(Illustration by Tracy Worrall)

6 min read4 hr

Donald Trump says they are for “losers”, Kemi Badenoch thinks they are destroying jobs and Nigel Farage says he will put the whole lot in the bin.

But not every critic of the government’s commitment to decarbonise the UK’s electricity supply – heavily reliant on wind farms – is on the right. Tony Blair, or at least the institute that bears his name, is among those calling for a rethink.

In October, the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) issued a report calling on the government to “reform” its 2030 green power target – arguing that when the target was established it was “right for its time but circumstances have changed”.

Speaking to The House, TBI senior policy adviser on climate and energy policy Tone Langengen, who authored the report, says the Clean Power 2030 target “will not be met” and that it would be “damaging to try to meet it”.

“What the voters will care about the most is lower energy bills, and that is basically the way that you maintain consent for net-zero,” says Langengen.

“And secondly, the real challenge for the UK is not the supply side… The problem is the demand side. It is the electrification challenge.”

The Warm Homes Plan was, she says, “an important step in the right direction, because it’s starting to focus on how you actually electrify homes. But I am afraid that having a mission towards clean power, you could risk doing the opposite of lowering bills.”

The analyst adds that it is “more important that the transition is done right” and “where you bring the public along with you” instead of prioritising meeting the target as rapidly as possible.

The government has already watered down some pledges on green power, over concerns about achievability and desirability from the sector. Ahead of the 2024 election, Labour said it was committed to the 2030 target to phase out the sale of new, combustible vehicles in the UK. But the government has already made significant concessions in this area – with its election pledge on sticking to the phasing out of the sale of new combustible vehicles by 2030 partially abandoned.

In April, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander in a ministerial statement said: “In our manifesto, we promised to reimplement the phase-out of all new cars powered solely by internal combustion engines from 2030, restoring the certainty that has been sorely lacking. This response finalises that intention, confirming that from 2030 all new cars will need to be hybridised in some manner – or be zero emission. From 2035, all new cars and vans will be zero emission, and everything we do must now support manufacturers in reaching that end point.”

The UK is not alone in a shift on EVs, with the European Commission announcing a more substantial watering down of its electrical vehicles target than the UK. It declared in December that 90 per cent of new cars sold from 2035 would be required to be zero-emission – instead of 100 per cent.

Langengen is far from alone in her scepticism that the government will be able to meet its targets. Adam Berman, director of policy and advocacy at Energy UK, tells The House that while the clean power mission has “really focused minds within Whitehall” and “accelerated the pace” of the rollout of green infrastructure, it is unclear whether the 2030 target will be met – or should be met – from a practical perspective.

The 2030 target was always a political target – it wasn’t necessarily rooted in the engineering of the energy system

Advertisement

“We’ve got a hell of a lot further with the target than without the target, and it has meant they have removed blockages to planning and permitting,” Berman says.

“They have accelerated the pace of the rollout of generation infrastructure and network infrastructure. They have really put a lot of effort into moving faster than we ever would have otherwise – and so credit where credit is due there.

“I genuinely do think that there is a question as to what we do now; which is that the 2030 target was always a political target – it wasn’t necessarily rooted in the engineering of the energy system, or what was best for emissions. It was an eye-catching political target.”

Berman tells The House that “squeezing the last bit of gas out of the electricity system is probably less preferential than really focusing your energies on: how can you maximise the potential of a clean power we have now built?”.

“There is a moment now for the government to consider how can they pivot from really accelerating the ramp-up of clean power infrastructure – which they’ve done really well – to now prioritising thinking about how to actually use that infrastructure to decarbonise the rest of the economy and to bring bills down where they can,” says Berman.

Despite uncertainty about the achievability of the clean power target among stakeholders, a source close to Energy Secretary Ed Miliband tells The House the government remains committed to achieving clean power by 2030, pointing to decisions in planning and a recent successful renewable bidding auction as proof.

“We’re on track to clean power by 2030. We just had this massively successful offshore renewable auction last week where people expected us to get four or five gigawatts of power – we ended up getting eight,” they say.

“We’re massively going gangbusters on that, and at the same time something like two-thirds of all planning consents that have been made under this government have been made in Desnz [the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero].”

The source adds that while they accept the clean power by 2030 target is “very restricting”, the government is “confident” that it is on the right track to meet it.

