Starting today, 1 April, MPs’ basic salary will rise to £98,599. For comparison, the average full-time worker in the UK made £39,039 a year, as of April 2025.

The pay bump marks a 5% increase in MPs’ basic wage. For comparison, average inflation stood at 3% as of January 2026.

Likewise, MPs’ salaries are expected to continue to rise to around the £110,000 by 2029, which marks the end of the current parliament. For comparison, even chancellor Rachel Reeves’ promise that people will be £1,000 better off by then is looking shaky at best. 

However, the basic salary is only the beginning of the story. MPs also get an expenses allowance to cover absolute necessities like their second homes in London, their offices, and travel. Likewise, if an MP also sits on a committee or holds an additional role, they of course receive extra money.

Meanwhile, teachers in the UK are still buying classroom supplies out of their own pocket.

MPs pay rise has to be a joke

If all of this is setting your blood to boiling, please calm down. Don’t be like the the Taxpayers’ Alliance said, who rushed to state that people will be:

seething to see politicians receive an inflation-busting pay rise, all while they suffer a personal recession.

Likewise, take care not to follow the example of the group’s chair John O’Connell, who said that:

After years of broken promises, falling living standards and deteriorating public services, MPs are being rewarded for failure with a princely pay boost.

You see, it’s not like MPs are setting their own salaries or anything – that would be monstrously corrupt.

Instead, politicians’ wages are determined by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). IPSA makes its decision based on a number of factors, including 3.5% cost-of-living increase, along with a 1.5% benchmarking adjustment.

The watchdog compares MPs’ salaries to other politicians in similar democracies, as well as senior figures in the public sector and the NHS. Public sector salaries are, in turn, set by review bodies and, ultimately, by MPs.

Fortunately, MPs’ salaries are not compared to lower-ranking public sector workers, as this would look less favorable. For example, most NHS staffers will receive a 3.3% pay rise this year. Similarly, Civil Service workers received pay awards of up to 3.25% on average for 2025/26.

‘The wider economic context’

The independent head of IPSA is Richard Lloyd. An interesting an unrelated fact about Richard Lloyd is that he worked as a special adviser to prime minister Gordon Brown. 

Explaining his decision, Lloyd said:

The role of an MP has evolved. They are dealing with higher levels of complex casework, and abuse and intimidation towards MPs and their staff has been growing.

In reaching our decision for 2026-27 we have benchmarked MPs’ pay against other responsible, senior roles in civic society and similar worldwide democracies, as well as considering our own core principles and the wider economic context.

In future years we will continue to consider prevailing economic and fiscal conditions when confirming annual pay decisions taking into account the experience of people outside of parliament.

When more work has been added to my jobs for the same pay as before, managers have called it a ‘necessary adjustment’ and ‘good business sense’. It’s nice that this kind of good business doesn’t apply to MPs.

It’s also nice that, despite their increasing casework and full-time jobs as MPs, parliamentarians are still finding time to work other jobs like appearing on the news in exchange for hundreds of thousands of pounds. Some even work extra jobs like appearing in cameo videos saying hi to neo-Nazis.

Growing levels of abuse, often factually accurate

Likewise, it’s also completely true that MPs are facing ever increasing levels of abuse. I know this, because I’m one of the cunts writing the abuse, and I’m writing more and more of it by the day.

However, I’m calling snivelling toerags like Starmer ‘snivelling toerags’ because he sucks up to fascist dictators like Donald Trump. I call Kemi Badenoch a racist horror because she talks about slashing human rights so that she can attack migrants. And, of course, I call Farage a far-right neo-Nazi shill because of the video evidence that he is a far-right neo-Nazi shill.

If MPs would like to receive less abuse, many would benefit from considering whether this abuse is linked to their being contemptible scum.

Until that point, they can kindly go fuck themselves – I imagine it’s covered by expenses.

Featured image via the Canary

1) The calendar theory

2) The fish theory

3) The King John theory

Outside the US Embassy in London on 1 April, two activists were tied by fuel hoses to a life-sized petrol pump in response to Donald Trump’s war on Iran.

The protest criticised the increase in oil company profits in the wake of the war’s destruction and trade disruption. The pump carried the label: “Oil Profit$$$ for Oil Bosses”.

