The gutter press are back demonising disability benefit claimants again – just as the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) are trying to push through benefit cuts.

The Daily Mail ran with the breathless headline:

One in 10 working age Brits are on disability benefits with 1,000 successful claims A DAY – as pressure piles on Keir Starmer to face down Labour MPs on cutting welfare bill

However, if you can suffer through reading the bile, you’ll see where they got this maths from. There are 43.4 million working-age people in the UK. As of January this year, there are 3.93 million claimants on PIP, which is clearly not 10%.

Unusually for the Mail, I’m sure, they’ve been sneaky cunts. What they’ve done is taken all PIP claimants ever, since the benefit began in 2013, which is 4.5 million. From that, they’ve made an estimation that there are 1,000 claims a day.

DWP claimants: it should be much higher

The thing is, this is true. But it should be much higher.

For starters, that 1,000 is the number of successful claims. The Mail article glosses over the fact that, in those 13 years, 4.4 million claims were denied. It also completely ignores the scale of the backlog to even get PIP.

As the Canary has previously reported, the DWP has diverted staff from dealing with new claims to make it look like they’ve got a handle on the backlog of reassessments. Up until October 2025, there were 40,000 new claimants waiting for their claim to be processed. As a result, clearance for new claims fell by 25%, despite there being 6% less claims than the year before. This also means the decision time has risen, from 14 weeks in October 2024 to 16 weeks in October 2025.

There’s also the fact that just 3.9 million people claim PIP. The DWP and press make this sound like a huge number, but it’s only a fraction of how many disabled people there are in the country. 16.8 million people self-identify as disabled in the UK, so that’s less than a quarter of them claiming PIP.

There might be a huge uproar over ‘1 in 10 people claiming PIP’, but disabled people make up 25% of the population. It should be 1 in 4.

Why now?

It’s also a question of why now? Why is the Mail deciding to publish what they’re packaging as massively informative about the ‘ballooning welfare bill’ on a random day in March? Well, because we have to look at what was happening last year in March.

This time a year ago, Labour was declaring its new war on disabled people with the cuts announcement coming on 18 March 2025. All around this, we saw weeks and months of ramped-up hate levelled at disabled benefits claimants. Labour tried every dirty trick in the book with giving the press sound bites of wild claims about benefit claimants.

In fact, Labour minister Wes Streeting made this exact claim almost a year to the date of this article being published. The Labour cuts, of course, didn’t all go through, because disabled campaigners rallied, leading to Labour MPs to ‘rebel’.

However, it coming back again isn’t a coincidence. A year on, Labour are still trying to push through its cuts on disability benefits.

Labour is ramping up hatred again

A big reason for the campaigning against cuts last year was that the DWP wanted to change the criteria for who can qualify. This is something that’s still being considered by the Timms Review, for both new and existing claimants. The review is typically a complete fucking shambles, by the way.

Whilst the DWP attempts to make it harder for those with mental health and neurodivergent conditions to claim, the Department of Health is carrying out reviews into whether the conditions are overdiagnosed. This is despite 32 health professionals calling out Streeting’s bullshit on this.

Alongside this, the department is cutting the amount a disabled person who can’t work is entitled to. In April new claimants will be entitled to £200 less a month. This, according to the DWP will ‘tackle perverse incentives’ to not work, such as y’know being able to afford to keep a roof over your head.

The department also wants to eventually move the ‘UC health element’, which people get when they can’t work, over to PIP, which has nothing to do with work and is a harder benefit to qualify for, even before they tighten the criteria. Of course, this will push disabled people into further poverty.

Demonisation of poor people

At the end of the day, the welfare system is supposed to be there to help those who need extra support. We should be proud to support so many people. But instead, in a system where the rich hold all the cards, it’s the poorest in society who are blamed.

Yes, 1000 people a day do qualify for PIP, but we should be supporting far more. And so many will be left without support if the DWP has their way. The press needs to take a long hard look at the way they report on welfare cuts, because they’ll be complicit in a fresh wave of welfare deaths.

Featured image via the Canary

Israel has openly admitted that it will not allow displaced Lebanese people to return home, which is the textbook definition of ethnic cleansing.

UPDATE: Israel says displaced Lebanese people won’t be allowed to return home

🔴 LIVE updates: https://t.co/xF53WiBO7j pic.twitter.com/4lK2SzLwtE

— Al Jazeera Breaking News (@AJENews) March 16, 2026

So far, the IDF has displaced over one million people in Lebanon as it expands its illegal ground invasion.

