How will the new alert work?

Why is it needed?

Help and support:

Oliver Dean is the digital editor of Mace Magazine and a political commentator with Young Voices. He studies History and Politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).

Recently the Liberal Democrat economic spokesperson, Daisy Cooper, set out her party’s economic framework.

She did so at a press conference hosted by UK Finance, and the announcement marked the first major policy proposal the party has put forward since the 2024 election. But, whilst many Liberal Democrats were likely overjoyed by their party’s announcement, Cooper’s words left many scratching their heads and wondering how anyone could take her party seriously.

Perhaps the most peculiar announcement Cooper put forth was her idea to scrap the Treasury and, in its place, create a new Department for Growth. Her defence of such a radical idea came from the fact that, “in other countries” the bodies that cover “fiscal policy, economic policy and controlling government spending” are “split up.”

It may sound like a good idea on paper. After all, if other countries are doing it, why should Britain not join them?

But joking aside, such an idea is a prime example of a sweet nothing.

The evidence for this is overwhelming. For one, they would move this new Department to Birmingham. The reasoning behind this move is to reduce the inequality gap between London and the rest of the country. However, what no one seems to have told the Liberal Democrats is that simply moving a government building to a different city is not a means to produce economic growth. It is not as though the Treasury is some major economic force that drives up the country’s GDP. Moving this supposed ‘Department for Growth’ outside of London will not solve the countries’ economic issues in the way Cooper expects it to.

What is most telling, however, was the Party’s insistence that they “do not anticipate any cuts” to come with these new policies. True, the Liberal Democrat ethos appears to be spend, spend and spend some more and just hope that something works. At current rates, for instance, the government is expecting the welfare bill to rise by £20 billion more per year until the end of the Parliament. How, then, can the Liberal Democrats sit there with a straight face and not consider cutting any level of public spending? Total public spending is ballooning out of proportion, and yet Daisy Cooper and her allies appear to be blind to this economic reality. The truth is that if they are not to cut spending, they are left with just two options.

Either they would be forced to increase borrowing. Or, if they wished to take the other route, they would need to raise taxes. Both of these options would hinder the opportunities of future generations. The crux of the matter is that the Liberal Democrats are in a position to say such niceties – that cuts are not necessary, that they will mend the country’s woes – because they are, thankfully, never going to be near a position of power.

They can promise voters the world, and never be forced to deliver. They push policies in an attempt to grab headlines, and whilst it may work for a day or two, the votes they bleed as a result will far outweigh any positive media reception they may receive.

Indeed, such fiscally irresponsible nonsense comes at a time when their party leader is viewed by many as a joke. If he is not falling off a kayak, or partaking in some type of cringe-inducing photo opportunity, he is likely running his party’s credibility into the ground.

Daisy Cooper’s announcement has thus reinforced what many have known for a long time. That the Liberal Democrats are not a serious contender for government, and should not be allowed anywhere near the reins of power. The idea is radical, and unrealistic, but that is exactly what the Liberal Democrats can offer voters. They will never be held accountable for their undeliverable promises, and so do not care as to whether their plans are possible or not.

Perhaps we should all be thanking Daisy Cooper, for shining a light on the real Liberal Democrats.

Sharon Graham, the head of Unite Union, was to beef-up military defence spending. This hawkish stance has not gone unrecognised.

Sending workers into the “meat grinder of war”

Sharon Graham made demands for a meatier military budget during a rally outside Westminster on 25 February – effectively panhandling for the government. She gave Labour a verbal slap on the wrist for slashing defence spending. In doing so, she overlooked budgetary constraints caused by protracted austerity. Thousands of defence and aerospace workers, fearful of more job cuts, gathered in support of Graham.

These comments have angered many of the left. They argue that feeding the war machine at home is an attack on the workers Sharon Graham supposedly represents.

Shabbir Lakha, from Stop the War, said that, like the Second International, Graham would rather feed workers into the “meat grinder of war.”

Shabbir Lakha, from Stop the War, said that like the Second International, Graham is feeding workers into the “meat grinder of war.”

Formed in 1889, the Second International was a coalition of international socialist groups, with the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) being the most prominent. After WWI erupted in 1914, SPD-aligned MPs voted for war. This was the beginning of the end for SPD. Might Sharon Graham treading a similar path?