“We feel that in the next year, you’ll begin to see projects being built because of planning decisions we’ve made and because of the procurements we’ve done that actually give us a really good chance of reaching the target,” they say.

“We’re really committed to it, we think that it’s the right thing to do, and we think we’re going to do it – and we’re feeling quite confident about it.”

A government spokesperson tells The House: “We are on track to deliver clean power by 2030, as shown by our recent record offshore wind auction, which secured enough clean energy to power the equivalent of over 12 million homes.

“Our clean power mission will protect household energy bills from volatile fossil fuel markets, drive clean energy investment and create thousands of jobs around the country.”

The more upbeat sentiment on reaching the targets is shared by Shaun Spiers, chief executive of Green Alliance, who tells The House it is important that the government remains committed to the 2030 clean power target.

“It seems to be pretty well on track, and the reason for going for it hasn’t changed: which was basically to drive energy security… lower costs in the long run, but also get us off the rollercoaster of dependence on fossil fuels,” says Spiers.

“With Donald Trump behaving so erratically, you really don’t want to be dependent on international gas prices – you don’t want to be dependent on imports of liquefied natural gas from the States. The quicker we can get to energy independence – clean power, energy independence – the better.” 

3 min read3 hr

A luxury we can only afford to improve if we achieve economic growth. A service for which we must make so-called “tough choices” and perhaps cut to make it more affordable.

I believe that this way of thinking is entirely back-to-front. Far from being a national luxury only afforded to a growing economy, our community mental health and social care services are key investments that create the very growth this government claims to seek. Paying to keep our people healthy is what saves us from the much greater costs of a society without quality healthcare for all.

When people get ill and need hospital treatment, we rightly focus on the personal impact that has on them and their family and the medical care they receive. But that can mean we overlook the impact on the wider community and the economy. When people become unwell over the long term, that means they can fall out of the workforce, they can struggle to pay bills, rent or their mortgage. They may come to rely on family members or state support to get by. It may have a knock-on effect and require families to reduce their hours or leave paid employment in order to provide care work to their loved one.

Without adequate support, what might have been a small or short-term financial difficulty for a family can escalate into major economic harm.

In Winchester, we’ve seen how much difference it makes when we join the dots properly. At Melbury Lodge, our local mental health hospital run by Hampshire & Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, staff work in partnership with Citizens Advice Winchester District to help inpatients manage their finances and practical affairs while they’re still in hospital. That means when someone is finally well enough to be discharged, they don’t go home to a pile of unopened bills, eviction notices or court letters they were in no state to deal with.

The project has now helped around 600 people across Hampshire, preparing them for life in the community, free from the stressors that had been impacting their mental health. The main advice areas were around finance and housing, but the holistic service provided by Citizens Advice meant people could address a wide range of issues affecting their lives.

The research on this project found that for every £1 spent, around £14 was saved for the hospital Trust largely from shorter lengths of stay, fewer readmissions, reduced medication and better engagement in community services. With this incredible return on investment, a service like this should stop being thought of as a luxury that would be unaffordable to fund publicly. It’s smart, evidence-driven policy that also treats people like human beings – and provides good value for public finances.

This government has been desperate to find economic growth under the difficult economic circumstances left to them by the Conservatives – limiting their ability to spend or borrow.

That’s why I believe we need to boost ‘Spend to Save’ solutions just like this, which both generate a strong economic return for the economy and do so while following a more affordable cost path than the alternative of allowing people to fall further into debt and economic hardship.

Debt and in-work poverty ruins lives. It saps the joy from life, puts strain on relationships, and contributes towards our growing economic and mental health crises. But by supporting initiatives like this across the country, we can begin to tackle both crises together.

(Alamy)

3 min read2 hr

Essential safety repairs are unavoidable.

But Parliament is now being steered towards something very different: a vast, expanding and insufficiently scrutinised programme that could cost tens of billions of pounds — with no credible guarantee of cost control, no clear line of delivery authority and no meaningful parliamentary grip on the process.

The first problem is scrutiny — or rather, the lack of it. Parliament may soon be asked to authorise up to £3bn in preparatory spending over seven years. That sum excludes VAT and inflation. It will be presented through a single vote in each House shortly after publication of a long, complex and technical report. There will be limited time for Members to digest it.

And, at a time when money is short, it is an order of magnitude more than the public might expect. It threatens to make this project another HS2.

