The government has launched its long-awaited consultation on digital ID. Here is what we learned, as well as questions that remain unanswered.
Advertisement
Speaking at a Downing Street press conference on Tuesday afternoon, the cabinet minister tasked with leading the rollout of digital ID, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, said that the planned scheme could save “tens and tens of billions every year”.
The government has said that the consultation, which is expected to last for eight weeks, will go further than those before it. It will include engaging with a ‘People’s Panel’, which Jones himself today admitted was “a gamble”.
The Keir Starmer administration is trying to rebuild public support for the policy after the initial announcement last year had a rocky landing.
Advertisement
Legislation implementing digital ID is expected to be put to Parliament later this year, with work on the app to begin in 2027.
Will digital ID be compulsory?
In January, PoliticsHome revealed that the government was scrapping plans to make the new digital ID scheme mandatory amid warnings, including from many Labour MPs, that going ahead with the compulsory element would be strongly opposed by the public.
While the public will still be required to carry out some digital right-to-work checks, they will be able to do so using other documents, like a passport of eVisa.
Advertisement
The consultation being launched today will ask the public how the government can ensure that everyone who wants to use the scheme can do so after concerns were raised about accessibility.
Jones today told the House of Commons that it “must be for everyone” and the government “will help those who are less confident with technology or don’t have other forms of ID like a passport”.
Ministers are consulting on at what age someone should be able to obtain a digital ID.
What will a digital ID look like?
The digital ID will be held in an app on a smartphone or tablet, with the government today publishing a working prototype of the digital ID system, pictured below.
Advertisement
Government prototype of digital ID app (Cabinet Office)
Jones also said on Tuesday that the NHS app “will be separate” from the government’s digital ID, as the NHS app is “already pretty well developed”.
Ministers are also consulting the public on what information digital ID should contain, which will go a long way to determining how it will appear on a user’s screen.
Digital ID will make processes “fairer”
While the government initially focused on digital ID as a way of tackling illegal migration, since then, the emphasis has shifted to making aspects of everyday life easier, with ministers using examples like filing a tax return and managing free childcare.
“The status quo is a legacy system of call centres, paperwork, and the need to tell your story, multiple times, to the different parts of government, with hours on hold and not knowing where you are in the process,” Jones said today.
“The whole point with this is that it should be easy, simple, and accessible to everybody.”
Advertisement
Jones claimed that digital public services could also be cheaper to run and more efficient.
“We cannot continue on this two-track process where services in the private sector, in banking and shopping, and all the other things that we do in our day-to-day lives are fast, easy, and digital, and then when you come to the public sector, they’re slow, clunky, and disjointed.”
What will the scheme cost?
It is still unclear how much the digital ID system will cost to develop, with today’s consultation claiming it was “not yet possible to quantify or assess the full impacts of the system”.
The government has previously pushed back against the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast that the policy would cost £1.8bn over the next three years, arguing that the design of the scheme is yet to be decided on.
Advertisement
Today, Jones said the government had already carried out estimates showing that digitising customer services could save “tens and tens of billions of pounds every year” that is currently being spent on “very unproductive call centres, lots of paper shuffling, slow processes”.
Jones claimed that a digital ID could “free up taxpayers’ money” to go on frontline services like the NHS or “give back to taxpayers in the years ahead”.
‘People’s Panel’ to “help debate difficult questions”
Jones also confirmed that the government will go beyond a typical consultation, announcing the creation of a ‘People’s Panel’ on digital ID, with 100-120 people to be randomly selected, bringing together people across the country from different backgrounds.
Jones told reporters that the panel was a “gamble” as it would mean the government “kind of giving up control of it around the process”.
Advertisement
He said the panel would “help us debate the difficult questions, find ways forward and help us build a system that will win the trust and support of the public at large”.
Speaking at an event hosted by the Institute for Government think tank (IFG) in January, Jones said he believed the policy would grow in popularity over the next 12 months as people realised how it would positively impact their day-to-day lives.
A political commentator who argued that white people are the victims of racism and need help protecting their “identity” withdrew his candidacy Tuesday for a senior diplomatic role in the State Department as Republican opposition placed his nomination in jeopardy.
