A care leaver has designed a booklet to help other young people leaving the system.

Shannon Budd, 24, created a booklet to help children in the care community understand their rights.

As it stands, the current care system often leaves young people in limbo when they age out of foster care. Shannon wants to change this.

She told the Canary that Social workers and others working in the sector are usually the ones holding all the information. Of course, this means young people can feel powerless.

Social workers usually store documentation, paperwork, and other items that may be important to young people once they leave the system in inaccessible ways. This makes it hard for anyone without social work training to access or even understand.

Shannon says that care leavers deserve easy access to this information.

Stark statistics

In total, around 81,770 children are in care in England.

One in four leaves care on their 18th birthday, and one in three who leave care will become homeless within two years.

Moreover, four in 10 care leavers aged 19 – 21 weren’t employed, in education, or training in 2024/25. That’s three times the rate for people who haven’t experienced care.

Similarly,  only 15% of care leavers go on to higher education by the age of 19, compared to 47% of people without care experience.

Additionally, care-leavers are at higher risk of developing mental health problems than their non-care-experienced peers. A lack of support can make this even more complicated to navigate. To make matters worse, a third of care leavers do not know how to access mental health support. Many also report feeling alone or isolated after leaving care.

Shannon said:

My book includes numbers and contact information for Mental health charities that young people or care leavers could call instead of calling social workers and personal advisors who are not legally trained to handle them types of situations, and quite frankly don’t have a lot of time.

All of these statistics suggest a support gap, meaning young people leaving care are missing out on opportunities to further their education or careers, as well as on stable housing.

Become, a charity supporting and campaigning for children in care and young care leavers, said that:

Too many young people are expected to leave care before they feel ready, just at a time when they need stability the most. They don’t have the support networks other young people can take for granted. In a survey of care leavers, Ofsted found that more than a third felt they left care too soon.

Making a difference for a care leaver

Of course, no two people leaving care are the same, meaning support should never look exactly the same. However, the system is in crisis.

Currently, more money is being spent on children’s residential care than on early intervention services. These would prevent children from ever needing to go into care.

The number of children’s homes has also reached a record high, with Ofsted opening nearly 900 investigations into unregistered homes.

But with so much talk about money and funding, the children at the centre of the care system are often forgotten.

Shannon told the Canary:

the care community need to recognise that we’re just children with complex lived experiences, and not all cases and children handle things in the same manner

We need a better system

In creating the workbook, Shannon also wants to show younger children in the care system that they can be successful.

I want to – through my own work path & life story – bring awareness to the problems that I and so many other children have faced while being in the care system.

I want to try to make a success of myself and show others that you can be somebody and beat the statistics we are usually faced with.

Shannon has already taken the booklet to her local council, she said:

They thought it was absolutely brilliant. Especially the pathway plan I created for young people and care-leavers, as it gives the chance for young people to work alongside their personal advisors and social workers.

She added that:

all it takes is one person believing in you for a young person to become a success.

Featured image via Shannon Budd

On 23 February, Zia Yusuf gave his first speech in his new role as Reform UK’s home affairs spokesman. Along with unveiling deepening US-style Christofascism, he also proudly revealed details of plans to increase his party’s already vile immigrant-bashing and Islamophobia to new heights.

This included a proposal to create a UK ‘Deportation Command’ modelled on the US ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agency. This agency would conduct ‘Operation Restoring Justice’, which would involve detaining ‘illegal’ immigrants in pre-fab structures before rapidly deporting them.

Yusuf also voiced ambitions to institute a visa ban against six Muslim-majority countries. Likewise, he would also refocus the already hideously Islamophobic ‘Prevent’ counter-terrorism scheme against Muslims in the UK.

ICE in the UK under Reform

Reform’s Yusuf gave his speech at a Dover press conference, with party leader Nigel Farage at his side. There, he described migrants arriving on small boats as “an invasion” numbering:

more than stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day.

The far right really love mentioning D-Day, don’t they? Funny how they neglect to mention that those small boats are the fault of Farage and his disastrous Brexit.

The home affairs spokesperson told BBC Breakfast that Reform planned to spend £2bn on its deportation scheme. This would include creating the ICE-alike Deportation Command:

to track down, detain and deport all illegal migrants in the UK.

We will embark on mass deportations using chartered flights with five departures every single day.

To guarantee success an RAF plane will be on standby in the event of mechanical issues. These flights will not be delayed.

Advertisement

Because nothing says ‘we’re definitely not fascist’ like proposals to get the military involved in deportations. Likewise, the fact that Reform are still hellbent on instituting a British ICE after seeing the heinous crimes, abuses and murders carried out by Trump’s Gestapo almost beggars belief. Almost.

‘A sadistic vision’

On top of this, Yusuf also unveiled plans to impose a visa ban on six different countries. These included Pakistan, Eritrea, Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan and Sudan – all of which just happen to have majority-Muslim populations.

Yusuf claimed that the policy was intended as a sanction against countries which don’t accept the return citizens deported from the UK. We’re sure it’s just a coincidence that, once again, Trump put out several almost-identical policies. 

The home affairs spokesman claimed that Pakistan had the “highest overstay rates of any country”, but “routinely refused” to accept deportations. He said:

In order that we issue visas I think it’s very, very reasonable that we say you should take back the citizens of your country that have overstayed in our country and are here illegally and are a drain, in many cases, on resources in this country.