So while we’re fighting Israel’s war, they displace 1 Million people in Lebanon and they won’t be allowed to return home. https://t.co/6EV4BZRei2 pic.twitter.com/4Nj2JKkumw

— Maze Love (@MazeLove14) March 16, 2026

But the world should have expected this, given that the Zionists have forcibly displaced the entire population of Gaza since October 2023. Not to mention its previous invasions of Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon.

that’s called ethnic cleansing. https://t.co/Kic52sbf6q

— 17 years of song a day (@songadaymann) March 16, 2026

Nakba

But Israel set the precedent right back in 1948 during the Nakba – when it ethnically cleansed 700,000 Palestinians and almost totally destroyed Palestinian society.

Another Nakba. https://t.co/3FH8xraXVr

— Phryne Astynome (@PAstynome) March 17, 2026

This is ethnic cleansing. Under the Genocide Convention, it is a form of genocidal violence aimed at destroying the foundations that constitute a group. https://t.co/T3LOF9VJyv

— Dr Nafeez Ahmed (@NafeezAhmed) March 16, 2026

The very creation of the Zionist state included the forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. So how could we ever expect a normal society that doesn’t rely on blood and violence to come from that?

Greater Israel

Israel has been talking about its ‘Greater Israel’ project since 1967.

It’s about invasion, occupation, genocidal war mongering expansionism of the likes not seen since Hitler pic.twitter.com/j8BEb9h2Uz

— Gus Lefty Aussie Patriot (@GusLefty) March 16, 2026

It is used to refer to the territories Israel illegally stole in 1967: the Palestinian territories, the Golan Heights in Syria, and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.

However, the Zionists have also referred to it to as including all of Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan, along with significant parts of Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

You’re still called an alarmist anti-Semite if you correctly state their long-term trajectory is of slowly but surely taking over the entire levante region and beyond. https://t.co/JrUkvgXKds

— Orikron 🇵🇹 骆培思 (@orikron) March 17, 2026

Advertisement

In 2024, Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s finance minister, advocated for the expansion of their borders. He said:

It is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus, invoking the “Greater Israel” ideology.

According to Middle East Eye, he then suggested that:

Israel would gradually grow to encompass not only all Palestinian territories but also parts of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Additionally, during Israel’s genocide in Gaza, an IDF soldier wore a patch showing a map of “Greater Israel” on his uniform. This map included parts of Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

For a long time now, Israel has made its intentions clear. It’s textbook colonialism wrapped up in ‘never again’.

textbook imperial invasion and colonisation, while the world sits back. “Never again” and yet it still happens right in front of our eyes https://t.co/MbcRsdgFnw

— φ🕊️ (@bjorkspears) March 16, 2026

Destruction

Now, Israel is carpet bombing Beirut in the same way it did to Gaza.

Israel just demolished a big residential building in central Beirut.

Israel has illegally and forcibly displaced one million people from South Lebanon. Many sheltering in central Beirut

Israel is now bombing central Beirut

Advertisement

Israel is a terrorist state

pic.twitter.com/GB8CwIYSHN

— Philip Proudfoot (@PhilipProudfoot) March 18, 2026

The illegal terrorist state has proven it can take out military officials with extreme precision – to the point of being able to target specific apartments in buildings.

Despite this, the genocidal entity still feels the need to wipe out whole apartment blocks – just because it can.

Israel just demolished a big residential building in central Beirut.

Israel has illegally and forcibly displaced one million people from South Lebanon. Many sheltering in central Beirut

Israel is now bombing central Beirut

Israel is a terrorist state

Advertisement

pic.twitter.com/GB8CwIYSHN

— Philip Proudfoot (@PhilipProudfoot) March 18, 2026

It has no regard for human life – at least not Black and Brown lives.

Israel is a terrorist state. https://t.co/28n3RfO2bC

— Eamon Melia (@EamonMelia) March 16, 2026

Advertisement

Israel and the US are committing 9/11 style massacres every single day – yet still, pointing it out is ‘AnTIsEmITiSm’.

But I say, my arse. The world should not need any more proof that Israel is the problem.

Featured image via AFP News Agency/YouTube

Have you ever asked yourself how news reaches your phone so fast today?

Why do updates appear instantly on apps, websites, and social media? Many readers ask these questions because news platforms now work in a very different way compared to earlier days. 

Digital media has brought new ways for people to read, watch, and understand news quickly and comfortably. It allows news organizations to share information with people in many places at the same time. Because of this change, modern news platforms are becoming more reader-friendly, interactive, and informative.

Digital media also allows readers to participate in the news experience. People can comment, share opinions, and discuss topics with others. This creates a friendly connection between journalists and readers. News platforms now focus on delivering clear information in ways that fit daily life.