Jeremy Carl was nominated by President Donald Trump to serve as assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs in June, but his confirmation appeared precarious in recent weeks after Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) vowed to vote against his confirmation.
Lawmakers grilled Carl on his views on race and religion during his confirmation hearing in February, with Republicans and Democrats pushing him to explain past remarks about the importance of protecting “white identity” in American culture. Carl later derided the hearing as “theatrical” and “brutal” in a piece published last week in The Spectator, a conservative British magazine.
In announcing his withdrawal in a social media post, Carl thanked the administration for nominating him and praised the White House for being willing not “to simply pick nominees from the same stable of ‘business as usual’ possibilities” for the role.
Advertisement
“Unfortunately, for senior positions such as this one, the support of the President and Secretary of State is very important but not sufficient,” said Carl, who served as deputy assistant secretary of the Interior during Trump’s first administration. “We also needed the unanimous support of every GOP Senator on the Committee on Foreign Relations, given the unanimous opposition of Senate Democrats to my candidacy, and unfortunately, at this time this unanimous support was not forthcoming.”
Civil rights and labor groups opposed Carl’s nomination, pointing to his history of inflammatory remarks about immigration and race.
Carl wrote in his 2024 book, “The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart,” that white people have faced persistent discrimination and that their identity has been “erased” from American history.
Asked by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) to define “white identity,” Carl described the concept as “certain types of Anglo-derived culture that comes from our history.”
Advertisement
Carl wrote in a social media post responding to Murphy after the hearing that he was “of course, not a White nationalist” adding that “The ‘White culture’ then that I was referring to was simply the culture of the overwhelming majority of Americans who lived here” prior to 1965.
“I firmly believe that Americans of *every* race or cultural background can ultimately share in and contribute to that culture,” he wrote on X.
He also faced tough questions for agreeing with a podcast host who assailed Jews for claiming “special victim status” after the Holocaust and saying that “Hitler is always the convenient kind of bad example.”
Curtis cited those views in justifying his opposition to Carl’s nomination, writing in a statement: “I find his anti-Israel views and insensitive remarks about the Jewish people unbecoming of the position for which he has been nominated.”
Advertisement
Carl is not the only Trump nominee to face backlash on Capitol Hill for divisive rhetoric.
White House official Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel last year after POLITICO reported a slate of inflammatory texts he sent to Republicans in a group chat, and Australian American MAGA commentator Nick Adams’ nomination to be ambassador to Australia has failed to gain support in the Senate.
Carl is a fellow at the Claremont Institute and a prominent voice on the New Right. He has frequently aligned himself with the national conservatism movement — which holds that national sovereignty hinges on the promotion of traditional Christian values — and defended the Great Replacement Theory, a far-right belief that there is an active effort to replace white Americans with non-white immigrants.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has admitted it knowingly leaves disabled people caught up in Access to Work delays with no support.
Access to Work in tatters
We all know that Access to Work has been ripped to shreds by the Labour government. Whilst eligibility is being silently cut, they’ve also completely lost control of the assessment and reassessment backlog.
As I previously revealed on The Canary, over 66,000 disabled people are still waiting for Access to Work support. Alongside that, 27,297 applications were denied during April to October 2025, representing 33% of claims to date. That’s just 7,000 less than the amount denied in the whole of the financial year ending April 2025.
Whilst there is such a horrific backlog, many will struggle to work and could end up losing work. Surely a department that’s hellbent on forcing disabled people into work will provide some sort of interim financial support, then?
Advertisement
Timms admitting to more DWP failures
Lib Dem MP Dr. Al Pinkerton submitted a a written question to the department regarding the issue.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether interim financial support is available to claimants while an Access to Work decision is under appeal.
As helpful as ever, Minister for Disabled People, Stephen Timms, answered:
The Access to Work Scheme provides grant funding and is not a benefit, so interim financial support is not available through the scheme while an appeal is progressing.
Instead, he, of course, put the responsibility on the employer:
We always encourage customers to speak to their employer about workplace adjustments in the first instance.