In reaction, Dora-Olivia Vicol – CEO of the Work Rights Centre – said:

We have watched in horror as ICE attacked migrant communities and citizens in the US – yet this is what Reform wants to base their immigration policies on?

This is a sadistic vision of UK families and communities being ripped apart, money being wasted, and the government turning against its own people.

Cancelling the immigration status of people who have settled and built their entire lives here would not only be callous but actively hurt our economy and public services. People who hold ILR are our partners, neighbours, friends, teachers, NHS workers, and include high tax contributors.

There is absolutely no reason to terminate their status other than for Reform’s own self-serving goals of division and chaos.

Advertisement

These are proposals designed purely to grab headlines and stoke anger.

They are cruel, economically self-defeating, and offer no solutions to the real problems facing people in Britain: poverty and exploitative work.

Prevent: just ignore the right-wing

And, on top off all this, Yusuf also stated that Reform would task Prevent, part of the UK’s anti-terrorism scheme, to re-focus on Islamist extremism. The Times reported that this would include a requirement for police to raid the home of anyone referred to Prevent three times.

Likewise, Reform would also reallocate Prevent’s resources to ensure that three-quarters of its budget is spent on tackling Islamic extremism. This would mimic the makeup of MI5’s caseload.

It also just so happens that the reallocation would necessitate a decrease in Prevent’s attention on extreme right-wing terrorism. In November 2025, the Guardian reported that the number of far-right extremists reported to Prevent was greater than any other source:

In total, 8,778 referrals were made because of suspicions of extremist radicalisation in the year to March 2025, 27% more than the previous year and the highest number of referrals in a single year since records began 10 years ago.

Of the 8,769 referrals where the type of concern is specified, 21%, or 1,798 cases, were due to “extreme rightwing concerns”; 10%, or 870, were referrals connected to Islamist ideology; and 56%, or 4,917, were for individuals judged to have no identified ideology.

So we have a far-right political party heavily invested in making sure that growing right-wing terrorism doesn’t get investigated. That seems awfully convenient, doesn’t it? And, given that all Reform have to motivate voters is the vague threat of Islamist terrorists, they’re likewise invested in inflating the investigation of Muslims.

Reform’s policies are built on the fear of the other – the fear of Islam, the fear of immigrants. They are dedicated stoking the fires of public hatred, because they thrive on that same division. Beyond that, their politics are as empty and hollow as the conmen like Yusuf who stand up and spout it.

Featured image via the Canary

As headlines swirl around Warrington’s finances, one thing is clear: the numbers are large, complex, and increasingly hard to ignore.

• £354 million – the amount Warrington Borough Council is asking the government to borrow through Exceptional Financial Support.
• £178.9 million – the projected budget gap over the next four years.
• £708 million – the long-term cost of that borrowing over 20 years, including interest.

For Independent Cllr Stuart Mann, however, this isn’t about headline figures. It’s about what those figures mean for people.

Speaking to the Canary, Mann said:

This isn’t abstract, I live here. My family lives here. I pay council tax here. These decisions affect me too.

How Did Warrington Get Here?

Over the past decade, the council adopted a commercial investment strategy. The intention was straightforward: borrow at relatively low interest rates, invest in property and other ventures, generate income, and use that income to protect frontline services. In theory, it was about financial self-sufficiency. In practice, borrowing at scale brought risk. As a result, some investments underperformed, markets shifted and interest rates rose. All the while, the debt remained.

As concerns mounted, the Government commissioned a Best Value Inspection into Warrington. The inspection did not simply examine the balance sheet. It looked at governance, scrutiny, risk management and organisational culture. It raised concerns about the scale of borrowing, the level of exposure to risk, weaknesses in oversight, and the need for stronger financial discipline.

Following that report, government envoys were appointed to oversee improvement at the council. According to early assessments, even if the council attempted to dispose of its commercial assets quickly – effectively a “fire sale” – potential losses could be in the region of £275m. There wasn’t a simple reset button, the exposure was already there. There has also been significant leadership change since the commercial strategy was developed. The former leader and deputy leader have left. The former Chief Executive and previous Section 151 officers are no longer in post.

But, Mann says,

Change in personnel doesn’t solve structural issues. What matters now is whether governance is genuinely stronger.

Where is the oversight?

More recently, under the oversight of the government envoys, an expert review of the council’s Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) policy was carried out. MRP is the amount a council must legally set aside each year to repay borrowing. The review found that Warrington had not been setting aside enough. Correcting that added tens of millions of pounds per year in recurring pressure to the budget. It wasn’t new spending, it was correcting how the council was paying down existing debt, but that correction has had major consequences.

As the council nears its full meeting on the 2nd March where the budget will be proposed by the Labour group in charge, the papers show

– A four-year budget gap of £178.9 million

– A £117.9m shortfall next year alone before savings

– A £354m Exceptional Financial Support request

– And a £708m long-term repayment cost over 20 years

Cllr Mann pointed out that a long-term perspective is crucial here, and one that Labour appear to be ignoring:

That £708 million figure is the one that really lands, because it’s not just about this year. It’s about the next two decades.