The Growth Of Digital News Platforms

Digital technology has opened many new opportunities for news organizations. Today, most people read news on smartphones, tablets, or laptops. This makes information easy to access at any time during the day.

Digital news platforms now publish stories faster and reach more readers than before. Online platforms also allow updates in real time, which helps readers stay informed about current events.

Faster News Delivery

Digital tools help journalists publish updates quickly. News stories can be written, edited, and shared within minutes. Readers receive fresh information almost instantly.

Online news platforms often use notifications, alerts, and social media updates to inform readers. This keeps audiences connected with important events as they happen.

Some benefits of faster news delivery include:

• Readers receive updates quickly
• Information spreads across different regions easily
• Audiences stay informed throughout the day

Wider Audience Reach

Digital media helps news platforms connect with readers across different countries and cultures. A single article can reach thousands or even millions of readers online.

People can access news from anywhere with an internet connection. This creates a shared space where information flows between communities and audiences.

News platforms also publish content in multiple formats such as articles, short videos, and live updates. This allows readers to choose how they prefer to receive information.

The Role Of Interactive Features In News Platforms

Digital news platforms now include interactive tools that make reading more enjoyable. These tools allow readers to take part in conversations and share their thoughts.

Reader Comments And Community Discussions

Comment sections allow readers to share opinions and ideas about news stories. Many readers enjoy participating in conversations and learning from different viewpoints.

Community discussions create a sense of connection among readers. People feel that their voice matters and that they can contribute to public discussions.

This interaction also helps journalists understand what readers care about most.

Multimedia Content In Modern News

Modern news platforms include images, short videos, audio clips, and infographics. These elements help explain complex topics simply and clearly.

For example, a video clip can show important moments during an event. Infographics help readers understand numbers and facts easily.

Multimedia storytelling makes news more informative and enjoyable to read.

How Technology Supports Modern Journalism

Technology has become an important part of journalism. It helps reporters gather information, verify details, and present stories clearly.

Smart Tools For Journalists

Journalists now use digital tools that help them write, edit, and publish content efficiently. These tools assist in organizing information and maintaining accuracy.

One helpful concept that many writers discuss today is humanize ai. This idea focuses on using technology in a way that keeps writing natural and friendly. News articles still feel like they are written by real people who care about clear communication.

Writers use digital tools to support their work while keeping the human touch in every story.

Data And Visual Storytelling

Modern news platforms often include data and charts to explain important topics. Visual storytelling helps readers understand information quickly.

Charts, graphics, and visual summaries make articles easier to read and follow. They also help readers remember important details.

Technology allows journalists to combine text with visuals so that information becomes clearer and more interesting.

How Digital Media Builds Reader Trust

Digital media has also helped strengthen communication between news platforms and their audiences. Readers appreciate platforms that share information openly and clearly.

Transparency In Modern Journalism

Online platforms often update articles when new information becomes available. This helps readers stay informed with the most recent details.

Journalists can also share background information, interviews, and additional sources. This builds trust and helps readers understand how stories are created.

Accessibility For Everyone

Digital news platforms work hard to make content easy for all readers. Many websites now offer features such as adjustable text size, audio versions of articles, and mobile-friendly design.

These features allow people of different ages and reading preferences to enjoy the news comfortably.

Digital media also makes it possible for readers to explore topics that matter to them and learn more every day.

Final Thoughts

Digital media has changed modern news platforms in many positive ways. News now reaches readers quickly, clearly, and in formats that fit daily life. Online platforms connect journalists and audiences through comments, multimedia storytelling, and interactive discussions. Technology also supports writers while keeping articles natural and easy to understand. As digital media continues to grow, news platforms will keep finding helpful ways to share information and bring readers closer to the stories that matter to them.

Kemi Badenoch is continuing to distance herself from the illegal war on Iran being waged by the US and Israel, as she calls the US President’s comments towards the prime minister “childish”.

Still firmly expressing she is a critic of Keir Starmer, the Conservative leader is now openly criticising Trump’s rhetoric.

In a video shared on her social media, Badenoch said:

I’m Keir Starmer’s biggest critic. There’s a lot of stuff that I believe he’s done wrong, but the words coming from the White House are completely wrong. I think it’s actually quite childish. There is a lot that can be said behind closed doors.

She went on to add:

The western alliance having an argument with itself, I think sends the wrong signal to our opponents in Iran or in Russia.

We need to be strengthening the relationship between the UK and the US, irrespective of who is president or who is prime minister. But I think those words coming from the White House were childish.

