldn’t stand.

The councillors’ primary crime appears to have been to demand the debate on Labour’s 2023 selection of paedophile Tom Dewey. Party officials already knew, when they confirmed his candidacy, that Dewey had been charged for possessing the “most serious” categories of child-rape images.

Dewey subsequently admitted the offences and was convicted and added to the sex offender register. When local women party members tried to discuss the issue, Labour locked them out of its systems to prevent them.

Dewey was an organiser for right-wing pressure group ‘Labour First’, which supports Keir Starmer and is rabidly pro-Israel. Hackney mayor Philip Glanville was later suspended and forced to step down after images surfaced of him partying with Dewey after Dewey’s arrest.

Starmer is still reeling from his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as his senior adviser — and ambassador to the US — knowing Mandelson had was close to the convicted serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein. Mandelson’s protegee Morgan McSweeney resigned last week as Starmer’s chief of staff in an unsuccessful attempt to take the heat off his boss. And the heat is well deserved. Under Starmer, Labour has a deep and ongoing paedophile and sex offender problem.

Starmer followed his Mandelson fiasco with another ‘Labour nonceberg’ scandal over his decision to award a peerage to his former adviser Matthew Doyle. Starmer knew, when he recommended Doyle, that Doyle had campaigned for the election of notorious Scottish Labour paedophile Sean Morton.

Earlier this month, female MPs complained to Starmer that Labour is now known as a party of paedophiles — without mentioning the victims. Labour’s ‘white feminists‘ have routinely ignored the plight of victims. Meanwhile, Starmer’s record as Labour leader is an appalling continuation of the impunity of celebrity paedophiles when he ran the CPS.

Diagnostic

As well as the cases of Mandelson and Doyle/Morton, Starmer:

This issue is so endemic among Starmer’s right-wing, pro-Israel faction as to be basically diagnostic:

Sacked whistleblower

Perhaps most seriously, Starmer and his then-sidekick David Evans covered up Jewish whistleblower Elaina Cohen’s allegations of serial abuse of women by a party staffer.

Cohen repeatedly warned Starmer and Evans that a staffer working for then-Perry Barr MP Khalid Mahmood — and allegedly Mahmood’s lover — was engaged in ‘sadistic’ and ‘criminal’ abuse of vulnerable Muslim women. The victims were fleeing domestic violence, allegedly inflicted through the now-defunct domestic violence ‘charity’ that she ran. Starmer and Evans did nothing. Mahmood remained on Starmer’s front bench and Cohen was sacked from her role as parliamentary aide.

One of the victims gave evidence at Cohen’s successful wrongful dismissal tribunal. She spoke of the horrific abuse she and others  suffered. This included blackmail and sexual exploitation. Her evidence was not challenged by Mahmood or his lawyers. At the tribunal, Mahmood admitted under oath that he’d personally made sure that Starmer was aware of Cohen’s allegations.

Labour’s sex offender problem is mountainous, as is Starmer’s protection of them and his contempt for their victims. All of this has been almost entirely ignored by ‘mainstream’ media.

For more on the Epstein Files, please read the Canary’s article on how the media circus around Epstein is erasing the experiences of victims and survivors.

Featured image via the Canary

(Illustration by Tracy Worrall)

6 min read4 hr

Donald Trump says they are for “losers”, Kemi Badenoch thinks they are destroying jobs and Nigel Farage says he will put the whole lot in the bin.

But not every critic of the government’s commitment to decarbonise the UK’s electricity supply – heavily reliant on wind farms – is on the right. Tony Blair, or at least the institute that bears his name, is among those calling for a rethink.

In October, the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) issued a report calling on the government to “reform” its 2030 green power target – arguing that when the target was established it was “right for its time but circumstances have changed”.

Speaking to The House, TBI senior policy adviser on climate and energy policy Tone Langengen, who authored the report, says the Clean Power 2030 target “will not be met” and that it would be “damaging to try to meet it”.

“What the voters will care about the most is lower energy bills, and that is basically the way that you maintain consent for net-zero,” says Langengen.

“And secondly, the real challenge for the UK is not the supply side… The problem is the demand side. It is the electrification challenge.”

The Warm Homes Plan was, she says, “an important step in the right direction, because it’s starting to focus on how you actually electrify homes. But I am afraid that having a mission towards clean power, you could risk doing the opposite of lowering bills.”

The analyst adds that it is “more important that the transition is done right” and “where you bring the public along with you” instead of prioritising meeting the target as rapidly as possible.

The government has already watered down some pledges on green power, over concerns about achievability and desirability from the sector. Ahead of the 2024 election, Labour said it was committed to the 2030 target to phase out the sale of new, combustible vehicles in the UK. But the government has already made significant concessions in this area – with its election pledge on sticking to the phasing out of the sale of new combustible vehicles by 2030 partially abandoned.

In April, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander in a ministerial statement said: “In our manifesto, we promised to reimplement the phase-out of all new cars powered solely by internal combustion engines from 2030, restoring the certainty that has been sorely lacking. This response finalises that intention, confirming that from 2030 all new cars will need to be hybridised in some manner – or be zero emission. From 2035, all new cars and vans will be zero emission, and everything we do must now support manufacturers in reaching that end point.”

The UK is not alone in a shift on EVs, with the European Commission announcing a more substantial watering down of its electrical vehicles target than the UK. It declared in December that 90 per cent of new cars sold from 2035 would be required to be zero-emission – instead of 100 per cent.