To help balance the books, council tax is proposed to rise by 7.48%. For a typical Band D household, that represents several hundred pounds more per year once police and fire precepts are included, pushing annual bills comfortably beyond £2,000 for many families. All in, a typical household will be around £400 worse off after the tax increase.

That’s without taking into account the ever-decreasing value for money for local council tax payers. Compounding things further, we must then factor in energy bills, food prices, mortgages and everything else rising simultaneously. After all, this cost of greed crisis is increasing the burden on households, whilst the richest see their wealth grow.

Cllr Mann says he is particularly frustrated by attempts in some quarters to suggest Warrington residents are somehow “better off” or insulated from the impact.

That kind of smoke and mirrors narrative doesn’t reflect the emails I’m receiving; it doesn’t reflect the conversations I’m having in supermarkets or at school gates. People do not feel better off.

Additional concerns about the council’s narrative

In recent weeks, suggestions have been made that volunteers could help fill gaps created by service reductions. On this, Mann is again clear in his response.

I’ve been a volunteer long before I became a councillor, and I’ll continue long after. Volunteering is about caring for your community. It is not a substitute for properly funded public services.

We are already asking residents to absorb higher bills and reduced services. We cannot then quietly expect them to step in and backfill roles that exist to protect people and keep communities safe.

We are asking households to take a double hit financially. We must not pretend goodwill can absorb a third.

Here Mann argues that expecting goodwill to absorb the consequences of financial misjudgment is unfair. An imbalance that is deeply uncomfortable both for local councillors and for local residents. Mann recently held a ward surgery that he describes as unusually sobering.

“Normally, someone comes in about a pothole or litter and you feel confident you can push for it to be resolved. This time, there was a different tone. Behind every request was the question – is there even the money?”

He says for the first time since being elected in 2024, he struggled to offer reassurance.

“I could log the issue. But I couldn’t confidently promise the outcome in the same way. And that’s hard.

The Best Value Inspection identified governance weaknesses. The envoys stepped in. The MRP review exposed underprovision. Now residents are feeling the impact.

Warrington needs solutions, not gimmicks and sticking plaster policies

Like any sensible adult, Mann accepts the legal necessity of setting a balanced budget. However, he argues that the £178.9m budget cap creates uncertainty around even the basics. Without Exceptional Financial Support from the Labour government, the situation would be even more severe. But he believes this moment must be about more than balancing numbers. Mann argues that rebuilding trust must now be the priority.

This can’t just be about balancing spreadsheets. It has to be about embedding stronger governance, stronger scrutiny, and real financial discipline.

Because while the crisis may have begun in commercial strategy and accounting policy, its consequences are now being felt in homes and communities across Warrington. And as he puts it:

If this moment doesn’t lead to lasting change in how our town is governed and how risk is managed, then the people of Warrington will quite rightly ask what it was all for.

Featured image via the Canary

As Skwawkbox predicted last week, Peter Mandelson, Keir Starmer’s former senior adviser and ambassador, has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. After the arrest of former prince Andrew, it was inevitable.

Mandelson arrested – but no justice for victims and survivors

But both arrests are for sharing trade and financial secrets with Israeli spy and serial child rapist Jeffrey Epstein. Police are not looking into whether Mandelson was in any way involved in Epstein’s rape of children or his human trafficking – which included sending women to the UK for Andrew. As ever, power considers money far more significant than the lives and well-being of ordinary people.

Neither arrest should be allowed in any way to distance Starmer from his own guilt. He appointed Mandelson as his senior adviser and UK ambassador to the US, despite knowing that Mandelson was still in close contact with Epstein. He also ran the Crown Prosecution Service during its decision not to prosecute serial rapist Jimmy Savile and others, or intelligence operatives linked to torture, while pursuing innocent sub-postmasters and postmistresses, autistic hackers and innocent journalist Julian Assange.

And Starmer has his own very large basket of dirty laundry of covering up for abusers and sex pests in ‘his’ party – many of whom were directly involved in, or closely linked to, criminality. It is a habit he still shows no sign of breaking.

But the victims of Epstein and those he enabled will only have justice when the powerful are on trial for the abuse they suffered – not just a whitewashing of rape and paedophilia by focusing on ‘white collar crime’.

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

The UK Israel lobby has resurrected the anti-semitism scam it used against Jeremy Corbyn and the left. It involves all the same usual, ugly suspects and is, again, coordinated with its ‘mainstream’ media allies.

Only this time the target is the Green party and its members – and the political context makes the smear a laughing stock.

What smears are Israel carrying out now?

The Mail, Telegraph and others, predictably, are all too ready to amplify the shrill accusations and showcase the pearl-clutching as a string of Israel lobbyists target the Greens. If such a thing is possible, it has started even more wildly and desperately than the first time around. The Mail screams that the Greens are about to vote on a motion that would “make it party policy to back Hamas terror attacks” and would “EVEN brand leader’s mother a racist”. More honestly, the Torygraph admits who is behind it all, blaring that:

Israel condemns ‘hateful and racist’ Greens.

Both – happily the Telegraph is paywalled – then roll out the all-too-predictable string of Israel lobby groups. These say they are, oh shock and horror, appalled that the Greens’ conference is about to vote on a motion that would recognise support for racist Israel as, oh woe, racist. Worse, it would recognise the legal right of Palestinians to resist “by all available means”, including with arms.