I’m Keir Starmer’s biggest critic, but the war of words coming from the White House is childish. pic.twitter.com/8Gax3Jhwn3

— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) March 17, 2026

Badenoch changes sides

Still, Badenoch’s criticisms appear motivated by ego and by the unease of being associated with a reckless, self-centred, bloodthirsty president.

She has long supported the orange buffoon and sought to win his favour. Now she chooses to diverge because Trump’s arrogant rants speak the ugly truths that were previously only whispered.

The conversations will still remain the same ‘behind closed doors’ as Badenoch would clearly prefer.

Everything he does is childish – https://t.co/xAET4WUove

— Greg Canty (@GregCantyFuzion) March 18, 2026

Right-wing leaders start to panic (finally)

In a move that will likely lead many to breathe a sigh of relief, many right-wing leaders and public officials have begun to distance themselves from the US and Israel’s devastating battering of Iran.

Day one of bombing saw an entire primary school obliterated, murdering 175 Iranians, most of whom were between the ages of seven and 10.

Likewise, Israeli forces have carried out mass bombardments in Lebanon, displacing hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and communities. Since the bombs began falling at the end of February, they have killed thousands of innocent civilians.

An Israeli airstrike struck an apartment building in central Beirut, on Wednesday. The Israeli army had warned residents to evacuate about an hour before completely flattening it as day broke. pic.twitter.com/JfUEfHDMbu

— The Associated Press (@AP) March 18, 2026

Britons will have heard countless times in their lives about the “special relationship” between the US and UK. However, that relationship has now been entirely exposed; the UK are merely lap dogs for US imperial interests, simply asking how high or how much of the colonialist tyrants.

Across the UK, more people now recognise that US interests often run counter to our own, and thankfully that awareness is growing by the day. Trump’s own rhetoric reflects a continuation of colonial-era thinking, with his characteristic arrogance exposing the true posture of Western leadership.

Britain: ‘a racist little rock clinging to delusions of grandeur’

The Canary’s Rachel Swindon wrote of this relationship and the UK’s irrelevance:

I know the patriots (busy protecting “our girls”) would disagree with me wholeheartedly when I say cloutless Britain — once the envy of empires — now squats in the global corner like a has-been aristocrat clutching a faded tiara, and the aforementioned “special relationship” with the US means we are reduced to begging for pathetic scraps from Washington’s neoliberal feast.

Britain twitches on the world stage like a severed limb still jerking from one of those phantom nerve signals. Ask around the world what they think of us, and if you don’t want to do that, I can tell you we are seen as utterly fucking irrelevant, a racist little rock clinging to delusions of grandeur while the planet rightfully leaves it to rot in a pile of its own Brexit-fuelled misery.

Swindon closed out by stating “Starmer’s cowardice endangers the world”.

If Britain won’t call out its closest ally’s lawlessness, who will? Starmer’s passivity isn’t pragmatism, it’s moral bankruptcy, paving the way for more Putins, Netanyahus, and Trumps.

Right-wing parties do appear to be waking up, even the German far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). Italy’s far-right prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, has also publicly refused to support the US war.

Even AfD are warning against backing Trump

Maybe Badenoch and Farage need to learn somethng https://t.co/Ub1JlODay9

— dave lawrence 🐟🐟🐠 (@dave43law) March 18, 2026

BREAKING : Italian 🇮🇹 Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has given shock to US & Israel

“Italy will withdraw the army from US led adventure in Middle East and will not participate in the war against Iran” 🔥

Advertisement

Leaders with spine and courage are standing for humanity. Mad Respect 🫡 pic.twitter.com/3fDwWF6kOO

— Amock_ (@Amockx2022) March 13, 2026

Nevertheless, these ‘challenges’ are likely more performative shows to save face publicly with domestic voters. After all, they’ve shown they’re more than comfortable with mass murder if they think the odds are they can get away with it.

The western leaders who are right now congregating in Davos and some of whom are being labeled heroes for standing up to trump, are sharing the spoils of the genocide of half a million Palestinians.
They killed people in the most heinous way and are now selling off their land. https://t.co/GcibcCurUA

— that poonam ka chaand (@sabsezyadaa) January 22, 2026

Advertisement

We have witnessed a clear example of leadership guided by principles, values and integrity. Spain’s PM, Pedro Sanchez, has received widespread support and respect for their continued resistance to colonialist oppression and violence.