DWP ignoring why Access to Work exists
This ignorant answer ignores the fact that Access to Work exists so that disabled people have equal access to work. If an employer has a choice between a non-disabled employee and a disabled one, they would have to shell out more to employ the latter. The choice is obvious.
Advertisement
It also means smaller companies will not be able to employ disabled people, because the cost to do so will be too high for them.
Last month Graeae, a disabled led theatre company, revealed they covered £198,445 in access costs. Just £86,800 of this was able to be reclaimed from Access to Work. The irony in this situation is that the DWP justified cutting their director Jenny Sealey’s support, claiming Graeae weren’t doing enough to support her.
This is convenient for the DWP when their employment schemes, such as the Youth Guarantee, involve allowing multimillion-pound companies to pay disabled people peanuts for low-skilled jobs.
DWP is lying about supporting disabled people into work
This is just another example of how the DWP is continuing to push a narrative of “supporting” disabled people into work, whilst doing sweet fuck all to actually allow them to work.
Advertisement
At this point, the department is actively hindering disabled people from working, then blaming disabled people for not working. But thanks to their disgusting rhetoric working, they know the public will fall for it every time.
On 9 March, US president Donald Trump tried convincing the markets that his ‘Israel first’ war was “very complete” and would end “very soon”. The problem, which he does not see, is that you can’t please Israel AND the markets at the same time.
Iran, meanwhile, is intent on placing full blame for the price rises on the US and Israel, and pushing them to the point where they seriously regret waging this war of choice.
The U.S. committed a blatant and desperate crime by attacking a freshwater desalination plant on Qeshm Island. Water supply in 30 villages has been impacted.
Attacking Iran’s infrastructure is a dangerous move with grave consequences. The U.S. set this precedent, not Iran.
This suggests that Iran wants to ensure an eventual ceasefire doesn’t simply provide more time for the US and Israel prepare for another attack. As author Trita Parsi has insisted, Iran will:
likely demand some significant steps in order to accept a ceasefire… [and] likely require sanctions relief and release of its frozen funds abroad
Trump’s “all over the place” presser appears to have had two key objectives: A) Calm the markets by signalling the conflict may soon be over because it has been so “successful,” and B) Prepare the ground for Trump ending the war through a unilateral declaration of victory.…
Iran’s position has made it’s position clear – it won’t take instructions or bow to the demands of these aggressors.
Advertisement
🚨 Speaker of Iran’s Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf:
“We are absolutely not seeking a ceasefire. We believe the aggressor must be struck in the mouth so it learns a lesson and never again thinks of attacking our beloved Iran.
As foreign minister Abbas Araghchi has asserted, there will be a “quagmire” unless there are significant concessions from the US and Israel.
Advertisement
Long prepared for this war, Iran’s Powerful Armed Forces are ensuring that it becomes a quagmire for whomever chooses to pursue it.
We negotiated twice with this U.S. Administration. Both times, we were attacked in the middle of talks. It bears full responsibility for bloodshed. pic.twitter.com/wT1MmOfbUJ
Iran also wants diplomatic consequences for the US and Israel in exchange for full movement in the strait:
Advertisement
🚨 BREAKING: Iran’s IRGC says any Arab or European country that expels Israeli and U.S. ambassadors from will be granted full freedom of passage through the Strait of Hormuz starting tomorrow, according to Iranian state media. https://t.co/2gAKdS4fQ8
As Trita Parsi suggested, Trump is clearly feeling the heat and trying to calm markets and prepare a path to retreat that doesn’t make him look a total failure. He knows how unpopular his war of choice is, gaining support only playing well with far-right warhawks, including Israeli war criminals.
Even German chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has supported the US-Israeli war, has said:
Advertisement
there is apparently no common plan for how this war can be brought to a swift and convincing end.