Families are under sustained financial pressure thanks to Labour’s mismanagement and public services face real constraints. In this context, a programme of this magnitude demands rigorous scrutiny, firm cost discipline and clear prioritisation. Those standards are not currently being met.

If this were ordinary government expenditure, ministers would be at the dispatch box. Officials would appear before committees. There would be sequenced scrutiny and democratic accountability. None of that applies here. Internal boards meet in private. Hundreds of millions of pounds are already spent annually with relatively little public visibility. Parliament is being asked to approve one of the largest capital programmes in British history through a process that would not pass muster anywhere else.

Secondly, cost. The underlying options currently favoured could cost as much as £39bn. The report itself acknowledges design immaturity, uncertainty and inflationary drift. Anyone with experience of major public works will know what that language implies.

Past experience does not inspire confidence. Portcullis House ran substantially over budget and now suffers from serious defects less than 25 years after completion.

Yet taxpayers are now being asked to fund a programme several orders of magnitude larger. Where, exactly, is the credible delivery authority capable of imposing discipline at this scale?

The governance proposals are themselves revealing. The report suggests that roles and responsibilities across the various bodies involved should be clarified — but only after Phase One is approved. It also floats the creation of an additional management board alongside the two already in place. That is a recipe for failure.

Third, there is mission creep. What began as a safety-led intervention increasingly resembles a radical transformation. That is how large public projects lose focus and taxpayers lose control.

Finally, the choice being presented is misleading. The two preferred options presented by the Client Board are not simply technical alternatives. One of them, the “full decant” proposal, would remove Parliament from the Palace for more than a decade, sharply curtail public access and great ceremonial occasions such as the State Opening and fundamentally disrupt centuries of continuity. That is not a marginal operational adjustment; it is a constitutional rupture. It underlines how decisions over restoration cannot be reduced to technocratic issues.

The danger is clear. And the result could be a loss of confidence in Parliament itself.

There is a better path. Begin with urgent, defined safety works. Move to phased renewal. Authorise spending incrementally. Impose hard cost ceilings. Establish a clear and accountable delivery structure working through named individuals before, not after, committing new capital.

The Palace of Westminster belongs to the British people, and they deserve better than these proposals.

Jesse Norman is the shadow leader of the House of Commons and Conservative MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire

According to a recent academic study, the Israeli onslaught on the Gaza Strip does not stop at mass murder and the destruction of infrastructure, but extends – according to American researcher Henry A. Giroux – to the systematic targeting of education, culture, collective memory and Palestinian identity.

In his study entitled “Scholasticide: Waging War on Education from Gaza to the West,‘ published in the Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies, Giroux proposes the concept of ’scholasticide” as an analytical framework for understanding war as a structural project that is not limited to physical destruction, but also targets the intellectual and cultural foundations of Palestinian society.

Israel is targeting the conditions for survival in Gaza

The study argues that military operations are not isolated events or incidental consequences of the conflict, but part of an integrated process that strikes at the conditions for the survival of society, including the institutions that produce and transmit knowledge: schools, universities, libraries, museums, and cultural centres.

Giroux writes:

War crimes do more than destroy bodies; they erode morality, memories, and the deeply rooted habits of public consciousness. The brutality of Israel’s military actions in Gaza is painfully evident in the images of children’s bodies, torn apart amidst bombed mosques, hospitals, and schools.

His work ties the destruction of Gaza – in all its many facets – with the broader aim of Israel normalising such destruction. That normalisation comes in the form of arrests, house demolitions, widespread bombing and the targeting of civilian facilities, including schools and hospitals, are presented, according to his analysis, as routine measures or security necessities, creating a cultural and ethical climate that accepts and reproduces oppression.

He also points out that any attempt to document violations or legally characterise them as war crimes is met with smear campaigns and ready-made accusations, which negatively affects freedom of expression, especially in the academic sphere:

The ideological assault on free speech and academic freedom lays the groundwork for the physical destruction of institutions essential to critical education as a practice of freedom and liberation

Figures reveal the extent of educational losses

The study is based on UN and human rights reports that point to widespread destruction in the education sector, including:

• A large proportion of schools in the Gaza Strip have been damaged.
• All universities in the Strip have been bombed or vandalised, resulting in the suspension of studies for tens of thousands of students.
• Large numbers of students, teachers and university professors have been killed or injured.

Giroux believes that these facts cannot be interpreted as collateral damage, but rather as part of a policy that effectively undermines the knowledge structure of society and threatens its ability to recover.