Pay attention

The dishonest framing is quite something to see. The Mail’s is worse, but it’s quite a close-run thing. It claims that the motion would be:

saying that the Palestinians have a right to armed struggle and we should support it.

Not quite. The Palestinians already have an internationally recognised legal right to resist occupation, including taking up arms. This remains true even though UK courts under Keir Starmer have, shamefully, tried to tell juries they must ignore international law. This even means that, while Palestinians have the absolute right to armed resistance, Israel has no right to use violence against them because, as international law expert Ralph Wilde told Al Jazeera, “There’s no defence against defence”:

But how dare the Greens hold a vote to uphold international law, eh? The very idea is anti-semitic! At least – without mentioning the international law bit, of course – that’s what the string of Israel lobbyists would have us believe.

Enter Corbyn

Israel lobbyist and anti-traveller hate-communicator John Mann ranted that it’s so anti-semitic it makes even Corbyn look “moderate”. He got so frantic he seemed to be finding every possible way to say the same thing over and over and wanted the Greens to go back to building windmills instead of worrying about international law:

It’s a support for terrorism and overt racism against Jews. There is no ambiguity. It’s from the extreme margins of politics.

This is well beyond anything that happened during Labour under Jeremy Corbyn. This makes Corbyn look like a moderate.

Advertisement

The crank element that even Corbyn was worried about has entered the Greens en masse. It’s also about as far away as from Green politics of the past as is possible.

Greens used to be about stopping fossil fuels and nuclear power and building wind farms. Now hate is bringing members surging into the Green party.’

Israel-funded lobby group the (misnamed) ‘Campaign against Antisemitism’ (CAA) has boasted of its role in Starmer’s unlawful ban on anti-genocide group ‘Palestine Action’. It screeched that the Greens must not just reject the motion but expel its movers:

The Green Party seems poised to recycle history’s worst hatreds. Not only should this motion be refused consideration, but those who proposed it should be expelled from the Party.

Board of Deputies

The Zionist ‘Board of Deputies’ (BOD) says that it exists to promote Israel’s interests. Unsurprisingly, it howled that the motion is “hateful and racist” and claimed it called for the “destruction of Israel”.

And both the lobby groups and the rags targeted Palestinian artist Lubna Speitan for daring to propose the motion. But that’s not news, that attack has been going on for weeks, since the Israel lobby first got in a twist about it:

Green Party has now been reported to UK “counter-terror” police over “anti-Zionist elements” in the party

Read article below by British-Palestinian Green Party member Lubna Speitan who co-authored Motion A105, which, if adopted, would make Greens an explicitly anti-Zionist party https://t.co/oxFgyAgIbI

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) February 13, 2026

But this is not 2017-19, when so many in the UK were terrified of being called ‘anti-semitic’ for opposing Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians or standing up for Palestinians’ legally-recognised right to resist occupation. That terror made Corbyn’s Labour terrified of calling Antisemitism Scam 1.0 the scam that it was. Instead, from Corbyn down, they gave in to the Israel lobby’s narrative and demands, turning on those who spoke up.

Now, the UK and the world have watched almost two and a half years of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. We have seen the exposure of its constant, shameless, self-entitled lies – about 7 October 2023, about bombing hospitals, shelters, tents, aid trucks, ambulances, about starving Gaza and targeting children. And journalists. And their families.

Now, we know that if Israel or its fans are speaking, they are lying. We know that standing up against Zionism’s hate, racism and murder is not anti-semitism. It is to be human and decent. We have seen that thousands of Jewish stand against the slaughter and against Israel and its crimes.

So for all the lobby’s pearl-clutching and wishing it so, so all the amplification of media and politicians, nobody who matters is fooled. Even the racists aren’t fooled – they just act like they don’t know they’re lying. We do. It won’t be ‘deja vu all over again’ and they can cry into their (culturally stolen) hummus.

Well done to Lubna Speitan and all who support the motion. Well done to the Greens too, if they pass it as they should.

Featured image via the Canary

Danny Kruger (Photography by Tom Pilston for The House)

13 min read21 min

A mop of grey hair can be seen bobbing over boxes piled high in a room with walls stripped bare, leaving only hooks missing their pictures. As a pair of podcast hosts stumble out, we shuffle in. Danny Kruger is being kicked out of his parliamentary office.

The Reform MP for East Wiltshire is likely destined for a pokier alternative, somewhere harder to find on the estate. This is his belated punishment, handed down by the whips, for defecting from the Conservatives in September to Nigel Farage’s insurgent party. He was the first sitting MP to make the big leap.

Now tasked with heading up Reform UK’s preparations for government, Kruger says he has “the most exciting job it’s possible to be doing in politics”. So, if there were a general election tomorrow, would his party be ready to govern?

“We’ll be ready when we have to be. There’s not going to be a general election tomorrow,” he replies. “We are getting ready at pace. I would like more time, because I think we will benefit from having our ideas kicked around by more people with expertise.”

With characteristic impishness, he summarises: “The answer to your question is, we’ll be ready when we have to be, but we’ll be readier the later it is.”