“I’ve Never Been a Patriot, but Spain Standing Up to Trump Has Made Me One”
Paco Cerdà @nytimes https://t.co/J5n7owh4kf

— barrejon (@barrejon) March 13, 2026

Challenges must have weight or they’re just performative crap

It’s clear a line has been crossed by the US and Israel that Western leaders are feeling increasingly uncomfortable with. On the other hand, the world has been watching a genocide carried out against Palestinians without any tangible push back. Therefore, the nature of the relationship with the US and its Western leaders is exposed: bow to imperial interests or be punished.

As a result, this manipulative and coercive relationship has driven a global climate that works only for the richest and most powerful. The rest of the global population pay the price — facing displacement, destruction, hardship, or the strain of surging costs on their daily lives and finances in the UK. As always, ordinary people end up beneath the boot of the rich and powerful.

Western leaders might think publicly shaming Trump will help him find humility and change course, and they’re giving it a good go. Yet, they simply reveal that they miss the point once again. It is undeniable that the Epstein class have shown themselves to be incapable of humility and self-awareness. Their desires and fantasies are all they listen to.

Alas, we’ve given them rope and they’ve run miles with it. Now we must pull that rope firmly back and leave the US and Israel isolated like the hostile, rogue states they are.

Featured image via the Canary

When do the bin changes come into place?

Where do the bin changes apply?

What do the new “Simpler Recycling” rules mean?

Why has the government created this change?

So, what do I put in each bin under the new rules?

1) Paper and card

2) Mixed recycling

3) Food waste

4) Residual waste

Angela Rayner gave an impassioned speech slamming Shabana Mahmood’s cruel immigration proposals as a “breach of trust”. Going even further, the former Labour deputy leader claimed that the public now view the Labour Party as pro-establishment and “un-British”.

Home Secretary Mahmood is proposing changes to migration which would double the time required for migrants to qualify for permanent residence from five to ten years. Even more heartlessly, the Labour government intend to subject refugees to an anxious wait of up to 20 years for the right to remain permanently.

Whilst Mahmood deems this to be “fair” in order to avoid draining public finances, Rayner appears to be attempting to remind the former party of the people of its supposed values and principles.

However, against the backdrop of our colonial history and ongoing support for imperialism, the proposed policy feels unmistakably “British” – and that is precisely the problem we must confront. It is entirely British to operate a hostile environment.

Rayner’s challenge is little more than limp lettuce

And when Andy Burnham addressed the immigration proposals, he showed little real unease with the cruelty at the heart of the immigration reforms.

Speaking to BBC R4′s Today programme, Burnham appears to suggest there may be legitimacy to the government’s proposal. Apparently, the Labour government simply have been ‘clear’ enough with their reasoning. The Labour Mayor said the “impatience to deliver change is shared right across government” and acknowledged Angela Rayner’s argument as worth heeding. Nonetheless, he ultimately chose to side with the government:

I do think the government has a story to tell here and it needs to tell it more effectively.

I think the government really needs to point to that to then allow some breathing space for a considered debate on the proposals around changes to the immigration system.

Therefore, if we dig a bit deeper into Rayner’s apparently “explosive” comments, we soon realise there’s little challenge actually present. On the other hand, it appears she is only concerned by existing refugees and migrants than how this harmful policy would impact future arrivals to the UK.

Labour double standards and lip service once again – no surprise there.

She claimed the system must become fairer and work for working people yet avoided confronting the super-rich interests prioritising profits. Instead, she appeared to accept the narrative that immigration harms workers rather than employers. In the end, her concern seemed confined to migrants already contributing to the economy not having their deal changed “halfway through” – everyone else, apparently, can be disregarded.

She added:

The people already in the system, who made a huge investment, now fear for their future – they do not have stability and do not know what will happen.

We cannot talk about earning a settlement if we keep moving the goalposts.

Advertisement

Because moving the goalposts undermines our sense of fair play. It’s un-British.

Let us be a country that has sustainable economic migration rules, but one that upholds the British values we want all who live here to respect.

Nevertheless, she has more to say ‘apparently’:

🚨 NEW: Angela Rayner has attacked Labour’s direction tonight

– Labour’s “running out of time” with its “very survival at stake” as populism rises

Advertisement

– Migration reforms are a “breach of trust” and “un-British”

– “A lot more to say” soon- “been waiting for this moment”

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) March 17, 2026

Make it count or it’s worthless

Once, Labour stood against the hateful immigration policies of right-wing Conservative governments. Now in power, it has chosen cruelty instead—targeting people trying to build a life with dignity and integrity. Mahmood’s reforms will strip away the opportunities they need to do so.

