What causes hair to turn grey?

Stress really can cause your hair to turn grey

Environmental factors can cause our hair to turn grey (to an extent)

Can shock or fright cause our hair to turn grey?

Medical conditions can cause premature greying

Could going grey spur any health concerns?

Cllr Matthew Dormer is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Redditch Borough Council.

With the local elections approaching, the key question in Redditch is simple: who can be trusted to deliver competent government and real value for residents? After a challenging period nationally, Conservatives know we cannot win arguments on slogans alone. We have to win them on performance — on the basics people notice every day, and on whether a council has a serious plan for the future.

In Redditch, voters are seeing the consequences of drift and short-termism at borough level, while at county level the new Reform administration is discovering that governing is far harder than campaigning. Promises made in opposition are colliding with the realities of budgets, service pressures, and delivery on the ground. That is the backdrop to the elections ahead — and why they matter.

At borough level, the Labour administration has struggled to demonstrate either vision or leadership. A flagship investment in a new market has failed to deliver the revival that was promised, leaving traders and residents disappointed rather than energised. More broadly, the town centre continues to decline, with no coherent strategy to reverse falling footfall or restore confidence.

Most striking, however, has been the absence of leadership. Decisions that should be taken decisively by the council’s leadership are repeatedly deferred to full council, diluting accountability and slowing progress. The recent decision not to hold elections this year is a clear example. Rather than owning that choice as a leadership decision, Labour has chosen to hide behind process. Councils do not succeed by managing procedure alone; they need leaders prepared to lead.

At county level, the picture under Reform has been one of contradiction rather than renewal. Despite strong rhetoric in opposition, there has been little meaningful engagement with the serious and complex issue of local government reorganisation. District councils and residents alike remain unclear about direction, consultation, or timescales.

Meanwhile, delivery on the basics is slipping. Highway repairs have slowed, investment schemes across the county have been cancelled or deferred, and confidence is ebbing. Most tellingly, the administration has already postponed its budget-setting meeting, raising questions about grip and preparedness. This sits uneasily alongside election promises to lower taxes, with residents now being warned to expect council tax increases of up to ten per cent. It is a familiar pattern: bold commitments made on the campaign trail, followed by difficult reversals once the realities of governing set in.

Against this backdrop, Conservatives in Redditch have been deliberately focused on rebuilding trust through competence and clarity. We know residents are tired of politics that promises much and delivers little. Our response has been to concentrate on the fundamentals: sound decision-making, financial discipline, and a clear sense of direction for the town.
We are organised, engaged, and serious about governing. That means scrutinising decisions properly, offering practical alternatives, and being honest about what can and cannot be achieved. It also means learning the lessons of our time in office, when we secured record levels of government investment and demonstrated that Redditch could compete for attention and funding when it had a credible plan and strong leadership.

Importantly, we are listening again — to businesses frustrated by the decline of the town centre, to residents concerned about basic services, and to families worried about opportunity for the next generation. Our focus is on rebuilding support around everyday priorities, not headline-chasing.
It is also important to be clear about the context of the elections ahead. Redditch elects its council by thirds, so control of the council will not change overnight. This election is therefore not about an instant takeover, but about momentum, direction, and trust.

Our objective is straightforward: to make gains, to rebuild confidence, and to demonstrate that Conservatives are the only credible option for change — the only alternative to continued Labour drift at borough level and the growing chaos being seen under Reform at county level.

None of this will be easy. Voters are frustrated, and national headwinds remain real. But local elections are still about who people trust to make decisions, run services competently, and stand up for their community. Residents remember that when Conservatives were in charge, things got done. Investment was secured, leadership was visible, and the council had direction.

Redditch matters beyond its boundaries. It is a typical working town, with small businesses, families, and public servants who expect value for money, fairness, and leadership that takes responsibility. If Conservatives cannot re-establish themselves as the credible governing option in places like this, we will struggle nationally. If we can, it shows the route back to trust runs through competence, not slogans.

My ambition has always been to serve Redditch — first as a firefighter, then as a business owner, then as council leader. Who knows where that journey of service may take me in the future? For now, the task is clear: make gains, restore confidence, and show that Conservatives are once again ready to lead.

Dr Sarah Ingham is the author of The Military Covenant: its impact on civil-military relations in Britain.

Based on a play by Patrick Hamiliton, the film Gaslight was released in 1944.