His own attention is geared towards the Civil Service, which will see a major headcount reduction under Reform plans. Kruger sets out a private sector-style vision: more people brought in from the outside; ‘high-flyers’ better-paid, with a performance-related element; some recruited for short periods, say six months, to work on a specific task.

Reform will prioritise “people with actual domain expertise” over “these posh generalists who float about from department to department making policy at the moment”, says the Eton-educated MP some would describe as a posh generalist himself.

“A lot of change is coming. Yes, more political appointees, whether they’re spads or civil servants, and a culture which prioritises delivery and genuine subject matter expertise.”

Would his party work with the new cabinet secretary, Antonia Romeo, dubbed “queen of woke” by some conservatives?

“I’m not going to get into individuals, although it’s true to say we are looking at individuals to see who in the current system we expect to work successfully with,” Kruger says. “To get to the top of the Civil Service, it’s quite a bad sign, really. You would have had to really conform to a very, very strict orthodoxy of belief and practice.”

Asked whether a clear-out will therefore be required, he says he is consulting with current and former civil servants to spot talent – or lack thereof – among permanent secretaries (perm secs) and director-generals (DGs).

“Sometimes name me names – ‘Who do you think is good and bad?’ – but mostly, ‘What proportion of the senior civil service, the top 200 perm secs, DGs, do you rate?’” Their answers are “depressing”, he reports.

So, what proportion of the current crop do they categorise as “good”? Kruger spots a journalist’s trap and refuses to give a percentage. “But it’s bad,” he adds.

This all sounds very Dominic Cummings, the former chief of staff to Boris Johnson, and an old friend of Kruger. The prospect of him joining the project is dismissed, however.

“I don’t think there’s any chance of Dominic coming on board. Neither does he want to, nor would Nigel have him. I think he’s put himself out of consideration for direct work in government,” Kruger says.

“I don’t talk to him much because he’s not in the Reform camp, but I read his stuff, and I’ve always thought he was wise and prescient.”

Cummings has warned that Britain is sliding towards civil war, claiming that we are “only random viral posts away from riots and prairie fires getting out of control”. Does Kruger agree?

“Yeah,” he replies. The left portrays Reform as “rabble-rousers” who incite division, which could become violence. “The total opposite is the case. The only chance of unity for our country is Reform,” the MP continues. “If we don’t win, or if we win and then make a mess of it, I do fear for our country.”

Life as a small-c conservative has been a pain of late, including under recent Tory administrations. “We fight the long defeat, as Tolkien said. We’re always losing,” as Kruger puts it.

Yet he fully believes that the winds are changing now. The mood of the country has shifted, and those in power, still embracing “the cult of the independent individual” without “any obligations beyond self-gratification”, are lagging behind.

“We’re all realising how empty that philosophy is and how destructive it is of society,” he says. “The Reform slogan is family, community, country. We’re talking about the associations that give us meaning and identity and security and a sense of belonging. I think that’s where the country is now going – away from a doctrine of total liberal individualism.”

“I’ve been hoping for a return to IDS all these years, but I found that in Nigel – he is my IDS”

Advertisement

Kruger, 51, made his start in politics at the Centre for Policy Studies think tank and then as an adviser in the Conservative Party’s policy unit, initially under Iain Duncan Smith. After a stint as the Telegraph’s chief leader writer, he started writing David Cameron’s speeches – including, most memorably, the “hug-a-hoodie” one. He insists his politics have not budged over the years, however.

“I remain quite proud of that speech,” he says, explaining that it was actually very conservative, advocating proper punishment of criminals as well as love for young people at risk of crime. (His embrace of words like “love” is not unusual for politicians driven by their faith – Kruger became a Christian in his 20s, after meeting his wife, Emma – and should not be mistaken for softness of politics.) He left Cameron in 2008 to work full-time on the youth crime prevention charity he co-founded.

“I’ve always been a social conservative. The bits of Cameronism that I approved of, like the Big Society, I still approve of. I was always a Brexiteer.”

He is “probably less of a neocon”, though: “I supported the Iraq War – I regret that.” He regrets, too, supporting parts of the Covid response before later becoming a strong lockdown critic.

“I was the token right-winger in the Cameron team. I was probably most at home, in all of these Tory leaders I worked for, with IDS, in the 2003 era. So, I’ve been hoping for a return to IDS all these years, but I found that in Nigel – he is my IDS.”

Kruger has been prominent over the last year not only because of his defection but also his opposition to assisted dying.

“My expectation is that they’re going to run out of time,” he says of Kim Leadbeater’s bill currently before Parliament. “While I oppose the bill, and I will oppose any assisted dying bill because I don’t think it’s possible to craft a safe one, you could craft a much safer one than this.” He does not accept that peers have been filibustering to kill the bill.

Kruger’s mother, Bake Off star Prue Leith, has been one of the celebrities at the fore of the pro-assisted dying campaign. They made a documentary together about the subject, through which they came to better understand each other’s views.

“It’s been a bit difficult sometimes, because it matters a lot to both of us, and we haven’t been prepared to stop. She’s committed to the campaign; I’m committed to resisting it. But, no, overwhelmingly, I salute my mum for not minding that I am leading, or one of the leaders of, the campaign to stop her getting her way,” he says. “Neither of us is budging. That’s OK.”