Seeking to protect those already here while taking hope and protections away from others in war-torn countries is manipulative and coercive. It is also, frankly, beyond pathetic. Nevertheless, championing the interests of the super-rich whilst punishing vulnerable people has been the hallmark of this government. Subsequently, it has seen them lose a significant part of their traditional base to left-wing competitors in the Green’s and Your Party.

If Rayner and Burnham actually care about human rights or British values and principles, they’d walk away from this captured, corrupted party.

Featured image via the Canary

4 min read9 min

The House of Lords is currently acting as a laudable bulwark against a stream of bad legislation and faces another imminent test of its mettle this week. In an effort to push back against extreme proposals passed to the Lords by the House of Commons, Baroness Stroud has tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to reinstate the requirement for pregnant women to have an in-person medical consultation before being allowed to carry out their own at-home abortions in England and Wales. This safeguard should never have been abandoned, and I was pleased to speak to the amendment last month.

The amendment relates to a clause inserted into the bill by Tonia Antoniazzi MP. Ostensibly, the Crime and Policing Bill aims to reduce violence against women and girls. However, the bill was used by opportunistic MPs to push through clause 208, which would decriminalise abortion for any reason, at any stage, right up to birth, for women in relation to their own pregnancies. Astonishingly, such a consequential change to the law was easily passed after just 46 minutes of backbench debate in the Commons. On a matter touching life and death, that is beyond irresponsible.

This combination of the proposed decriminalisation of abortion for women in relation to their own pregnancies and the continuation of the ‘pills-by-post’ scheme would strip away key remaining safeguards around our already lax abortion laws. I believe it would, in practice, make it easier for women to carry out late-term abortions at home. This is extremely dangerous. Experience shows that not having an in-person medical assessment before an abortion can lead to serious consequences.

Freedom of Information data has revealed that the pills-by-post process has led to an array of serious complications, including sepsis, haemorrhaging, embolisms, renal failure, and trauma to organs. The removal of safeguards also opens the door to abuse, potentially making it easier for partners or family members to coerce women into having abortions. These are the real costs of replacing clinical oversight with self-administration in the majority of abortions in Britain. I am relieved that there is currently no pills-by-post scheme in Northern Ireland, and attempts to introduce one must be resisted.

The public was told that at-home abortions were a pandemic measure. Yet they have quietly become the norm, despite warnings from clinicians and parliamentarians. It has become possible, in practice, for women to have abortions well beyond the 24-week legal limit, since there is no reliable way to verify gestational age without an in-person examination. Fully decriminalising self-induced abortion would remove any legal deterrent against such procedures, effectively inviting more of them to take place.

Baroness Stroud’s amendment offers a straightforward, common-sense corrective: reinstate the requirement for an in-person consultation before pills can be prescribed or taken at home. This would offer protection to women and unborn children after they are old enough to be able to survive outside of the womb. The few cases of women prosecuted for late-term abortions in recent years are symptomatic of a system void of sufficient safeguards in the first place.

Alongside Baroness Stroud’s amendment, peers will have the opportunity to support Baroness Monckton’s amendment to remove clause 208 from the bill altogether. If we fail to do so, women will be able to end the lives of their unborn babies up to birth without criminal liability, effectively decriminalising self-administered abortion to full term. This ought to be unthinkable and would be deeply unpopular with the public.

Indeed, legislating for abortion “to birth without medical help”, as Baroness O’Loan put it in the Second Reading debate, would be to disregard every principle of care and safety that Parliament claims to uphold, ironically turning what were once illegal backstreet abortion practices into a lawful reality, carried out behind closed doors and without medical oversight. This is not progress for women.

The House of Lords is the last line of defence against this reckless proposal. If Parliament sincerely seeks to protect women and girls from harm, peers must vote to restore in-person consultations for those considering abortions at home when they vote on these amendments this week. Anything less would make a mockery of the bill’s claimed commitment to safeguard vulnerable people.

Baroness Foster is a non-affiliated life peer and the former First Minister of Northern Ireland

Callum Murphy is the Conservative Party Candidate for Canary Wharf.

Last week I was selected as the Conservative candidate for Canary Wharf ward in the upcoming local elections in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. It’s a fascinating place to stand. Few areas better symbolise the modern British economy: a global financial centre, a growing residential neighbourhood, and home to thousands of younger professionals building their careers in one of the world’s great cities.

Yet places like Canary Wharf also illustrate a political challenge for the Conservative Party. For many years, voters in highly urban areas – particularly younger, professional voters – have drifted away from us. If we are serious about challenging for seats in this borough again, we need to win them back.