Gaslighting has become part of everyday speech, today defined as “the practice of psychologically manipulating someone into questioning their own sanity, memory, or powers of reasoning.”

Nominated for the best picture Academy Award, Gaslight is a gothic tale of a husband psychologically torturing his wife. Gaslighting Britain seems to be part of the government’s programme.  Despite the chaos engulfing the Starmer regime, Labour insists that it is we, the people, who are getting everything upside-down, back to front and inside-out.

Parachuting Lord Mandelson into diplomacy’s plum job and Matthew Doyle’s peerage justified Kemi Badenoch’s accusation that Labour is  stuffed with “paedophile apologists.”  But these two instances of the PM’s poor judgement are apparently down to the “vetting process”, not No.10 being ‘too grand to Google’.

Similarly, Monday’s lurch into an about-turn over local council elections is due to  “fresh legal advice”.  Rather than owning the Stalinesque attempt to deny democracy to millions, ministers imply it’s all lawyers’ fault for dud guidance, while the PM blames local councils.

Ingrid Bergman won the Best Actress Oscar for Gaslight. It seems apt. Thanks to the government; women are questioning their powers of reason.  In the toxic fall-out from Epstein/Mandelson, every minister echoed Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, who declared “the real focus should be on Epstein’s victims.”

Voters surely begin to doubt their sanity when they contrast Labour’s clucks of concern over some victims of sexual predation with its long, deafening silence over others far closer to home – the grooming gangs’ casualties.   Indeed, current Deputy Leader Lucy Powell accused Tim Montgomerie (formerly of this parish) of “blowing that little trumpet” and getting out “the dog whistle” when he raised the subject. PM Starmer branded those who called for a public inquiry as “jumping on a bandwagon of the far right.”

This attitude at the top of the government, along with it creating a “toxic environment for survivors”,  contradicts its claims of being pro-victim. Forced into a half-hearted inquiry, Labour’s reluctance is highlighted by the can-do of Rupert Lowe, backed by £768,833 of Crowdfunded support.

If Chancellor Reeves had a pound for every time Labour’s Violence Against Women and Girls strategy was invoked since Petey’s friend, the ghost of Little St James, returned to haunt both sides of the Atlantic, a sizeable dent could be made in the National Debt.

BTW, whatever happened to “growth”? Labour constantly sends up chaff about interest rate cuts. Decisions about the rate were outsourced to the Bank of England decades ago. Or is our memory failing us?

Reeves crowed about Wednesday’s inflation figure of 3 per cent, ignoring this week’s less welcome news that unemployment has hit a five year high of 5.2 per cent, Voters are expected to believe that mass youth joblessness has nothing to do with her policy choices.

For nepo-babe Stephen Kinnock to bang on about the “appalling economic inheritance” confronting Labour is a disservice to reality. Inflation was at 2 per cent in July 2024. All those Labour MPs who demanded longer lockdowns clearly thought the £450 billion invoice would never arrive. Do they also believe in Father Christmas?

It should be unnecessary to point out an election manifesto is a programme for government.  Had either Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak broadly stuck to the plan mandated by voters in 2019, while adjusting for the changed circumstances wrought by the pandemic, the Conservative Party’s fortunes might look very different today. Instead, the blueprint was torn up by Truss and tinkered with by Sunak, who went off on voter-repellent tangents, including more maths.

Despite trying to brainwash the country over “14 years of chaos”, the government is keen to emulate its predecessor’s example.

Is it gaslighting itself?

Rather than focusing on its July 2024 mandate, it goes off-piste in pursuit of pet projects no-one voted for, including local council reorganisation, assisted dying and the Chagos giveaway. But in connection with British Overseas Territories, its manifesto specifically stated: “Labour will aways defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.”

Dumping an abusive relationship is apparently the best protection from being gaslit.

Voters, over to you.

Callum Murphy is Director of Campaigns and Alex Brookes Director of External Affairs & Engagement at Conservative Friends of Overseas Territories (CFOT)

So, for the second time, President Trump has publicly warned Keir Starmer against pressing ahead with Labour’s reckless Chagos deal.

This was not an off-the-cuff remark or a misunderstanding. It was a deliberate intervention, later confirmed by the President’s own press secretary, making clear that he does not believe this is a good deal for Britain, the United States, or allied security.

That matters.

Because while Labour ministers cling desperately to selective briefings suggesting the United States Department of State is “content”, the President of the United States is saying something very different. And when it comes to Diego Garcia, it is presidential authority – not diplomatic mood music – that ultimately determines whether American confidence exists.