Trump’s strategy isn’t working, and won’t
Trump is clearly a mess. He’s desperate to end the calamitous war of choice as soon as possible – particularly because of the oil chaos. But he also hates losing. So he has been doubling down on his undiplomatic tough talk, which is unlikely to spark any good will in Iran. The US, he insisted, will hit Iran “TWENTY TIMES HARDER” if it:
does anything that stops the flow of Oil within the Strait of Hormuz
He added that the US would:
make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again — Death, Fire, and Fury will reign upon them
Considering that the US and Israel are nuclear powers and Iran isn’t, any threat like the above is serious. But further mass destruction in Iran would only spark much greater resistance to Trump’s regime back home.
The more Trump delays in ending the war, meanwhile, the greater the cost will be to the US. And Iran is in no mood to keep costs down or make it easy for him. So he needs to make a decision. What’s more important to him: bringing oil prices down, or serving Israel’s genocidal warmongers? Because he can’t have both.
In a move that favours corporations over consumers, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has approved price hikes for four water companies. This comes despite a cap set by Ofwat to protect consumers during the cost-of-living crisis. Notably, this decision mirrors past attempts by water companies scrambling to offset costs resulting from their failure to maintain critical infrastructure.
According to theGuardian, five companies appealed to the CMA for approval of additional price hikes. Four appeals by Anglian, Southern, Wessex, and South East Water were granted. However, Northumbrian’s request was denied. Their customers won’t face further increases. In contrast, the companies that succeeded serve a whopping 14.7 million customers. This signals eye watering hikes for millions of billpayers who will bear the brunt.
Infuriating to read the about the huge bill increases allowed. How much longer will water companies be allowed to carry on their destruction of our environment, make huge profits & yet get us to pay for it? #waterpollution@Feargal_Sharkey@EmmaforWycombehttps://t.co/EPSPG3w27l
These appeals came after Ofwat allowed companies to hike consumer costs by 36 percent by 2030. However, only 17% of the £2.7bn extra revenue they’ll generate will be spent on repairing “creaking networks of pipes, sewers, and reservoirs.
Advertisement
Instead of cutting obscene bonuses to cover “shortfalls,” they’re boosting profits while allocating a meagre sum to urgently needed repairs. It’s clear these appeals were just a revenue-generating move.
Prioritising profits while punishing consumers is nothing new for our privatised water companies, as Prem Sikka pointed out on X:
Water firms sent bailiffs to tens of thousands of homes for debts under £1,000.
Exorbitant water bills. One-third covers interest & dividend payments
Companies paid over £85bn in dividends, borrowed billions to pay. Sewage dumped in rivers, fines waived.https://t.co/rFpggQIi2g
Calls to re-nationalise essential services have long been ignored by Britain’s ruling elite, under Labour and the Tories.
When water company bosses demand higher profits, the CMA grants their requests. This stark imbalance leaves consumers trapped and unable to ‘shop around’. Every hard-earned penny is shaken from them to line the pockets of shareholders and executives.
We recently wrote about the bailiffs sent out to chase underpayments and overdue bills from struggling consumers:
Advertisement
Overall, Yorkshire Water, Southern Water, and South West Water (SWW) made the heaviest use of bailiffs, when the data is adjusted for population. Meanwhile, Wessex Water hasn’t used bailiffs for over a decade.
However, other companies also made massive use of debt collectors on specific years. For example, Severn Trent sent bailiffs out 11,574 times over 2022. Even more egregiously, Southern Water instructed bailiffs a staggering 15,707 times in 2019.
Labour MP John McDonnell highlighted the fact that water companies have broken the law hundreds of times in recent years, with little real backlash. He said that:
“Only five directors of water companies have been prosecuted in the last 30 years. Contrast that with the thousands of mainly poor people the water companies set the bailiffs on each year.
The system is more interested in prosecuting families that are struggling to pay their water bills than the company directors responsible for polluting our rivers and seas while lining their pockets from profiteering at the expense of both their customers and our environment.”
Advertisement
These appeals are about to make things significantly easier for one water company in particular, South East Water, currently facing a hefty £22m fine for supply failures. We’ll be watching closely to see if and when the fine is paid. In related news, the Guardian reported that Pennon Group, which owns South East Water, is likely to face further fines for power outages.
In the end, as these appeals make clear, it’s consumers who foot the bill, while executives find loopholes.