The other big social reform put before MPs recently was the decriminalisation of abortion at any point during pregnancy, via an amendment by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi. Unlike the assisted dying legislation, it passed the Commons easily.

“I thought it was a real shame that we did that – as a country, as a Parliament. Again, totally understand the argument for it, but it has sent a very, very strong signal that it is acceptable to abort a viable baby at nine months,” Kruger says. He also argues it has put vulnerable women at further risk of coercion by abusive partners. (Advocates of decriminalisation naturally disagree on both points.)

“The fact it happened the same week as the assisted dying bill just struck me as a very, very dark episode in our national life.”

In Kruger’s 2023 book Covenant, which outlines his conservative communitarian philosophy, he describes sex as being a private act done almost in public, when it should really be a public act done in private. What role does he believe a political party can have in undoing the sexual revolution, or resetting our sexual culture?

“A limited but important one,” he replies. He is clear that every government policy is “critically important to the way families form” and confirms that Reform UK is looking at switching our tax system to be based on households rather than individuals.

“Marriage traditionally was the means by which sexual relations between men and women were regulated, and I think we are suffering from having a totally unregulated sexual economy,” he says.

“I’m not interested in your love life, or anything about your personal life – that is your business. But I am interested in the framework in which you make your decisions, and I’d like the framework to be more pro-social. If you want – most people do want – to settle down with one person to have children, we should make that easier.”

While he is against the 2022 introduction of no-fault divorce, because the landmark change “basically means that your vows don’t matter”, he does not commit to overturning it. “I don’t know whether we’d be able to reverse it,” he says. “I don’t think that would be party policy, to change that.”

It may not include this one, but – with Reform UK figures concerned about our low birth rate – the party is developing a suite of fertility-boosting policies, he confirms: “Yes, we have a pronatalist ambition. We want people to have more children, and we think the government should get behind that wish.”

Expect more from Reform on childcare, for example: “Clearly, the system is totally dysfunctional. There’s a massive disincentive for parents to be able to organise their finances around their actual lives. It’s broken.”

Kruger must be serious about getting into power: he appears to position himself as less right-wing now that he has joined Reform than he did as a Tory.

Asked about his past interest in dismantling the welfare state in favour of the ‘Big Society’, he maintains that the latter was “the best aspect of the Cameron government – except the referendum, of course” and criticises welfare dependence, before pointing out that “we don’t want to dismantle the public services that people rely on”.

Is he remembering his call for “a period of creative destruction in the public services”, which forced him to stand down as a 2005 Tory candidate? “Yes, yes, I don’t want to walk into that one,” he smiles.

“Let’s not pretend otherwise: there is a clear affinity of worldview between the Maga movement and Reform”

As we discuss the British shibboleths that Reform cannot afford to be seen as having any wish to meddle with, Kruger rejects any notion of switching away from the current NHS funding model. Instead, he expands on his view that the real problem is that this country is very sick. He talks of “the principle that there’s often better alternatives than a pharmaceutical prescription or a medical treatment” – so, is he against obesity jabs?

“I’m no expert. I don’t want to wade into a debate where I don’t have the expertise – that doesn’t stop me always, but on this occasion…” Another smile. “Instinctively, I’m suspicious of a solution that seems so easy.” He is “not a caveman” and is “very pro-tech”, yet “shortcuts feel to me to be dangerous. But who am I to object?”

On the subject of Reform’s electoral vulnerabilities, The House probes Nigel Farage’s closeness with President Trump. Is that a challenge for the domestic audience?

“Clearly, Donald Trump is not wildly popular in the UK, and the fact that we have and Nigel has a personal friendship with him, might not be advantageous,” he says.

“On the other hand, I think it reflects well on Nigel that he’s stood by Donald Trump, including when Trump was down, and that relationship is very, very useful, potentially, to the United Kingdom and to a Reform government. And let’s not pretend otherwise: there is a clear affinity of worldview between the Maga movement and Reform.”

Kruger clarifies: “The US is a very different place. We don’t want to mirror their politics. We don’t want to follow everything that the current administration is doing in the UK, far from it. But the US and the Republicans are the best friends this country could have.”

The Reform MP seems genuinely comfortable in his new home. He claims not to know whether more Conservative MPs will follow suit, saying it is “a very personal decision” and “not for me to decide who Nigel would want to have anyway”.

He delivers the pitch anyway: “If you’re an authentic conservative, your patriotic duty is to join Reform – unless you’ve got some massive personal problem with some policy we’ve got, or people. But you shouldn’t.”

So, if Farage’s party forms the official opposition or government, which jobs does he have his eye on? The Department for Work and Pensions, perhaps?

“I would like to start putting in my bids for jobs now, but I won’t. Who knows what Nigel will want from each of us?” Kruger replies, acknowledging that “yeah, social policy is where I feel most expert”.

Could he be in the Cabinet Office – Reform’s Pat McFadden? “The Oliver Letwin of the operation! Again, we don’t know what the structures of government are going to be, what roles will exist, what departments we’ll have. I think there needs to be some machinery of government changes.”

The cabinet, he says, “will look smaller” and Farage has confirmed that the jobs will not all go to MPs, “so there might not be room for me”.

That would seem rather harsh, considering what a significant step he took in defecting. “I might have screwed up by then. My normal trajectory is to do something catastrophic and blow myself up. So, let’s see what I do next.”