This widening gap between the White House and Downing Street exposes the central weakness of Labour’s entire approach. Starmer is attempting to force through a permanent surrender of British sovereign territory, on a brittle lease-back arrangement, without secure American buy-in. That is not statecraft. It is strategic negligence.

Some in Westminster will try to dismiss Trump’s remarks as theatre – part of a broader pattern of disruption, or a “Greenland-style” negotiating ploy. That analysis does not stand up.

Unlike past rhetorical gambits, this intervention was specific, repeated, and focused on a concrete vulnerability: the risk that the lease underpinning Diego Garcia could fail. That concern goes to the heart of the deal. If sovereignty is surrendered and the lease later collapses – through political pressure, legal challenge, or a change of government in Mauritius – Britain and its allies would have no guaranteed right to operate from one of the most strategically important military bases in the world.

That is precisely why successive UK governments, of all political colours, have maintained sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory. Labour’s decision to abandon that principle is not compelled by law. It is a political choice – and a reckless one.

The Prime Minister now finds himself exposed. Labour’s strategy relied on rushing the deal, obscuring its true cost, and presenting American acquiescence as a fait accompli. Trump’s intervention has blown that apart.

The Government may say it will “pause for thought”, but the reality is closer to panic. Without American confidence, this deal cannot proceed. And with time running out in the parliamentary calendar, Labour is rapidly losing its ability to bounce this through the Commons before scrutiny catches up.

This is not just embarrassing. It is destabilising. Allies do not appreciate being presented with irreversible faits accomplis on matters of shared security. By surrendering sovereignty first and attempting to tidy up the US position later, Labour has inverted the basic logic of alliance management.

Even leaving aside the diplomatic chaos, the substance of the deal remains indefensible. Conservatives have already exposed, through Freedom of Information requests, that the real cost of this agreement is close to £35 billion – nearly ten times higher than the figure initially floated by Labour. That is £35 billion to give up British territory, dissolve the British Indian Ocean Territory, and fund what amounts to a long-term subsidy to the Mauritian state.

At a time when British families are being squeezed at home, Labour is preparing to send billions of pounds abroad – money that will account for over four per cent of the Mauritian government’s entire budget. British taxpayers will, in effect, be subsidising tax cuts overseas while facing tax rises at home.

No serious government would describe that as value for money.

Diego Garcia is not an abstract diplomatic token. It is a linchpin of Western defence architecture in the Indo-Pacific. Mauritius, meanwhile, has openly deepened cooperation with China, announced closer links with Russia, and welcomed Iranian diplomatic support for its sovereignty claims.

Labour’s deal creates a structural vulnerability at the heart of this arrangement. A lease is only as strong as the political will behind it. Surrender sovereignty, and Britain gives up its ultimate safeguard.

That is why the 1966 UK-US treaty matters. It states unambiguously that the territory “shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty”. That treaty has not been amended. Ministers admit discussions are merely “ongoing”. Proceeding regardless risks placing the UK in breach of its international obligations – and Parliament has yet to properly scrutinise any proposed amendment under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act.

Overlaying this diplomatic drift is the unanswered questions of the process – specifically the role of Jonathan Powell in the negotiations. Freedom of Information material acquired by CFOT shows FCDO officials circulating Chagos-related briefings to Powell in August 2024, before his formal appointment as negotiator on 6 September 2024 (the date which the Government informed Parliament he officially commenced the role), including press reports and read outs from meetings between the Prime Ministers of the UK and Mauritius. Powell was also briefed by FCDO officials during August 2024. This timeline alone raises obvious concerns about authority, vetting, clearance, and accountability.

Now with the Bill being delayed after President Trump’s renewed attack, those questions become even more acute. If the negotiations were conducted in a grey zone of informal engagement before formal appointment, and the resulting deal is now being paused under external pressure, the issue is not just transparency – it is whether the correct procedures were followed and whether potential breaches of national security were committed.