“South East Water fined £22m for repeated supply failures.”
Let’s be clear about this, as has been proven time and time again, fining these companies is nothing but a charade.
These fines rarely if ever get paid, shareholders rarely if ever take money out of their pockets to…
The Guardian also highlighted growing discontent among the British public over the value for money billpayers are receiving, writing:
The decision could prove a political headache for Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary, after the industry’s ratings hit rock bottom last October amid record levels of sewage spills.
The pollution scandal has returned to the spotlight in recent weeks after the Channel 4 drama Dirty Business told the story of how private companies have been allowed to contaminate Britain’s rivers and waterways.
They also inform that Kirsten Baker – chair of an independent group who approved the increase – attempted to justify the decision:
Advertisement
We’ve rejected most of the bill increases water companies asked for but allowed limited extra funding where that’s genuinely needed, balancing concerns about affordability with the need to secure our water supplies and cut pollution.
A significant part of this extra money reflects market movements since Ofwat’s decision.
Mike Keil, chief executive of the Consumer Council for Water, said the increases “may be less than what these five water companies wanted but they are still more than what many customers can afford or will consider fair”.
“We’ve seen almost a tripling in complaints brought to us about the affordability of water bills in the past year and further increases will add to the worries of some struggling households,” he said.
Consumers are not a magic money tree
Inequality is now wider than Dickensian Britain levels, and it is undeniable that ordinary people continue to bear the burdens created by the failures of the rich and powerful.
Advertisement
Inequality now surpasses even Dickensian levels, and it’s undeniable ordinary people shouldering the burden – punished for the dirty crimes of corporate offenders.
People are stuck, unable to switch suppliers, a harsh reality for families struggling as costs spiral due to corporate greed. Ofwat is meant to balance the interests of consumer and supplier, but have been bypassed by the CMA, failing the British public.
Sen. Ted Cruz and conservative pundit Tucker Carlson are again trading barbs over Israel and antisemitism, as they renew their feud over the war in Iran.
“I believe Tucker Carlson is the single most dangerous demagogue in this country,” the Texas Republican senator said Tuesday during an antisemitism symposium in Washington hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition and National Review, before promising to directly take on the popular conservative podcast host.
“I have seen more antisemitism in the last 18 months on the right than at any point in my lifetime,” Cruz continued. “It is being spread by loud voices, the most consequential of whom is Tucker Carlson.”
Cruz’s remarks come after Carlson belittled Cruz and other Americans who trust Israeli military intelligence during his podcast last week.
Advertisement
“No offense to Ted Cruz or all the other dumbos who are always saying, ‘we get all this actionable intelligence, it’s so important, we need [Israel] so desperately,’” Carlson said in the March 2 episode. “Really? Let’s evaluate the quality of that intelligence.”
The ongoing feud between the two leading conservative figures — both podcast hosts and potential 2028 presidential candidates — represents the latest flare-up in a major schism within the party and a likely proxy battle ahead of the next Republican presidential primary, when discussions over the U.S.’ alliance with Israel and combating antisemitism domestically could be defining issues.
Carlson, arguably the most influential pundit on the conservative right, remains close to the White House and buzzed about as a potential presidential contender, even as many Republicans — including Cruz — denounce him. And Cruz, who finished second in the 2016 GOP presidential primary to Trump, is positioning himself ahead of a possible run in 2028.
When asked Tuesday about Cruz’s latest comments, Carlson offered a curt response. “Pretty funny,” he said via text. “He’s running for president against me, which I find amusing since I’m not in the race.”
Advertisement
Cruz has repeatedly criticized Carlson for hosting avowed white supremacist Nick Fuentes on his podcast and not challenging Fuentes’ claim that the “big challenge” to unifying the country is “organized Jewry.”
Cruz has signaled that fighting antisemitism and standing with Israel could be a central part of a potential 2028 bid. “I don’t want to wake up in five years and find myself in a country where both major political parties are unambiguously antisemitic,” Cruz said Tuesday. “I think that is a real possibility, if Tucker and his minions prevail.”
The two have long held differing views on the Middle East — and have been directly sparring for months.