Paddington Bear: Played by Arti Shah (on-stage performer) and James Hameed (voice/remote puppeteer) | Image by: Johan Persson

4 min read23 February

In my 50-year political career, I have sat and listened to words that moved me, uplifted me, entertained me and inspired me, but nothing quite like the words spoken in the Savoy Theatre by a three-foot bear wearing a red hat and a blue duffle coat. Even the best barn-storming political speeches are soon forgotten, and, to use an old adage, become fish-and-chip paper the following day. 

But Paddington does something that we politicians dream of being able to do: he reaches into the hearts and minds of those watching on. And he does it day after day to audiences of thousands who, judging by the performance I was lucky enough to watch, file out wiping tears from their eyes, perhaps a little changed by what they’ve just seen.

I don’t recall the books by Michael Bond having made it onto our bookshelves, so I may have been among just a handful in the audience who really didn’t know what to expect of Paddington the Musical. I vaguely knew it would be a heartfelt tale of a lost bear, but what I found was something far more profound, and oddly personal.

We politicians sometimes make the mistake of using five words when one will do, of dressing our arguments in complicated conceits, of enjoying the sound of our own voices a little too much. Paddington, on the other hand, keeps things simple. “Kindness,” as the musical tells us, “isn’t complicated.” At a time when some like to try to blame refugees, which is of course what Paddington is, for every ill imaginable it’s a message we don’t hear often enough.

There is a small part of me that will always be that person who arrived here by train knowing no one

Like Paddington, I arrived as a child at a mainline London station as a refugee with a nametag around my neck, hoping to find a way to fit into my new home and feeling somewhat out of my depth. Paddington’s journey involved crossing continents; in that sense, it mirrors the journey of many of the refugees of today rather than my own. 

But the story is at pains to remind us of the many layers of migration that have enriched our communities, embodied on stage by Mr Gruber, who we learn arrived from Hungary as a six-year-old boy (the same age I was, and one suspects for the same reason), and Tanya, whose Caribbean warmth and welcome stands in stark contrast to the officious authoritarian figure who tries to object to Paddington settling into his new home. To paraphrase this official, who carries a clipboard and blows his whistle: “You let one bear in, and they’ll all want to come.” (Who does that remind you of?)

It is Tanya, and her son Tony, who introduce another theme that runs throughout the show – a love of London borne of its diversity and tolerance. “There are so many different people in London you can always fit in.” As the cast danced on stage, across the backdrop flashed images of London’s famous sites, from Buckingham Palace to St Paul’s Cathedral, including the magnificent towers of Battersea Power Station, where many years ago I was once the MP.

Even after a life spent in the UK, most of it in London, there is a small part of me that will always be that person who arrived here by train knowing no one.

But in the Savoy Theatre, thanks to Paddington, I was reminded that my story is not to so very different from that of thousands who live here, and that’s exactly what makes me a Londoner, and proud.

Lord Dubs is a Labour peer

Paddington: The Musical

Directed by: Luke Sheppard

Original music and lyrics by: Tom Fletcher

Venue: Savoy Theatre – until February 2027

Think tank Global Trade Alert has warned that the UK is set to be one of the worst hit by a 15% tariff imposed by US President Donald Trump. After seeing his tariff-wargame shut down by the Supreme Court on Friday, Trump has responded by putting a uniform global tariff in place.

The analysis shows the proposed global tariff would be higher than the rate already agreed in the US-UK trade deal. In other words, allies of the US would pay more – while countries like China and Brazil would effectively get a discount on the rates previously applied against them.

Donald Trump’s new 15% global tariff will most greatly benefit countries he has singled out for heavy criticism, including China and Brazil. Long-standing US allies including the UK, the EU and Japan will suffer the largest hit from the new levy. https://t.co/pc8NuchWea pic.twitter.com/h6ZpbPrOr6

— Financial Times (@FT) February 22, 2026

Trump’s ego takes a knock, so retaliation must follow

We wrote on Friday about the US President’s recent setback as the Supreme Court slapped him down over his ridiculous tariff agenda:

The ruling won 6-3. It states that Trump cannot use the excuse of a national emergency to legally impose sweeping, country-specific import taxes.

It immediately invalidates the broad tariffs that Trump imposed last year on nearly all imports. This included so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on many countries, and many additional levies which Trump claimed were due to the fentanyl crisis.

This whole incident follows the Trump playbook: he didn’t get what he wanted, so it’s round two. Only this time, the fallout isn’t targeted – it’s shared. Originally stating a 10% tariff, the president changed his mind and increased it to 15%. Because at the end of the day, Trump only looks out for Trump.

As a result, countries previously targeted by the US, including Canada and Mexico, are set to see savings, while those that have aligned more closely with US interests are expected to be left facing negative consequences when the tariffs are applied.

Andy Haldane, President of the British Chamber of Commerce, told the BBC:

The perversity of what happened of the weekend was that those who got good deals, the allies, have been most disadvantaged.

However, US trade representative Jamieson Greer has insisted that trade deals negotiated with allies would still stand. According to the BBC, the UK’s trade department have been contacted for comment.

Greer told CBS on Sunday:

The deals were not premised on whether or not the emergency tariff litigation would rise or fall. These deals are going to be good deals.