The Freedom of Information requests raise fundamental questions: what vetting was undertaken prior to Powell’s appointment and by whom in the FCDO or Cabinet Office; what conflict of interest assessment was made regarding his work through Inter-Mediate, particularly given his activities in China, a state actor in favour of the surrender in the same month as his formal appointment in September; why he appeared to have access to classified government materials before being formally appointed; why the FCDO continued to use unsecure communications to pass him classified information despite acknowledging the need to arrange secure channels; in what capacity he met the Mauritian Prime Minister on the 30 August 2024 prior to formal appointment (having received briefing from FCDO officials in Port Louis in advance of the meeting); what level of security clearance he held during August 2024 and the materials he was authorised to see; why Parliament was told he was appointed on the 6 September if he was operating in the role earlier; and what conditions were placed on managing his dual roles, given he only left Inter-Mediate upon becoming National Security Advisor in November 2024.

The Government has told Parliament that Powell was appointed on 6 September 2024. Yet the document trail now points to involvement weeks earlier – receiving classified correspondence and actively negotiating at most senior level in Mauritius (the PM of Mauritius no less) while still being employed by Inter-Mediate. This appears to be a case of freelancing on a sensitive foreign policy file by an individual who, at the time, still had interests and international contracts with third parties and foreign actors.

This material would significantly deepen concerns about process, transparency, and national security safeguards around the negotiation itself. An arrangement that must be paused after international backlash, delayed in Parliament, and defended amid unanswered questions about the negotiator’s status is not a settled strategic settlement – it is a live political liability.

It is also now becoming clear that the government may have misled Parliament.  The involvement of Powell and officials in FCDO needs to be investigated at the highest levels and as matter of urgency. But it would appear to be another case of the Prime Minister appointing a former Blairite apparatchik with little or no due diligence or vetting. The Prime Minister’s judgement is therefore once again brought into question.

The Chagos Surrender Bill compounds these failures. It grants sweeping Henry VIII powers, avoids meaningful scrutiny of £35 billion of public spending, and contains no robust mechanism to guarantee the long-term security of Diego Garcia.

It also fails the Chagossian people.

Labour signed this deal without proper consultation and blocked a proposed referendum that would have given Chagossians a direct voice in their future. Even the United Nations has raised concerns about how this process has been forced through.

Trump’s intervention has crystallised what Conservatives have argued from the start: this deal is unstable, ill-judged, and unsustainable. It undermines British sovereignty, weakens national security, and damages our most important alliance.

The longer the Government pauses, the clearer the conclusion becomes, this is a negotiation conducted in opacity, defended in haste, and now reconsidered under pressure from allies, Parliament, and its own unresolved paper trail.

Why do we wake up tired, even after a full night’s sleep?

This can lead to the ‘false rest’ effect

Can you fix the ‘false rest’ effect?

“If we go to the police, we would be killed.” Those are the words of a woman featured in a BBC report about paramilitary extortion rackets in the North of Ireland. The investigation spoke to:

…business owners anonymously about being threatened to pay money to proscribed organisations. It includes those running restaurants or shops and those in the construction industry.

The paramilitaries involved would previously have been participants in the sectarian warfare that characterised The Troubles in Ireland.

Since the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, that kind of violence has hugely declined. Paramilitarism remains a feature of the Six Counties, however, particularly in organised crime. The payments which gangsters demand from businesses are typically described as ‘protection money’. The name implies you will receive protection from some unspecified threat, but in reality you are paying to avoid beating or death from those demanding it.

Sometimes the thugs characterise it in other ways. One respondent to the BBC said:

I have never been asked to pay for protection, but they asked me to contribute to the community activities which I did do.

Reverse-Robin Hood paramilitaries rob from those least able to pay

The report refers to “shops, salons and restaurants” as among the businesses targeted. Construction sites are another common source of revenue for paramilitaries. What this essentially amounts to is a regressive tax on people of average income.

The thugs aren’t going to Tesco management, Intel or JP Morgan to demand a cut of their profits. They’re robbing small local businesses often struggling to survive in a climate where large corporations relentlessly lobby government, and where the high street already struggles to survive.

Of course, such gangsters rob everyone on a daily basis, a fact highlighted by the Independent Reporting Commission (IRC) which monitors paramilitary activity. They pointed out that:

If paramilitarism is not brought to an end, it will continue to create
unmanageable strain on public finances through its direct and indirect harms.

This cost to us all comes from the increased policing expenses required to deal with the issue, especially when paramilitaries drive instances of mass rioting and racial pogroms, such as those they stoked in Ballymena in June 2025. The IRC reported with “no doubt” that there was paramilitary involvement in the riots, which took place among loyalist communities in the town. The Belfast Telegraph reported how:

Almost 50 children have been referred to social services by the PSNI after race riots in Northern Ireland over the last two years.