In June 2025, Carlson hosted Cruz on an episode of the “Tucker Carlson Show,” which consistently ranks as one of the most-streamed podcasts on Spotify. The two sparred over Iran, and Carlson said Cruz didn’t “know anything” about “the country you seek to topple.” Cruz, in return, implied Carlson’s criticism of Israel was antisemitic.
Advertisement
“You’re not talking about the Chinese, you’re not talking about the Japanese, you’re not talking about the British, you’re not talking about the French,” Cruz told Carlson. “You’re asking, ‘why are the Jews controlling our foreign policy?’ That’s what you just asked.”
On Tuesday, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who spoke before Cruz at the symposium, seemed to downplay that concern. Though he didn’t say Carlson by name, he downplayed what he called “so-called influencers” who traffic in antisemitism. “They are not influential,” Cotton said. “They are at least not influential with Donald Trump, who continues to reject their kooky advice.”
Carlson’s anti-Israel ideas — which are the main subject of Cruz’s ire — have garnered increasing support, particularly among young Republicans. The latestYale Youth Poll found that Americans under the age of 35 are far more likely than older Americans to think that U.S. Jews “have too much power.” In the last three years, the share of Republicans under the age of 50 with a negative view of Israel jumped from 35 percent to 50 percent, pera Pew poll conducted last year.
Thomas Corbett-Dillon, former advisor to Boris Johnson, was invited onto right-wingGB News, to say that the channel is not extremist but a lovely, cuddly, and “really, really impartial.”
Barely a breath later, he was confidently telling his white, male GB News panellists that the UK is suffering a genocide from all the migrants coming in, especially the Muslims. Not a single one of them disagreed.
🇬🇧 Thomas Corbett-Dillon, a former adviser to Boris Johnson, said that indigenous Britons are the victims of a genocide.
Corbett-Dillon apparently he did a ‘Tommy Robinson’ and changed it to something posher-sounding. He even went so far as to suggest, with horror, that if white people moved to the Pacific and became the majority there would be resistance in the UN.
Perhaps he’s never heard of Australia or New Zealand:
Full of ***t, and wrong about Germany
Racism is not the only kind of shit young Corbett-Dillon is full of.
His claim that Germany has “basically banned all the right-wing parties” is nonsense. Even the neo-Nazi ‘Alternative für Deutschland’ is not banned, despite being classified as “extremist.”
Corbett-Dillon, who previously went by the name Craig, may have been some kind of Johnson adviser once, but he didn’t stay a fan. He went onto Fox News to complain that Johnson had gone ‘woke’:
Hilarious appearance by @pdoocy wannabe Thomas Corbett-Dillon, a so-called former aide to Boris Johnson, who in 2019 was a blond going by “Craig Dillon.” @Dominic2306, have you ever heard of this dude? pic.twitter.com/1ZSs4JqTZT
And Craig wasn’t done with his claims of ‘genocide.’ After appearing on GB News, he went straight onto another panel to spout the same racist nonsense:
When @christopherhope claims bafflement that GB News isn’t included in political media rounds or press conferences, perhaps this could serve as a reminder.
While Christopher is an actual journalist, GB News is a cesspit of racism and hatred.
The number of parties who got MSPs elected at the last election is… five. (Though in fairness there are now six, Reform having a single MSP after Graham Simpson defected from the Tories. The Lib Dems are even outnumbered by independents, of whom there are seven.)
Also in arithmetic news, recent figures suggest that Labour and the Lib Dems will have a total of 23 seats combined, more than 40 short of the number required to elect a First Minister with a majority. So, y’know, good luck with that, lads.
More than 50 organisations, including national trade unions, tenants’ unions and the Green Party, have announced the National Housing Demonstration in Central London on Saturday 18 April. They’re demanding urgent rent controls and a new generation of accessible council homes.
In what is set to be the largest coming-together of housing campaigners in a decade, thousands of tenants from across England and Wales are expected to take to the streets in protest of the government’s refusal to tackle runaway rents.