We expect to stand by them. We expect our partners to stand by them.

Nevertheless, others have pointed out that this tariff is unlikely to have any legal weight behind it:

Trump CANNOT legally impose a 15% global tariff because the US doesn’t meet the clear emergency economic conditions envisioned by Section 122. If Trump tries to invoke it, it would certainly face immediate legal challenges, economic pushback, and potential congressional scrutiny. pic.twitter.com/k39Isv99Gb

— Jon Cooper 🇺🇸 (@joncoopertweets) February 21, 2026

Tariff fatigue and confusion

As our own HG wrote on Friday, the President has no qualms about throwing his weight around for his own interests and political agendas:

He has also threatened to deploy his masked ICE goons to disrupt voting – talk about a dictatorship.

Trump doesn’t like being told no – by anyone, let alone the legal system. Before the judgment, Trump said, “We’ll figure something out”. Of course, he will have no intention of following the ruling. When has he ever followed the law? He’s been accused of being a child rapist and is named thousands of times in the Epstein files. He’s hardly going to care about a few import taxes.

As predicted, Trump once again abuses his power to defend his own ego. Meanwhile, other countries scramble to keep up with every U-turn and sudden shift from the far-right US leader. Meanwhile, American citizens might pay the highest price, as Trump’s tariffs send the cost of goods skyrocketing.

As this X account pointed out below:

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump says he’ll impose a 15% global tariff via his executive powers.

Once again, foreign countries won’t be paying the cost. You will. pic.twitter.com/DqM6DFbNMv https://t.co/DqM6DFbNMv

— Robert Reich (@RBReich) February 22, 2026

Trump, harming everyday people? Who knew.

Featured image via the Canary

Equity, the performers’ union, has announced it is boycotting the government’s survey in relation to BBC Charter renewal. It says it’s:

unfit for purpose in either detail or scope.

The union points to the survey’s complete absence of workforce consideration or representation, despite longstanding collective agreement arrangements with multiple trades unions which cover tens of thousands of BBC workers.

Equity is also encouraging its members to boycott the survey.

The union’s key criticisms of the survey are:

• Limited themes covered by questions.
• Public responses are to be aggregated by artificial intelligence software.
• Simplistic “agree or disagree” framing.
• Word limits where free text boxes exist, with limits of 50, 250 or 350 words for responses (many questions are almost 200 words long themselves).
• Airbrushing of workforce.

The BBC Charter

The Royal Charter is the constitutional basis for the BBC. It sets out the BBC’s objectives and purposes, as well as how it is governed and regulated.

The government’s survey launched just as parliament went into Christmas recess on 16 December 2025, with the consultation period closing on 10 March 2026. Although Equity is boycotting the survey, the union has actively engaged with other Charter renewal activity.

This includes sharing with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) a formal written submission covering the union’s policy proposals for the BBC – most of which sit outside the scope of the survey – as well as meeting with DCMS officials, BBC representatives and third parties.

Paul W Fleming, Equity’s general secretary, said:

Is the government setting out to do a W1A-esque satire of the Charter Renewal process? Its aim may be to ensure the BBC is accountable, yet this survey seems designed to actively avoid finding out what people think about the broadcaster and its future.

Not only is it restrictive, blinkered, and unfit for purpose in both detail and scope – it is contemptuous of the wide and varied BBC workforce, including directly employed, freelance and commissioned workers.

Advertisement

Creative workers will be dismayed at the missed opportunity to really delve into the purpose, position and possibilities for the BBC. And the fact that responses may be processed using artificial intelligence only adds insult to injury.

For these reasons, Equity is boycotting this survey, and we are encouraging our members to boycott it as well.

There needs to be an expansive consultation into the future of our public service broadcaster which genuinely seeks and listens to the views of the public, including the workers whose careers depend on the BBC.

Equity’s recommendations

Beyond the limitations of the survey, Equity intends to share with DCMS its key demands for a revitalised BBC. Chief among these is the recognition of trade unions as essential partners of the broadcaster to ensure good jobs – for employees as well as freelancers – to drive growth across the UK.

Equity is also asking for:

• A Workforce Covenant recognising that BBC commissioning and operational decisions must respond to the needs of the workforce as well as audiences, and imposing a legal duty to conduct workforce impact assessments and implement mitigation measures.
• A fair distribution of BBC investment across the nations and regions, starting with the Midlands.
• Workforce representation on the BBC Board.
• A substantial and guaranteed level of investment in audio drama series.
• A continuing or returning drama series that films for more than six months of the year in each of the UK’s Ofcom-defined reporting areas.
• An enforceable commitment to abide by an ethical and rights-based approach to AI, including seeking artists’ agreement to any use of generative AI and consulting relevant unions in that regard.

Survey questions

The 32 survey questions are available here: Britain’s Story: The Next Chapter – BBC Royal Charter Review, Green Paper and public consultation – GOV.UK

None of the questions ask about worker representation in the running or decision making of the BBC. The one question about workplace standards (question 5) does not allow a written response,  restricting respondents to simplistic tick box answers.

The only direct reference to “those working for the BBC” is in relation to pay, which appears to be a reference to ‘talent’ salaries, ie a tiny minority of highly paid people (question 6).

Featured image via the Canary