That starts by recognising that the voters we are talking about are not natural opponents of Conservatism. Quite the opposite. The young professionals who live in areas like Docklands often share many Conservative instincts. They believe in aspiration, enterprise and personal responsibility. They work hard, pay significant taxes, and want Britain to succeed in a competitive global economy.

But too often, they do not feel that the Conservative Party is speaking directly to them.

A “next-generation” Conservative message must start from the realities of life for voters in their twenties, thirties and forties. If you spend time campaigning in areas like Canary Wharf, certain issues come up again and again.

The first is housing. For many young professionals, home ownership – once a cornerstone of the Conservative promise – feels further away than ever. They are earning good salaries and doing the right things, yet still find themselves renting small flats at high cost with little sense of long-term security.

A modern Conservative offer must restore the link between work and ownership. That means tackling the structural barriers to building more homes in high-demand cities, supporting innovative housing models, and ensuring that those who work hard in places like London can realistically aspire to buy a home there.

The second issue is economic dynamism. Areas like Canary Wharf exist because Britain is open, entrepreneurial and globally connected. The professionals who work here are part of industries that compete internationally every day – finance, technology, consulting and the growing cluster of fintech and innovation businesses in the Docklands.

These voters respond positively to a confident, pro-growth message. They want to hear that Britain will remain one of the best places in the world to start a business, build a career and attract investment. They are instinctively supportive of lower taxes, a competitive regulatory environment, and policies that back innovation and enterprise.

In other words, the core economic instincts of Conservatism remain powerful – but they need to be communicated in a way that speaks to the lived experience of modern urban Britain.

There is also a broader cultural point. Younger professionals in cities are not looking for ideological purity or political tribalism. They are looking for competence, seriousness and practical problem-solving. They want safe streets, well-run services and local government that focuses on delivering results rather than endless political drama.

Anyone familiar with the recent political history of Tower Hamlets will know how strongly that message can resonate. Voters want accountable leadership and transparent governance – something that Conservatives should always be proud to champion and have done so in this borough for many years, not least through the indomitable Cllr Peter Golds CBE, our lone voice on Tower Hamlets Council.

At the local level, this means focusing on tangible improvements to the neighbourhoods where people live: safer public spaces, rubbish collected, potholes filled, and councils that support development but with the consent of residents and with the needs and aspirations of those who live there front of mind. These are not glamorous issues, but they matter enormously to residents.

But reconnecting with younger voters will also require a broader national offer that shows the Conservative Party understands the pressures facing their generation. That is why Kemi Badenoch’s efforts to rebuild the party’s relationship with young people are so important.

Kemi herself had her political education in London, serving as a London Assembly Member before entering Parliament. She understands the aspirations, pressures and ambitions of the young, globally minded professionals who power cities like ours.

Under her leadership, the Conservatives’ emerging New Deal for Young People begins to address some of the structural barriers facing younger generations.

This includes scrapping real interest on Plan 2 student loans – a reform that would save many graduates tens of thousands of pounds over the course of their repayment period. It means expanding opportunity through 100,000 additional apprenticeships, helping local employers develop the skilled workforce they need. And it includes a First Job Bonus so that when young people enter the workforce, they keep the first £5,000 of National Insurance they would otherwise pay.

These policies recognise something simple but important: that we need a fairer system that rewards hard work and gives our young people the opportunities they deserve.

For many younger professionals in places like Canary Wharf, the challenge is not a lack of ambition. It is the sense that the system no longer works as fairly as it once did. They want to know that if they study hard, work hard and contribute to the economy, they will be able to build secure and prosperous lives.

That is fundamentally a Conservative promise.

Another important factor is generational appeal. Many young voters simply do not see the Conservative Party as being “for people like them”. That perception will not change overnight. But it can change gradually if we show that we understand the pressures facing younger generations and are serious about addressing them.

That is why it matters that more candidates and activists from younger backgrounds are stepping forward in places like Canary Wharf. Politics works best when those standing for office reflect the communities they want to represent.

Standing in a ward like this at 25 gives me a front-row seat to the conversations that are shaping the next generation of voters. What I find encouraging is that many of the values that animate young professionals – aspiration, responsibility, opportunity – are deeply compatible with Conservatism.

The task for the Conservative Party is not to reinvent itself entirely. It is to reconnect those enduring principles with the realities of modern life in Britain’s cities.

If we can do that – by championing growth, restoring the path to home ownership, and backing a new deal that gives younger generations a fair shot – there is no reason why areas like Canary Wharf cannot once again become fertile ground for Conservative politics.