Major unions the National Education Union, Public and Commercial Services Union, Fire Brigades Union and others are joining forces with the Green Party, the London Renters Union, the Greater Manchester Tenants Union, Generation Rent and dozens of grassroots campaigns from across the country.
Housing developers first, tenants last
Asking rents for private tenants have risen by 44% since the pandemic, while social rents and service charges continue to climb. The consequences are stark.
Despite the scale of the crisis, Keir Starmer’s government is prioritising private housing developers and institutional investors over working-class renters.
Instead of introducing rent controls or launching a serious programme of council housebuilding, ministers are focusing on market-rate developments. But these remain out of reach for those in greatest need and would fail to reverse recent price hikes.
The result is a system where working-class tenants are priced out and pushed into temporary housing while luxury flats rise in their neighbourhoods.
Advertisement
A united front on 18 April
On Saturday 18 April, tenants, trade unionists and housing activists will gather in central London to demand:
Immediate rent controls.
Mass investment in accessible and good-quality council homes.
Elyem Chej, spokesperson for London Renters Union, said:
Tenants need an alternative to our rigged housing system. Soaring rents are pushing us into poverty and out of our neighbourhoods while corporate giants build luxury flats we can’t afford.
Keir Starmer’s government is making the housing crisis worse, putting developer profits before our communities. That’s why unions and grassroots groups nationwide are uniting for housing justice on 18 April.
Rent controls would cut rents now and give ordinary people more control over our lives and our homes.
We had these rights before. Now it’s time for renters to take them back.
Advertisement
Grace Brown, spokesperson for Greater Manchester Tenants Union, said:
Tenants are in crisis. Areas of Greater Manchester have seen rents increase by more than 50% since 2016, and the developer-led investment model followed in our city, like many others, is hollowing out communities beyond recognition.
Across Greater Manchester, tenants are organising against estate demolition, against rent hikes and evictions. We demand justice for every tenant.
Martin Wicks, spokesperson for Defend Council Housing, said:
The government’s strategy of planning liberalisation and reliance on the large volume private builders is doomed to fail.
Home ownership is not an option for the more than 130,000 households in temporary accommodation, the 1.3 million households on the waiting lists, and many more imprisoned in the expensive and often poor quality private sector.
Advertisement
Social rent council housing is the key to resolving the housing crisis. The government needs to fund 100,000 social rent council homes a year and end Right to Buy. Market mechanisms will never resolve the housing crisis.
A Labour MP has condemned David Lammy’s plan to scrap most jury trials after revealing for the first time that she had been raped.
Charlotte Nichols accused the justice secretary of using victims as a “cudgel” to force the controversial reforms through.
The government wants to get rid of juries in cases where the sentence is expected to be less than three years.
Ministers say the move is necessary to clear the huge backlog of court cases in England and Wales.
Advertisement
But critics say the planned reforms, contained in the Court and Tribunals Bill, will remove a fundamental right while not actually solving the problem.
During a Commons debate on the bill, Nichols said she had waited 1,088 days for her case to get to court.
The MP for Warrington North said: “Every single one of those days was agony, made worse by having a role in public life that meant that the mental health consequences of my trauma were played out in public, with the event that led to my eventual sectioning for my own safety still being something that I receive regular social media abuse from strangers about to this day.
“But here’s the kicker, in this debate, experiences like mine feel like they’ve been weaponised and are being used for rhetorical misdirection, for what this bill actually is.
Advertisement
“The violence against women and girls sector haven’t had the opportunity to come together to discuss it, and the government’s framing and narrative has been to pit survivors and defendants against each other in a way I think is deeply damaging.
“We have been told that if we have concerns about this bill, it is because we have not been raped or because we don’t care enough for rape victims.
“The opposite is true in my case, it is because I have been raped that I am as passionate as I am about what it means for a justice system to be truly victim focused.
“It is because I have endured every indignity that our broken criminal justice system could mete out that I care what kind of reform will actually deliver justice for survivors and victims of crime more widely.”
Advertisement
She added: “There is so much that we can be doing for rape victims that isn’t [David Lammy] using them as a cudgel to drive through reforms that aren’t directly relevant to them.”
lead image