Sharon Graham cementing her position as the heir of the Second International in utterly betraying workers to the meat grinder of war. Disgraceful. https://t.co/rVbqOkLEHi

— Shabbir Lakha (@ShabbirLakha) February 26, 2026

Sharon Graham cementing her position as the heir of the Second International in utterly betraying workers to the meat grinder of war. Disgraceful. https://t.co/rVbqOkLEHi

— Shabbir Lakha (@ShabbirLakha) February 26, 2026

Advertisement

Author Carlos Martinez called Sharon’s stance social chauvinism.

Social chauvinism: the abandoning of international solidarity and the support of imperialist aggression, in the hope of getting a few miserable crumbs from the table. https://t.co/dhUILZIoFy

— Carlos (@agent_of_change) February 25, 2026

Selective sympathy

Other have pointed to Unite’s delayed opposition to British-Israel arms deals.

Unite, as reported by Red Pepper, only passed a motion against arms sales to Israel in 2025. The outlet added that it was no easy victory. It called it a “hard fought” battle. At the time, the New Socialist accused Sharon Graham of hiding behind “workers”. According to them, this was an “alibi” justifying her own inaction on Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the flow of weapons enabling it.

That same year, 2025, Graham was heard beating the same war drums, urging the UK to boost arms spending and not to acquiesce to Donald Trump.

Any thought of wooing Donald Trump by selling our defence jobs abroad and replacing the RAF fleet with US made F35s will be resisted and would be an act of self-harm.

There are other, seemingly easier ways to ward off Trump.

Jewish Voices for Liberation criticised Graham and Unite’s position, saying:

How is it possible for a supposedly left-wing trade union leader to ignore where that money is coming from – slashing the foreign aid budget which delivers a modicum of relief to people in poor countries – and how it will be spent – on lucrative contracts for merchants of death trading in weapons to be used in war and genocide?

It’s hard to know where to start commenting on the statement from Unite the Union, reproduced below, welcoming Keir Starmer’s decision to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent.

It quotes general secretary Sharon Graham saying: “‘The government has made the hard decision, the…

Advertisement

— JewishVoiceForLiberation (@JVoiceLiberatio) February 28, 2025

British Trade Union Complicity

Unite has come under fire for learning the wrong lesson from history. They’ll wave the Ukrainian flag and call it internationalism, but when it comes to Palestine, suddenly the workers need to focus on “pay and conditions.”

Tom Gann, editor of New Socialist, has called Sharon Graham’s posturing national syndicalism. That is, a politics that wraps itself in the flag of workers while serving the interests of the imperial war machine.

This was echoed by a group of Unite members who wrote an open letter to Graham in 2023. They accused her of abandoning Palestinians amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

National syndicalism: the role of the trade union is to bargain hard with bosses over the blood soaked profits of imperialism, but never in any way that would put those profits at risk. https://t.co/TvzB88c7Xc

— Tom Gann (@Tom_Gann) October 22, 2025

Real solidarity with workers of the global proletariat would mean more than flag-waving and supporting the imperial war machine.

Featured image via the Canary

What is 3-3-30 walking?

So, how did it go?

A damning interim report has revealed widespread failures in NHS maternity care due to discriminatory attitudes and staffing issues. These issues are then compounded by a lack of accountability for those same failures.

On 23 June 2025, health secretary Wes Streeting announced an independent, national investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal services. Valerie Amos, a Labour member and baroness of the House of Lords, is chairing the inquiry.

NHS maternity care failings

In an interview on BBC Breakfast this morning Amos stated that:

I have seen bad, poor, good and excellent care co-existing side by side.

Families have described to me good experiences, terrible experiences. It is patchy, it is inconsistent and what this investigation is about, is trying to find out the things that move us from poor and bad to good and excellent.

Advertisement

I am able to say categorically that there is safe care. There is good care, I have seen examples of it. But, I have also seen way too many examples of poor care.

What I have heard from families it is so traumatic and distressing. I have seen Trusts that have changed their practices as a result of what has happened in those trusts. It is a very mixed picture. It is not consistent.

Amos structured her findings around six key areas:

• Capacity pressures
• Culture and leadership
• The quality of estates
• The workforce itself
• Racism and discrimination
• Poor responses and lack of accountability when things go wrong

Capacity, culture, and quality

This discrimination against racialised parents is hardly new information. However, Amos has shed light on just how little improvement there has been in this regard, reporting that:

Babies of Black ethnicity are more than twice as likely to be stillborn, and are at increased risk of preterm birth and neonatal admission at term when compared with White babies. Neonatal mortality rates are also higher for Black and Asian babies compared with White babies, and there is variation in neonatal care delivery between ethnic groups.