Campaigners from Fossil Free London held signs saying “Stop Trump Tying us Into Fossil Fuels”, “Break Free from Climate Crisis” and “Break Free from Big Oil”.

Thousands have died to date across the region following US and Israeli attacks on Iran. Trump has recently stated his intention to “take the oil in Iran” following major attacks on fossil fuel infrastructure.

Meanwhile, oil dependency is increasing the cost of living once again for families in the UK as petrol prices rise. Whilst fossil fuel companies stand to make a windfall of billions on the back of the price shock.

One of Reform’s major donors, Jeremy Hoskings, has seen his fossil fuel and energy hedge fund investments rise by more than $25m since the war began in Iran.

This comes as Trump and Reform are using the oil price spike to call for our government to approve new UK oil and gas projects, like the controversial Rosebank oil field. Despite the fact that drilling in the North Sea would not make the UK more energy secure. If production began, Rosebank’s oil would still go for export – like 80% of all UK oil.

Robin Wells, director of Fossil Free London said:

Right now we are seeing the horrors of Trump’s war on Iran in the faces of dead schoolgirls and facing skyrocketing energy costs at home. And Big Oil cashes out big, with bumper profits.

We’re protesting today to say that for as long as the UK stays tied up in fossil fuels, we’ll see more oil wars, more extreme weather deaths and more instability.

Advertisement

The UK needs to cut ties with Trump and Big Oil. We need to break free from this knot of violence.

That starts with scrapping new UK oil and gas and rejecting Rosebank. Until then, being tied into Big Oil’s big disaster leaves us paying the price.

Featured image via Fossil Free London

1) Building and maintaining muscle

2) Prioritising sleep and recovery

3) Reducing inflammation through lifestyle choices

4) Maintaining “metabolic flexibility”

5) Enjoying life, in moderation

On 30 March 2026, two activists from the group People Against Genocide (PAG) targeted the London headquarters of Chubb Insurance, as well as the offices of Sompo, owner of Aspen Insurance. They sprayed the front of the building with symbolic blood-red paint, before locking-on outside the front entrance.

This is the fourth recent action by PAG. They have previously targeted both the Manchester and London offices of Chubb.

UAV Engines

Chubb insures UAV Engines, a subsidiary of Israel’s biggest weapons company, Elbit Systems. Elbit produce 85% of the Israeli military’s killer drone fleet.

UAV produce engines for Israel’s drone fleet at their factory in Shenstone in Staffordshire. These include the R902(W) Wankel engine used in Elbit’s Hermes 450 drone, the same model used by Israel to kill seven aid workers from the World Central Kitchen, including 3 British nationals.

Calls to action

One of the activists locked-on outside the Chubb offices called on fellow activists to join them with flags, banners, and whistles. They said:

We are here to shut down Chubb, the insurers of Elbit Systems, until they cut all ties.

In the last month, we have seen whole families obliterated, thousands killed, and over thirty thousand injured across Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, and the whole of West Asia. Israel announced its intention to ethnically cleanse almost one million people out of southern Lebanon, all operationally supported by Elbit Systems, who profit from every life lost.

Those profits are guaranteed by Chubb, who insure their Shenstone factory here in Britain. The responsibility to drive Elbit out of our communities has never been more urgent.” They then called on supporters to get trained in direct action tactics, and join the struggle to shut down Elbit.

Without the mandatory Employer Liability Insurance provided by Chubb and Aspen, neither UAV Engines, nor Elbit themselves, could operate in Britain.

Global campaign

Other actionists have targeted insurance companies in recent months, following the announcement of a global campaign to disrupt an international ‘economy of genocide’. Previously, insurers Allianz and Aviva have ended their cover of Elbit after sustained protest activity.

PAG has previously targeted HSBC branches across the UK over their investments in Elbit Systems, as well as protesting Elbit sites directly.

What does mid mean?

Sunder Katwala looks at the government’s proposed reforms to settlement rules in the UK as part of its immigration policy overhaul and asks whether they could meet the fairness challenge. 

Securing public confidence on immigration policy has proved a daunting challenge for successive British governments. The Labour government’s attempt to break that cycle sees it pursuing three major policy reforms at once. Two of these were key pledges in its 2024 general election manifesto: reducing overall numbers to “sustainable levels” (without indicating what that sustainable level might be) and bringing back control to the asylum system. Labour’s third major initiative is the biggest overhaul of the settlement rules for decades. There was no mention of settlement or citizenship in the party’s manifesto.