‘Protection’ scam extends to exploiting kids

These are kids who are coerced into participating in criminal racist behaviour. Those with links to far-right loyalist paramilitaries often like to parade as the protectors of women and children. However, as in the case of ‘protection money’, it’s the men in balaclavas who people need protecting from.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has warned that the Justice Bill before the Northern Ireland Assembly may not provide sufficient protection against criminalising children dragged into crime by paramilitaries. The bill seeks to bring the Six Counties somewhere close to parity with Britain, as the former has previously lacked legislation to deal with organised crime.

Some indicators show a decline in paramilitary activity. The Police Service of Northern Ireland’s (PSNI) Security Situation Statistics give an indication of this. In their latest report, which covers the period from 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2025, there were:

…no security related deaths, compared to one during the previous 12 months.

Shooting incidents also declined from 16 to 11. The chief constable of the PSNI Jon Boutcher has expressed optimism about a downgrading of the security threat rating in coming years. He says it may go from its current ‘substantial’ level to ‘moderate’, meaning “an attack is possible, but not likely.”

Of course, this assessment is based on threats to the state, rather than the general threat posed to the population at large by paramilitary violence, nevermind the other costs.

PSNI must take a share of the blame

The PSNI itself has some role to play in the continued role in daily life of paramilitaries. It has turned a blind eye to displays by violent groups such as the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), while arresting peaceful Palestine Action protesters. Like police forces in Britain, it continues to maintain relatively low ratings from the public. According to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA):

60.6% thought police were not visible or not very visible in their local area.

67.5% were satisfied with the job the PSNI do in Northern Ireland.

61.4% were confident in PSNI’s ability to protect and serve.

Advertisement

63.8% thought the PSNI were engaged or very engaged with local communities

While this remains the case, some people will still see paramilitaries as a local replacement for cops, perceived as cracking down on drug dealers and petty crime. This is the legacy of The Troubles — a police force still beholden to appalling British law, and the long tail of paramilitary thuggery given life by an inadequate political settlement.

Featured image via Nazli Tarzi

Genocide supporter Rachel Reeves has been called out as – well, a genocide supporter – as she toured a Sainsbury’s supermarket:

All too true. In December 2025, after more than two years of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, she told the racist ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ that she is a “proud” and “unapologetic” Zionist. She added that the idea there’s anything “inherently wrong” in the ethno-supremacist ideology must be “wholeheartedly” rejected.

Getting called out while posing in a supermarket is nowhere near enough – Reeves and her boss belong in jail for collaborating in genocide. But it’s still nice to see.

Featured image via the Canary

The United Nations (UN) has strengthened its language on Sudan. The international body said the foreign-backed war has a genocidal character. The move is welcome, but too late for the tens of thousands who’ve been murdered.

Genocidal intent

The three-year conflict between the Sudanese government, backed by Egypt and Turkey among other states, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), heavily reliant on arms from the UAE, has displaced and killed millions.

The RSF and allied militias are known for acting out their “racist Arab supremacist” ideology against non-Arab populations, murdered and ethnically cleansed from certain areas to maintain an Arab majority.

UN fact-finder Mona Rishmawi said on 18 February:

The body of evidence we collected — including the prolonged siege, starvation and denial of humanitarian assistance, followed by mass killings, rape, torture and enforced disappearance, systematic humiliation and perpetrators’ own declarations — leaves only one reasonable inference.

Rishmawi said:

The RSF acted with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Zaghawa and Fur communities in El-Fasher. These are the hallmarks of genocide.

The UN also launched a major humanitarian appeal to support the millions of Sudanese left starving and displaced by the ongoing war. It said that the:

Sudan Regional Refugee Response Plan (2026) aims to deliver lifesaving assistance this year to 5.9 million people across seven neighbouring countries: the Central African Republic, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, South Sudan and Uganda.

The plan will continue to prioritize aid for roughly 470,000 new refugees who are expected to cross into these countries, as well as thousands more who remain in border areas and have received only the most basic assistance.

El Fasher massacre

A report released by the UN on 19 February detailed the El Fasher massacre carried out by RSF in October 2025. The southern city was besieged by RSF for months. When it fell RSF massacred civilians wholesale.

The evidence gathered since:

Establishes that at least three underlying acts of genocide were committed: “killing members of a protected ethnic group; causing serious bodily and mental harm; and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction in whole or in part.”