Definition of ‘cultural genocide’

Giroux defines cultural genocide as the systematic destruction of education, culture and intellectual infrastructure with the aim of erasing collective memory and preventing society from producing and transmitting knowledge. This process includes:

• The destruction of educational institutions, archives and libraries.
• Killing or displacing teachers and intellectuals.
• Targeting cultural and historical sites.

He adds that this pattern is not limited to the Palestinian context, but extends, according to his analysis, to universities in the United States and Europe, where controversy over freedom of expression and the punishment of academics and students for their political positions is growing, reflecting, in his view, a broader crisis in the independence of education.

Focus on children

The study pays particular attention to children, arguing that depriving them of education in the aftermath of war has profound psychological and social consequences. Giroux describes this impact as ‘slow violence’ because it does not immediately manifest itself in images of destruction, but leaves long-lasting scars on the fabric of society and its hope for the future.

The study also addresses the relationship between some Israeli universities and the military establishment and security industries, arguing that this entanglement contributes to the transformation of knowledge into a tool that serves the military system and influences the nature of the academic discourse produced about the conflict.

A global test of the meaning of education

Giroux concludes that what is happening in Gaza is no longer a local issue, but has become a global test of the value of education and human rights. When schools are targeted and the right to education is undermined, the question becomes broader than geography: what is the meaning of justice if the very conditions of knowledge are destroyed?

He emphasises that defending education and freedom of research is not a narrow political position, but a moral obligation to protect the future of societies, warning that silence on the destruction of knowledge could open the door to a world reshaped on the foundations of oppression and ignorance rather than justice and human dignity.

Featured image via the Canary

The neoliberal system leaves 40 percent of Britons with less than £25 at the end of each week, a survey by the Cost of Living Action (COLA) group has found. This is pittance and unlikely to stretch far under the cost of living crisis, where even employed people are finding themselves out of pocket.

Manufactured cost of living crisis

Privatised essentials like energy and extractive supermarket chains are driving the cost of living crisis. British Energy companies alone have accrued £125 billion since 2020, according to the End Fuel Poverty Coalition.

Meanwhile, profits for the German-owned supermarket, Lidl, rose by 297% since 2021. As for Aldi, its operating profit has risen by 50% and 72% since 2020.

While costs have increased due to climate change and other factors, supermarkets are using these  pressures to break even but to fatten profit margins — otherwise known as ‘greedflation’.

In other words, the fuel feeding the cost of living fire is the ‘privatisation tax’ on common essentials — not a natural disaster but a manmade problem.

Public ownership

A publicly owned Green New Deal could tackle the cost of energy. Just 1.2% of the Sahara Desert would be necessary to power the entire world’s energy needs. Solar is gradually replacing oil because of cheaper costs. It does not appear to be happening fast enough to mitigate climate catastrophe.

Plus, energy is an essential service that would be cheaper under public ownership.

What’s more, non-profit supermarkets could dramatically lower the cost of food and alleviate the pinch for ordinary Brits.

Holistic approach

Speaking about the latest survey, Labour MP Yuan Yang, co-convenor of the Living Standards Coalition, articulated the need for a holistic (all hands to the pump) approach.

The Cost of Living Action campaign has identified a critical challenge for those of us in Westminster to grapple with: that we need a holistic approach in order to create growth while tackling the cost of living crisis. As their campaign has correctly identified, this approach requires increasing incomes, reducing costs, and fairer taxation.

Conor O’Shea, campaign coordinator of COLA, spoke of the grating impact of these inflationary pressures on British society.

Millions of people are struggling with sky-high costs, and left in debt or with next to nothing left after paying bills each month. It’s no wonder people are feeling so worried and angry. The government must deliver transformational change that truly responds to the scale of the crisis. That means making the essentials affordable for everyone, ensuring everyone has access to the income they need to live well, and rebalancing the tax system with more and better taxes on wealth.

If these issues are not tackled at the root, Brits will have to tighten their belts — as if they haven’t done exactly that over the past decade.

Featured image via Unsplash/the Canary 

Strikes by more than 200 Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) workers have ended with a pay victory, trade union Unite has announced.

The workers, who undertake vital roles including ticketing, passenger assistance and information services for the bus network, voted to accept the deal following intensive negotiations.