Similarly, both maternal and neonatal mortality rates for families from the most-deprived areas in England were more than double those of their least-deprived counterparts.

Stereotyping from clinical staff was also a frequent issue. Black patients reported being treated as though they were tolerant to pain due to their “tough skin”. Meanwhile, Asians were stereotyped as “princesses” who were too demanding and unable to handle pain.

Disappointingly, Amos also showcases the very discrimination she’s highlighting. The interim report states that:

LGBTQ+ families reported a lack of inclusivity, with some reporting that services focus narrowly on “mothers” and “fathers” and fail to reflect diverse family structures. One family member said “I almost died in birth, as I had my baby – I was then asked questions like ‘who was the real mum?”

In spite of this cursory acknowledgement, Amos nevertheless frequently refers to birthing parents solely as ‘women’ throughout the report. This attitude serves to further alienate trans people who are already experiencing discrimination during pregnancy.

Accountability and cover-ups

Along with this litany of failings in NHS maternity and neonatal services, Amos also called out a lack of accountability in the aftermath of incidents of harm.

This included reports of a lack of transparency around what had actually occurred in the instance of birth trauma and baby loss. Families reported being kept out of investigations, and that the inquiries were often arbitrary and unfair when they did happen.

In the event of a bereavement, families also reported that staff were reluctant to talk about what actually happened. This perceived refusal to admit wrongdoing meant that families thought a coverup was taking place. One patient reported that:

I’d initially requested my medical notes on paper format.  What I have on paper doesn’t also match what they sent electronically. So I can see the amendments made. There is a lot that are redacted.

Some parents also reported ambiguity as to whether their baby had been born alive before being recorded as stillborn. Again, this led to accusations of staff trying to bury evidence of failures. One bereaved family member stated for the report that:

you register a baby as stillborn, you have no investigation, an independent investigation. […] The bereavement midwife came with [name]’s stillbirth paperwork and gave them to me. I said, “[name] was not stillborn, he was neonatal”. And she said, “Well, this is what he’ll be registered as, and if you don’t register him as stillbirth, you won’t be able to have a funeral and you won’t be registered anywhere”.

Next steps

This interim report comes ahead of the full review, which Amos will publish at a later date. Before then, you can still contribute to the evidence until 17 March 2026. Follow this link to the National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation Call for Evidence.

This includes two different surveys. One for people who have been pregnant to share their experiences. The other is for other people – non-birthing partners, friends, family or caregivers – to share their experiences supporting someone through pregnancy.

After Amos makes her recommendations, the health secretary will chair a National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce to put them into action.

However, given that Streeting has demonstrated his commitment to gutting health spending at the expense of patient care – as well as being dedicated to the same bigotry that the interim report called out – we’re not going to hold out breath for improvements in NHS maternity and neonatal care.

Featured image via the Canary

Most people know the feeling: standing in front of the mirror before a busy workday, wrestling with strands that refuse to cooperate. Whether you’re aiming for a polished look ahead of a meeting or something effortlessly casual for the afternoon, achieving consistent results without a professional’s help is entirely within reach. Everyday hairstyling is a genuinely useful skill set — one that builds confidence, streamlines morning routines, and cuts down on salon visits over time. Pairing solid technique with quality hair styling products can sharpen your results while keeping damage to a minimum. The real starting point, though, is understanding what your hair actually needs before you reach for a single tool.

Understanding Hair Types and Their Unique Needs

Hair falls broadly into four categories — straight, wavy, curly, and coily — each with distinct structural characteristics. Straight hair distributes sebum quickly from scalp to tip, which makes it prone to looking flat or greasy by midday. Wavy hair sits somewhere between texture and smoothness but tends to frizz when humidity disrupts the cuticle layer. Curly hair has a tighter coil pattern and higher porosity, meaning it absorbs moisture unevenly and responds strongly to changes in the environment. Coily hair is the most fragile of the four — its tightly wound strands have fewer cuticle layers protecting each shaft, making careful handling essential.

Trichology research supported by institutions like the American Academy of Dermatology points to porosity — how readily hair absorbs and retains moisture — as a foundational factor in choosing the right preparation and styling approach for any texture. It’s a detail that’s easy to overlook but makes a meaningful difference in practice.

Essential Tools and Preparation Steps

A well-prepared foundation makes every style easier to execute and far longer-lasting. Before you begin styling, focus on a few key steps:

• Detangling from ends to roots using a wide-tooth comb, which prevents unnecessary breakage
• Sectioning hair with clips to keep tension even and maintain control throughout
• Applying heat protectant to any area that will come into contact with a hot tool
• Balancing moisture according to your texture — fine hair benefits from lightweight leave-ins, while coily hair calls for richer, more substantial creams

Skipping the sectioning step is one of the most common — and avoidable — causes of hair breakage, particularly for those with textured hair types.