Mohamed Chande Othman, chair of the mission, said:

The scale, coordination, and public endorsement of the operation by senior RSF leadership demonstrate that the crimes committed in and around El Fasher were not random excesses of war.

They formed part of a planned and organized operation that bears the defining characteristics of genocide.

As the Canary has previously reported, British military equipment has turned up in RSF hands.

The UK is a major supplier to the UAE. In turn, the UAE is supplying the RSF. The UAE is pursuing resources (not least, gold) and control in Sudan as part of its increasingly colonial regional aims. And you can read about Israel’s dangerously under-reported role in the war here.

International bodies have been slow to respond to the crisis in Sudan. They are finally admitting there is an active genocide in Sudan. And, just like in Gaza, the British are playing a role in the slaughter.

Featured image via the Canary

The sabotage outfit that put Keir Starmer into power, spied on journalists, and whose architect Morgan McSweeney recently resigned in disgrace from his role as the prime minister’s chief of staff, has spun the revolving door at Westminster once again. This time, a former director and senior staff member from the shady pressure group Labour Together have quietly wormed their way into the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

So now, its acolytes are in the prime position to shape this Labour Party government’s next callous plans for welfare claimants.

Labour Together grifters: now at the DWP

In December, Labour Together executive director Matthew Upton made like a reverse Ashworth running from constituent scrutiny and landed himself a new role at the DWP. There, he’s now ‘Principal Advisor’ to Alan Milburn’s stitch-up Young People and Work review.

The Canary previously highlighted Upton’s connection to investment (and former insurance) giant Aberdeen Group Plc. Upton was a trustee for its philanthropic research funding arm: arbdn Financial Fairness Trust. The now-defunct organisation financed a 2023 Fabian Society report that proposed a time-limited ‘unemployment insurance’ benefit. In reality though, it’s a trojan horse to do-away with new-style Employment Support Allowance (ESA). So naturally, the new Labour government has been all over the idea.

Upton also appeared next to the overpromoted Blair-era relic in a foreword for a September 2025 Labour Together briefing. Curiously, it was discussing the very same thing.

Hope the (revolving) door hits you on your way out…

Incidentally, that segues quite nicely to the next Labour Together grifter-come-dutiful-benefit-slashing-DWP-disciple. As of January, author of said report and Labour Together chief policy advisor Morgan Wild slid on over to his new position at Westminster. He’s now policy advisor to none other than current DWP benefit-reaper-in-chief himself: Pat McFadden.

Here’s what a New Statesman senior editor had to say about Wild’s appointment:

Spad news: Morgan Wild, Labour Together’s chief policy adviser, has become a policy adviser to Pat McFadden.

He’s a champion of the contributory principle, which will be a key feature of welfare reform. pic.twitter.com/NHk0WRN0QZ

Advertisement

— George Eaton (@georgeeaton) January 13, 2026

The ‘contributory principle’ holds that:

Our society only succeeds when people pay their taxes, care for their families and communities and are recognised for these contributions. Our economy only succeeds when people work, develop skills, take risks, and start businesses.

In other words, anyone who cannot work because of health issues, caring commitments, or any other reason is a workshy layabout who shouldn’t be supported to survive, but punished for existing.

In (not) unrelated news: the government’s recent so-called Fairer Pathway to Settlement consultation rattled off the words ‘contribution’ or ‘contribute’ no fewer than 72 times. Needless to say, the anti-immigration hostile environment is disgustingly alive and thriving at the racist DWP.

Guess who’s back?

And speaking of ex-Labour Together directors, Jonathan Ashworth was at the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) in Westminster – where it appears the washed-up former DWP sec now works as a senior fellow on “welfare, health, and addiction”.

Ashworth appeared in the Express recently, clamouring to be relevant and spouting trash about welfare ‘reform.’

He’s also claimed that disabled people are “being abandoned to health-related benefits”. He made the stigmatising remarks as part of the announcement for the CSJ’s Welfare 2030 enquiry launch.

Genius interpreter of the public mood and uncontestable political clairvoyant Ashworth is, he told the Express in early January:

I think Labour can turn this around, and I suspect, in a year’s time, if you come back to record me for a follow-up interview, I’ll bet you that Keir Starmer is still the Labour prime minister.

The previously tipped to-be Cabinet member will now be just a short hop and a skip away from Whitehall. Bang, smack in the heart of Westminster, the CSJ’s office is just a five minute walk from parliament.