Labour’s record is sharply contested in a polarised political debate. But on the specific pledges it did make, it has made more progress than is usually recognised.

Overall immigration numbers have fallen spectacularly. The government inherited record levels that were likely to halve due to the final decisions of the last government.  But Labour has reduced the numbers much further and much faster than almost anybody recognises, including government ministers and their political opponents.

So the fall in immigration risks being a very well-kept secret. There is a time-lag in the data but a bigger lag in the political discourse. The latest headline figure – net migration of 205,000 – relates to the 12 months up to June 2025. But published data shows there was a further 45,000 fall in visas by the end of the year – so the 2025 net migration headline number, which comes out in May 2026, will be down again. The Home Secretary used the mid-2025 headline number to tell the Home Affairs select committee that “net migration remains high by any measure”. Yet 2026 will almost certainly see the lowest level of net migration this century – and negative net migration is likely in 2027.

Another reason that the collapse in overall numbers has not been noticed is that asylum claims are rising. The data shows progress on reducing the asylum backlog, with incremental if slow progress on reducing the use of asylum hotels. The government has also sought to publicise a significant rise in removals. Yet boats crossing the channel make a lack of control visible. The question of what will and won’t work to secure control is contested.

It is the settlement proposals that have proved most contentious. Their aim is to reflect popular ‘rights and responsibilities’ principles – that those who join the club should show a willingness to contribute. Those principles underpin the current system – with English language, good character and citizenship tests, and the symbolism of the citizenship ceremonies introduced two decades ago. The key difference with earned settlement is a much more stratified approach. Some people could qualify in three years, and some in five years – but the timelines will be doubled as a baseline, trebled for some, and quadrupled for refugees.

These complex proposals are often misunderstood. Media reports invariably say the timeline will be ten years for most people – but a 15-year wait will be more common for those who came in the last parliament. That is not simply a rule for care workers, but for all mid-skill roles (below RQF Level 6): chefs, lab technicians, data analysts, electricians and hotel managers would all wait 15 years for settlement too.

The most contested issue has been whether or not it is fair to apply new rules to those already in the UK. Critics say this would move the goalposts. The government’s main argument has been that it would be unaffordable not to do so.

The Home Secretary deployed the eye-catchingly large figure of £10 billion in net fiscal costs for care workers and their adult dependants. Yet analysis by the IPPR and others has shown that the £10 billion figure is a mirage since the government’s proposal for a longer path to settlement would seem to make little, if any, difference to this number – and most costs would be incurred in three decades’ time.

So the key question is: what are the fiscal gains or costs of the government’s reform proposals?  MPs and peers have been trying to find out: the government appears to be stonewalling on supplying those details – but it will be impossible for parliamentarians to debate the current reforms, or possible alternative proposals, without the real numbers.

Earned settlement creates, by design, a hierarchy of status in terms of what different migrants deserve. A foreseeable but perhaps less directly intended consequence is to create a stratified hierarchy of settlement for dependents too. The child of a banker could be a citizen by the age of eleven, while his classmate who is the daughter of a cleaner at the bank would have a fifteen-year wait – and would not be eligible for home student fees.

To advantage the most affluent children while placing impediments to their working-class peers inverts the aims of the government’s opportunity agenda. The Home Affairs Select Committee has proposed several mitigations that could soften the impact on children – but it is an inherent feature of making parents “earn” their children’s settlement at different rates too.

The stratified hierarchy has a highly racialised pattern too. Most black and Asian migrants from Commonwealth countries will face a 15-year wait, while migrants from the EU and north America are likely to attain settlement earlier. Different patterns of dependent visas means there will almost certainly be a more racialised distribution for children than for adults. These lengthy timelines risk seeing people fall out of status too – risking the creation of a new Windrush scandal.

The settlement reforms are sharply contested, both on their core principles and how they will apply in practice. The Prime Minister has signalled a willingness to listen to the challenges made by care workers and their allies. “People do want fair rules. They want clear rules but they also want compassionate and fair rules” he said in a newspaper interview. The outcome will ultimately depend on a political judgment – about what can and cannot be defended as fair.

By Sunder Katwala, Director, British Future.