Timeless Everyday Hairstyle Tutorials

The Low Ponytail is arguably the most adaptable style across all textures. Smooth hair back from the temples, gather it at the nape, and secure with a fabric-covered elastic to reduce tension on the strands. For wavy hair, loosely twisting sections before pulling back adds dimension without any extra effort.

Half-Up Styles offer genuine versatility, working equally well for casual days and more formal settings. Gather the top section from ear to ear, secure it with a clip or elastic, and leave the ends loose. For a more polished finish across all textures, finger-coiling the loose ends defines shape without requiring any additional tools.

Braids and Twists remain some of the most protective and enduring options for everyday wear. A French braid works by incorporating new sections from the scalp downward, while a rope twist simply involves twisting two sections continuously around each other. The technique that matters most here is tension control — consistent, gentle tension keeps the scalp comfortable while maintaining a neat, clean appearance.

The Bun suits virtually every occasion. For a relaxed, undone look, gather hair into a loose ponytail, wrap it partially, and pin the remaining length around the base. Coily textures benefit from lightly puffing out the bun for volume, while fine hair tends to hold better when pinned flat.

Maintenance and Longevity Tips

How you treat your hair overnight matters just as much as how you style it during the day. Sleeping with a silk or satin wrap significantly reduces the friction that leads to frizz and breakage by morning. For quick daytime touch-ups, misting a small amount of water onto the hair refreshes the shape without requiring a full restyle. It’s also worth resisting the urge to over-brush — doing so strips natural oils and disrupts curl patterns that took time to set.

Healthy Hair Foundations for Lasting Styles

Reliable styling results start from the inside out. Research in nutritional dermatology connects adequate intake of biotin, omega-3 fatty acids, and protein to stronger hair structure and reduced shedding. Beyond diet, gentle washing routines, limiting heat tool use, and avoiding prolonged tight styles all help reduce the cumulative stress placed on the hair shaft — and a healthier shaft is what allows every style to hold better and last longer.

Final Thoughts on Building Your Hairstyle Routine

Mastering everyday hairstyles has less to do with perfection than with consistent, informed practice. A reasonable approach is to focus on one new technique each week, adapting it to your texture and daily routine. Given time, these foundational skills become second nature — delivering results that rival a salon visit, from the comfort of home, on any given morning.

In April 2026, energy bills in the UK will apparently fall by 7%. But considering the massive rise in bills in recent years, this change will just be a drop in the ocean.

Uswitch reports that average households are paying about £1,758 per year for a dual bill including electricity and gas. The BBC says that the annual saving with the April fall will be about:

£117 for a household using a typical amount of energy.

Total energy prices, however, would still be higher than when Labour came into office in 2024, and still:

a third higher than before the war in Ukraine

Following privatisation in the UK, prices rose steadily through the 2000s before surging upwards after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This surge meant the proportion of spending people had to dedicate to paying energy bills was at its highest since the 1980s, and possibly even the 50s.

In October 2025, trade union Unite reported that average households were paying “£500 a year in energy profits” to the private companies running the system.

A much bigger change needs to come

Campaign group We Own It has called out the transfer of increasing amounts of money from ordinary people to big companies via privatisation. It says:

Shareholders around the world profit from our energy system and our outrageous bills.

Advocating for change, it asserts that:

Like Norway, the UK should introduce a permanent windfall tax on oil and gas companies like Shell and BP, at a rate of 56% (on top of corporation tax). Norway is paying 80% of people’s bills above a capped price. We should use the revenues to cut people’s bills, invest in renewable energy and pay for further nationalisation policies that will benefit the country.

It also calls for public ownership, insisting:

Right now privatisation means we
– Waste money on shareholder profits
– Fail to invest enough in connecting renewable energy to the grid
– Miss opportunities to drive forward the green transition, both in terms of new renewable energy and insulating housing

Public ownership could mean
– More stability in the retail market not chaos
– Saving money on shareholder dividends
– Planning ahead and investing more in renewables

We agree. A fall in under £10 a month in energy bills isn’t going to make a big difference to most ordinary people. What would make a difference is if we stop private energy corporations leeching money off us once and for all, and actually invest in preparing our energy system in a stable way for the future.

Featured image via the Canary