Langengen is far from alone in her scepticism that the government will be able to meet its targets. Adam Berman, director of policy and advocacy at Energy UK, tells The House that while the clean power mission has “really focused minds within Whitehall” and “accelerated the pace” of the rollout of green infrastructure, it is unclear whether the 2030 target will be met – or should be met – from a practical perspective.

The 2030 target was always a political target – it wasn’t necessarily rooted in the engineering of the energy system

Advertisement

“We’ve got a hell of a lot further with the target than without the target, and it has meant they have removed blockages to planning and permitting,” Berman says.

“They have accelerated the pace of the rollout of generation infrastructure and network infrastructure. They have really put a lot of effort into moving faster than we ever would have otherwise – and so credit where credit is due there.

“I genuinely do think that there is a question as to what we do now; which is that the 2030 target was always a political target – it wasn’t necessarily rooted in the engineering of the energy system, or what was best for emissions. It was an eye-catching political target.”

Berman tells The House that “squeezing the last bit of gas out of the electricity system is probably less preferential than really focusing your energies on: how can you maximise the potential of a clean power we have now built?”.

“There is a moment now for the government to consider how can they pivot from really accelerating the ramp-up of clean power infrastructure – which they’ve done really well – to now prioritising thinking about how to actually use that infrastructure to decarbonise the rest of the economy and to bring bills down where they can,” says Berman.

Despite uncertainty about the achievability of the clean power target among stakeholders, a source close to Energy Secretary Ed Miliband tells The House the government remains committed to achieving clean power by 2030, pointing to decisions in planning and a recent successful renewable bidding auction as proof.

“We’re on track to clean power by 2030. We just had this massively successful offshore renewable auction last week where people expected us to get four or five gigawatts of power – we ended up getting eight,” they say.

“We’re massively going gangbusters on that, and at the same time something like two-thirds of all planning consents that have been made under this government have been made in Desnz [the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero].”

The source adds that while they accept the clean power by 2030 target is “very restricting”, the government is “confident” that it is on the right track to meet it.

“We feel that in the next year, you’ll begin to see projects being built because of planning decisions we’ve made and because of the procurements we’ve done that actually give us a really good chance of reaching the target,” they say.

“We’re really committed to it, we think that it’s the right thing to do, and we think we’re going to do it – and we’re feeling quite confident about it.”

A government spokesperson tells The House: “We are on track to deliver clean power by 2030, as shown by our recent record offshore wind auction, which secured enough clean energy to power the equivalent of over 12 million homes.

“Our clean power mission will protect household energy bills from volatile fossil fuel markets, drive clean energy investment and create thousands of jobs around the country.”

The more upbeat sentiment on reaching the targets is shared by Shaun Spiers, chief executive of Green Alliance, who tells The House it is important that the government remains committed to the 2030 clean power target.

“It seems to be pretty well on track, and the reason for going for it hasn’t changed: which was basically to drive energy security… lower costs in the long run, but also get us off the rollercoaster of dependence on fossil fuels,” says Spiers.

“With Donald Trump behaving so erratically, you really don’t want to be dependent on international gas prices – you don’t want to be dependent on imports of liquefied natural gas from the States. The quicker we can get to energy independence – clean power, energy independence – the better.” 

3 min read3 hr

A luxury we can only afford to improve if we achieve economic growth. A service for which we must make so-called “tough choices” and perhaps cut to make it more affordable.

I believe that this way of thinking is entirely back-to-front. Far from being a national luxury only afforded to a growing economy, our community mental health and social care services are key investments that create the very growth this government claims to seek. Paying to keep our people healthy is what saves us from the much greater costs of a society without quality healthcare for all.

When people get ill and need hospital treatment, we rightly focus on the personal impact that has on them and their family and the medical care they receive. But that can mean we overlook the impact on the wider community and the economy. When people become unwell over the long term, that means they can fall out of the workforce, they can struggle to pay bills, rent or their mortgage. They may come to rely on family members or state support to get by. It may have a knock-on effect and require families to reduce their hours or leave paid employment in order to provide care work to their loved one.

Without adequate support, what might have been a small or short-term financial difficulty for a family can escalate into major economic harm.

In Winchester, we’ve seen how much difference it makes when we join the dots properly. At Melbury Lodge, our local mental health hospital run by Hampshire & Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, staff work in partnership with Citizens Advice Winchester District to help inpatients manage their finances and practical affairs while they’re still in hospital. That means when someone is finally well enough to be discharged, they don’t go home to a pile of unopened bills, eviction notices or court letters they were in no state to deal with.

The project has now helped around 600 people across Hampshire, preparing them for life in the community, free from the stressors that had been impacting their mental health. The main advice areas were around finance and housing, but the holistic service provided by Citizens Advice meant people could address a wide range of issues affecting their lives.

The research on this project found that for every £1 spent, around £14 was saved for the hospital Trust largely from shorter lengths of stay, fewer readmissions, reduced medication and better engagement in community services. With this incredible return on investment, a service like this should stop being thought of as a luxury that would be unaffordable to fund publicly. It’s smart, evidence-driven policy that also treats people like human beings – and provides good value for public finances.

This government has been desperate to find economic growth under the difficult economic circumstances left to them by the Conservatives – limiting their ability to spend or borrow.

That’s why I believe we need to boost ‘Spend to Save’ solutions just like this, which both generate a strong economic return for the economy and do so while following a more affordable cost path than the alternative of allowing people to fall further into debt and economic hardship.

Debt and in-work poverty ruins lives. It saps the joy from life, puts strain on relationships, and contributes towards our growing economic and mental health crises. But by supporting initiatives like this across the country, we can begin to tackle both crises together.