The UK government is trying to undermine the work of journalists who keep the public informed. Officials are now trying to claim they must tighten Freedom of Information (FOI) rules to defend against China. Meanwhile US president Donald Trump’s administration has publicly attacked independent media outlet Drop Site News for… telling the truth.

The Financial Times reported on 18 March:

British officials are concerned that China is exploiting the UK’s freedom of information legislation to collate unclassified data that risks revealing sensitive information.

The paper added:

Government figures believe they have detected a pattern of requests relating to the UK’s defence and national security, raising suspicions that Beijing may be behind a significant proportion of them, according to people familiar with the matter.

The evidence? One anonymous official’s ‘concerns’:

There’s a growing awareness that FOI is being used by hostile states — and China in particular — specifically in relation to defence matters.

Journalists freedom’s erosion

Yet as the FT itself points out:

The law only requires the government to provide unclassified material in response to FOI requests and numerous exemptions — including on national security grounds — already exist.

And by attacking FoI law in this way, yet more evidence of how far MoD/government willing to go to avoid oversight and accountability in this area.

‘America Last’ reporting?

US investigative outlet Drop Site News drew fire from the Trump administration on 17 March. They’d reported that US attempts to negotiate with Iran had been met with stony silence. It hurts to get ghosted.

In response to this report today, the White House denounced @DropSiteNews as “abhorrent,” and accused us of engaging in “America Last behavior.”

Thank you for your attention to this matter!https://t.co/RYkAo872gH

— jeremy scahill (@jeremyscahill) March 16, 2026

Advertisement

A White House spokesperson subsequently launched into a bizarre public rant about Drop Site:

The radical, left-wing Drop Site News is clearly carrying water for the Iranian terrorist regime – and reports like these based on pure fiction and citing unnamed anonymous sources should be discarded immediately.

Adding:

Iran feeds this fake news media outlet propaganda and they publish it as fact, which is abhorrent, America Last behavior. Operation Epic Fury will continue unabated until President Trump, as Commander-in-Chief, determines that the goals of Operation Epic Fury, including for Iran to no longer pose a military threat, have been fully realized.

Drop Site is one of few outlets that has consistently interviewed the Iranian leadership and Hamas. In a livestream discussion on 17 March, Drop Site reporter Ryan Grim said:

I don’t know if I’ve ever seen anything quite like this.

Drop Site’s Jeremy Scahill described the attack as a:

Featured image via the Canary

The ‘supercarrier’ USS Gerald Ford isn’t doing super well. The ship is being sent to Crete for repairs after a mystery fire caused severe damage. Some open source accounts and legacy media claim the fire took 30 hours to control and affected hundreds of sailors.

The fire on the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford took over 30 hours to put out last week, with over 600 crew losing their berths. pic.twitter.com/Bl6Lm6bJEC

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) March 17, 2026

The Ford has been at sea for nearly a whole year. It was involved in the US attack on Venezuela on 3 Jan.

US-Israel attacked Iran first on 28 February without provocation. Iran was offering unprecedented concessions in negotiations at the time. The Pentagon has since stated there was no imminent threat from Iran. And the UN’s atomic watchdog, the IAEA, has said there is no evidence Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.

Reuters reported:

The ​officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, did not say how long the Ford was expected to remain in Crete.

One of the officials said nearly 200 sailors were treated for smoke-related ​injuries when the fire broke out in the ship’s main laundry area. The fire ​took hours to bring under control and had an impact on roughly 100 sleeping berths.

However a US defence official said the ship was still part of the US attack on Iran:

the ship’s toilet system was subject to “unexpected and frequent clogging” and requires acid flushes on a regular basis to clear it, at a cost of $400,000 each time.

Sabotage on the USS Gerald Ford?

The sailors aboard the USS Gerald Ford have low morale. Even US senator Mark Warner – a former navy man – said:

The Ford and its crew have been pushed to the brink after nearly a year at sea, and they have been paying the price for President Donald Trump’s reckless military decisions.

First, dissenters:

The dissenters were part of what became known as the GI movement, soldiers publishing ‘underground’ newspapers, signing antiwar petitions, attending protest rallies and engaging in various forms of public speech to demand an end to the war.

Second, resisters:

The resisters were those who disobeyed orders, defied military authority, refused orders, went absent without leave, committed acts of sabotage, and in some cases attacked their own officers and sergeants.

There is no hard evidence of sabotage or mutiny. But this is a deeply unpopular and quickly failing war. The personnel aboard the Ford have been at sea for nearly year. There is clearly poor leadership and strong sense in the US that the war is connected to Epstein files. That environment is a tinderbox for dissent, at the very least.

Featured image via the Canary