So not only has Labour Together installed itself in the DWP, but it also has a former director positioned at a Tory-founded think tank that’s influencing the Labour government’s plans to decimate the welfare state.

Labour Together and the party of ‘work’

The intentions behind their appointments are obvious in the buzzword of the moment: ‘contribution’.

For his Welfare 2030 cameo, Ashworth was also crowing on about developing:

a system that values contribution, protects the most vulnerable, and helps thousands more people gain all of the advantages that come with work.

Chuck it alongside vitriol around ‘economic inactivity’ and you have a winning recipe for ripping into the welfare state.

The clear insinuation is that a person’s worth is tied to their productivity inside the capitalist system. What this really means in practice, is that disabled lives are expendable. The fact that ‘cuts kill’ is of little consequence to Labour Together and its devotees.

But as the Canary has previously pointed out, this eugenicist thinking is the corporate fascist wing of the Party’s MO.

Labour Together still shaping the agenda

Suffice to say that despite McSweeney’s departure from Number 10, Labour Together still has its claws in shaping this government’s brutal policy programme.

And Upton and Wild’s appointments wouldn’t be the first instance of the Labour right think tank driving the DWP’s austerity agenda.

As the Canary previously exposed, Labour Together and its donors funded nearly every single one of the ‘Get Britain Working’ group of Labour MPs. In March 2025, it sprung up to back Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall’s vicious disability benefit cuts.

The clincher that Labour Together has had its grimy mitts all over the DWP benefit cuts all along? As the Canary’s Steve Topple highlighted before, it was Morgan McSweeney who led ‘briefings’ in a bid to:

“win over” MPs for its package of atrocious austerity-driven cuts.

But ultimately, what it all underscores is how the Labour Together right-wing circus is still scattered right throughout this government. For all its smokescreen committees boasting disabled representation, these are the capitalist cronies this government is really listening to.

Because at the end of the day, this rotten ableist ‘party of work’ rhetoric has always been at the Labour right’s very core. Upton and Wild’s new high-profile advisory roles at the DWP show that’s not about to change.

Featured image via author

The Covid inquiry has highlighted how poor housing conditions led to a structural decline in mental health during the pandemic.

On Monday, 16 February 2026, the first hearing of the final module of the Covid inquiry took place. In total, there have been 10 modules, each focused on a different area of the pandemic response. Module 10 looked at ‘Impact on society’. This included the impact on vulnerable people, such as those experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity.

According to Kate Blackwell, counsel for the inquiry:

People’s housing situations had a profound impact on how they experienced the pandemic.

Of course, this was far worse in more deprived areas. Furthermore, it was:

disproportionately experienced by socio-economically disadvantaged and ethnic minority households.

Both groups were more likely to live in overcrowded or poor-quality housing.

Additionally, the inquiry linked overcrowding, poor housing, and housing insecurity to higher levels of psychological distress. All three are “known risk factors” for poor mental health.

But wasn’t that entirely predictable? From the start of the pandemic, the instructions were to stay at home. Obviously, anyone living in small, overcrowded or shitty conditions would suffer far more than those living in countryside mansions.

Poor management

The inquiry also highlighted how ‘Everyone In’ — a government scheme to get everyone who was sleeping rough off the streets in March 2020 — ended whilst the pandemic was still ongoing. Both the management of the scheme and its ending may have had an “adverse impact” on people experiencing homelessness.

Additionally, people who moved from street homelessness to Covid-secure accommodation had “divergent experiences”. Individuals found the transition from face-to-face to remote contact with support workers especially challenging.

Some groups had overlapping vulnerabilities, such as care leavers, victims of domestic abuse, those with mental health conditions or migrants. For these groups, the inequalities were “particularly pronounced”.

Underinvestment

A report published just before the inquiry also showed that the pandemic exposed the UK’s long-term underinvestment in social housing.

It highlighted how repairs in social housing slowed down or completely stopped during lockdowns, meaning the quality of housing declined significantly.

Issues such as damp and mould became more apparent when people were forced to stay at home. Of course, this further intensified both mental and physical health conditions.

The financial pressure from rising energy bills also made matters worse, especially for people living in poorly insulated homes.

The report also accuses some landlords of using the pandemic as an excuse to delay essential maintenance.

The final hearing of the inquiry is continuing this week, where the panel will hear about the impact of the pandemic response on other vulnerable groups.

Feature image via UK Covid-19 Inquiry