Pay rises across the board

The deal includes a pay uplift of at least 3.2 per cent backdated to April 2025 for all staff, plus a non-consolidated payment of up to £1,000. Workers on lower bands will see pay rise to at least £15.10 an hour. This will result in wage increases of between 6.4 and 11.1 per cent.

Pay for all staff will increase again from April 2026 by at least three per cent.

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said:

A huge well done to Unite’s members at TfGM. They know that collective action works and by standing together and taking strike action they achieved this excellent pay deal.

This is yet another example of Unite’s unrelenting focus on improving jobs, pay and conditions paying dividends for our members.

The deal also sees increases in standby payments, shift pattern improvements and new union recognition and facility time agreements. ‘Facility time’ is where staff get paid time away from their normal role to carry out union work.

The workers began striking in October 2025 and took 18 days of industrial action in total.

Unite regional officer Samantha Marshall said:

This deal could not have been achieved without the hard work and dedication of our reps and members. As this result shows, those wanting better wages and working conditions should join Unite and get their colleagues to join as well.

Featured image via the Canary

Nigel Farage announced the Reform UK shadow cabinet today, with former Tories taking front and centre. This is despite the fact that Reform UK has just eight MPs, so is in no need of a shadow cabinet.

As the racist party are not the official opposition, so they don’t get to name a shadow cabinet. But, why would the facts stop Farage? At a flashy event reminiscent of an American election campaign, Farage announced the first members of his “shadow cabinet”.

New Tory cabinet for Reform

And surprise, surprise, it’s full of Tories

Robert Jenrick has been named as their shadow chancellor. Jenrick defected from the Tory party last month and has stolen the role from both Richard Tice and Zia Yusuf.

Jenrick, who lost the Tory leadership to its current leader, Kemi Badenoch, is expected to give a speech outlining his economic plan sometime this week. By that point, he might’ve actually come up with one.

The most recent Tory defector, Suella Braverman, will take on more than one role. As well as education and skills, she will also handle equalities. Though this is Reform, so that means she’ll be hellbent on destroying any sort of equality. Namely, she wants to get rid of the Equality Act.

Richard Tice isn’t too glum about being sidelined as Chancellor. As well as deputy leader, he’ll now be ‘in charge of’ (and we use that term loosely) business, trade, and energy. His biggest focus is on getting rid of net-zero targets to focus on oil and gas.

And then finally, we have Zia Yusuf as Reform’s ‘home secretary’. Again, there’s a heavy use of quotation marks here, because they aren’t the shadow cabinet or opposition.

Definitely not a one-man band

One person noticeably missing was Reform laughing stock Lee Anderson. Ol’ 30p will apparently remain as “chief whip”, but it’s interesting he wasn’t announced for a welfare role when he’s apparently been their “welfare spokesperson” for months now.

Presumably it’s because he can’t so much as move without making a fool of himself. Most recently, he was mocked for campaigning in the wrong place,

As well as no DWP “shadow” minister, there was no health secretary announced. This surely shows what Reform’s priorities are. You can only assume this is because Reform are so snugly in private healthcare’s pockets.

Farage said a big reason for naming a “cabinet” was so the world didn’t see Reform as a “one man band”. Which would be more believable if he wasn’t constantly fucking everywhere. But then it’s not like he’s got many people to sub in is it?

Despite apparently not wanting to be the star of the show, Farage announced each member of his cabinet in the centre of a big stand at a podium. Instead of letting them speak at his podium, they all had their own smaller podiums. These were also, naturally, slightly further back.

Reform are not to be taken seriously

The naming of Reform’s shadow cabinet confused a lot of people, but probably none more so than 30p Lee Anderson. Just three weeks ago, Anderson rebuffed rumours of an almost correctly predicted shadow cabinet.

When a Tory, Luke Robert Black, remarked that this was “savage” towards Anderson, he replied

Thicko alert. We cannot possibly have a shadow cabinet, we have spokespersons. I was made DWP Spokesperson last year. Carry on being a useful idiot for the Tory party, but you won’t get that safe seat you want. They’re laughing at you.

This tweet is currently still up, but let’s see how long it lasts. Instead of addressing this, Anderson tweeted this afternoon that the new cabinet was “the Beginnings of a World Class Team.”

This latest announcement from Reform UK is just the latest in the long line of them assuming they have any sort of authority or power in Westminster.

More than anything, it shows how entitled they all are. But to the country it’s just another silly stunt by Farage, and even more reason to not take Reform seriously.

Featured image via the Canary