Three Offline Resets To Try Today

On BBC, Victoria Derbyshire interviewed a university graduate who shared his experience with lofty student finance repayments. Pointing out how much he has paid in ‘a few years’ of working, Derbyshire asked if comfort is found in the knowledge that the public fleecing ends after 30 years.

The privileged elder misses the point that 30 years of accumulating interest will drive repayments far beyond the original loan, generating a significant profit for the state.

This incident exposes how the establishment is perfectly willing to squeeze more money out of young people to boost public coffers, all while claiming that there are ‘too many options’ available to prospective students. At the same time, they refuse to consider measures like a wealth tax, arguing that the richest would simply leave.

When quality education leads to better jobs, stronger economic growth, and ultimately higher tax revenues, the double standard becomes clear. The state targets those trapped within the system for profit, while avoiding any serious effort to make the rich and powerful contribute more.

A country that does this to its smart, ambitious young people deserves to fail. It’s no deeper than that.

The grim truth is large parts of the political and media class have hated young people for a long time now. Generation PAYE-pig.

pic.twitter.com/FWKTDmgb4c

— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) February 25, 2026

Captive students: Low-hanging fruit

Recently on Good Morning Britain, Martin Lewis successfully challenged Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch on her attempt to revise student loan repayment Plan 2 as a solution to the student debt crisis. The money-saving expert rightfully pointed out it would be easing things slightly for one group, whilst ignoring all others. This prompted widespread debate with graduates across the country supporting Lewis’ calls to wipe student debt that is creating a deadweight effect on workers in the economy.

A highly lucrative deadweight that was clearly pointed out by Max in the interview, which went as follows:

Victoria Derbyshire: Let me ask you then, Max, how much did you borrow in total?

Max: So, I borrowed £84,000 in total, and that’s about half tuition fee, and the rest maintenance loans that you need to live on and pay your rent whilst you’re there and so on.

Derbyshire: And how much have you paid back so far?

Max: I’ve paid back about £8,000 over the past few years that I’ve been working.

Advertisement

Derbyshire: And how much do you owe now?

Max: £110,000.

Derbyshire: Oh, my God.

Max: Yeah.

Advertisement

Derbyshire: What does that feel like?

Max: Well, I mean, it feels ridiculous because I know I’m never going to be able to pay that back. So for me, this is no longer a student loan. It’s a lifelong graduate tax.

Derbyshire: Right. Do you take any comfort in the fact that after 30 years, if you haven’t paid it back, it’s wiped out?

Max: Well, I feel like that’s a bit of a misconception because the fact that people end up not clearing their debt within 30 years actually means they end up paying for longer because the interest rates are so high and they’re often going to end up paying more than they actually borrowed. So you’re trapped.

Advertisement

Derbyshire: Right. That’s how it feels.

Max: Yeah.

Derbyshire appears to ignore the fact that if Max continues at his current repayment rate, without any future pay rises increasing his contributions, his repayment would be at least £88k. This shows he will still repay the full cost of his original loans and then some over 30 years. Therefore, the expiration date of this unavoidable “student tax” offers no comfort when it only signals the conclusion of exploitative interest charges.

After all, education is an investment in the future of the economy. Seeing it as a source of profit instead is counterproductive and just works to undervalue graduates.

Our youth are not the ‘magic money tree’

Since Lewis’ principled and informed intervention, others with specialised insight into university education have spoken out. Historian and former university head Sir Anthony Seldon even argued that Lewis should take on a four-week role to fix the mess former Labour and Conservative governments created.

We wrote:

Contrary to the Conservatives’ policy being dangled like a carrot to voters, historian Anthony Seldon has called for all student debt to be wiped. He went further, urging the government to accept that it must stop treating students as a source of profit. Instead, Seldon argued that they already contribute to the economy through the skills and expertise they develop at university.

Furthermore, Seldon emphasised that higher education is about far more than achieving high grades or obtaining a certificate. After all, it is a formative experience where young people develop vital life and social skills. Also, it’s essential for improving critical analysis skills with young people engaging in progressive, informed debate.

The neoliberal state will likely continue to insist there is ‘no magic money tree’ to address the scale of underfunding across society. Yet at the same time, the wealth of the richest has soared at record-breaking rates. Therefore, those who once benefited from free education now resist asking the wealthiest to contribute their fair share in taxes. Instead, they continue to target the easy pickings — students striving for opportunity and a better life.

The government have stated they will ‘look at ways to make it fairer’. Easy. Deploy wealth taxes to ease the burdens facing graduates and students across the country.

Featured image via Green Country

On Wednesday, one fan asked the Oasis frontman whether he’d be putting in an appearance at the Brits this weekend, to which he responded: “I’m not.”

Candid as ever, the singer remarked: “I can’t be around those ITV cunts.”

In more X posts, Liam claimed that he was “just not feeling this [Rock And Roll] hall of fame thing”, but conceded he would attend the ceremony all the same, mainly to “collect it”, “tell the panel of judges how lovely they all look”, “thank all the fans that voted for us” and then “wreck the gaff”.

In 2010, he even got on the wrong side of Peter Kay, when he accepted the award for Best British Album Of The Last 30 Years, completely snubbed his brother in his speech, then tossed his award into the crowd.

“What a knobhead,” the comedian – who was hosting the Brits that year – remarked.

Oasis certainly saw a chart resurgence in 2025 thanks to their much-hyped reunion, but Noel’s award has proved to be a controversial one given that he didn’t actually release any new music at any point in the last year.

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