Shadow Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) boss Helen Whately couldn’t help but get in the Tories’ punches on disabled people. On Tuesday 24 March, the latest DWP wet wipe (in a long line of DWP wet wipes) took to GB News to shit on those claiming Personal Independence Payment (PIP):

Government could save £2bn by bringing back face-to-face PIP assessments.

Ministers say they’re doing that, but the numbers tell a different story. So do the empty assessment centres.

Time to get a grip of the benefits bill. pic.twitter.com/ANMZWDBzAv

— Helen Whately MP (@Helen_Whately) March 23, 2026

Advertisement

The main thrust was that disabled people doing PIP assessments over the phone are just ‘faking it’, because of course it was.

DWP PIP: Whately on a warpath over remote assessments

Whately was referring to an ‘analysis’ the Tories hyped up in shitrag the Sun. Supposedly, this found that:

when a person is assessed face-to-face for PIP, 44 per cent end up getting the benefit.

But when it is done remotely the rate is far higher at 57 per cent.

Of course, the article is sparse on the actual detail of quite how the Tories came to these numbers. However, it does seem to chime with figures DWP minister Stephen Timms previously put out via an answer to a parliamentary written question.

Regardless, the analysis doesn’t actually prove what Whately wants it to. It went on to claim that:

It has led to an extra 259,000 successful claims a year on average — equal to a higher annual welfare bill of £1.8billion.

That remote assessments have higher success rates doesn’t evidence that people are “gaming the system” as she suggested. More likely, what it shows is that when disabled people are given assessments appropriate to their health circumstances, they’re better able to articulate their lived realities and resulting needs.

The fact is, the latest DWP statistics show that 65% of PIP decisions cleared at tribunal between October 2020 and September 2025 were overturned in the applicants’ favour. The DWP has also changed its decision and awarded PIP to 20% of people who made an appeal. In other words, the DWP is wrongly refusing PIP to disabled people who are eligible for it.

And disabled folks who’ve applied for PIP report plenty of terrible experiences with assessors.

The PIP assessment is not easy. People who should get it, don’t. The assessment is long and gruelling, and regularly degrading.

The analysis’s £1.8m savings claim is total nonsense — because there’s no proof those 259,000 people weren’t eligible.

But naturally, Whately and her colleagues — who aren’t medically trained — want to decide who’s ‘deserving’ and ‘disabled enough’ to get support.

Face-to-face assessments unsafe and inaccessible

Hilariously, DWP boss Pat McFadden and DWP minister Torsten Bell were both scoring political points on X:

The Tories reduced face to face appointments to almost zero when in power.

They then agreed new contracts embedding the reduction just months before the election.

Now they attack their own record and legacy while we sort out what they left behind. https://t.co/zYsCWfieMG

— Pat McFadden (@patmcfaddenmp) March 23, 2026

Sigh. Absolutely no shame. Of course it was the Tories that:
– dialled down face to face assessments
– signed contracts with providers to embed that decision post-covid
– now assume journalists won’t bother asking them basic questions when they attack their own record https://t.co/TQ2BIiBRCH

— Torsten Bell (@TorstenBell) March 23, 2026

Advertisement

Of course, both were evidently loathe to mention that the former Conservative government brought in this shift to remote assessments because of the deadly COVID-19 pandemic. A pandemic where repeated government mismanagement forced clinically vulnerable disabled people to ‘shield’ in lockdown long after their non-disabled peers.

A pandemic in which disabled people were up to 3 times more likely to die. In the early months of the pandemic, learning disabled people were 30 times more likely to die from it.

Props to the Tories for forgetting again that clinically vulnerable disabled people exist. Forcing face-to-face appointments will put many disabled people at risk. And this would also be a barrier for many disabled and chronically ill folks who either simply can’t travel to appointments, or risk worsening their health by doing so:

Disgusting. It can be difficult for people to travel to assessments, axing phone interviews will just mean people who genuinely need help will be unable to get it… and the face-to-face meetings are NOT more accurate, as I have experienced. The DWP needs major change now.

— Andrew Fisher (@merman1974) March 23, 2026

Advertisement

PIP success rates have plummeted

The rate of DWP approving applications for PIP has also actually plummeted:

Since face to face assessments have moved to mainly virtual ones, the success rate for PIP applications has plummeted from 52% to 35%. The idea that it is making it easier for “fakers” is so inaccurate and widespread that I have lost 3 stone from eye rolling alone. https://t.co/qfJHWInZJ7

— Spin Decoders (@leith1076) March 23, 2026

Specifically, successful awards sat at 55% in 2018-19 and decreased slightly to an average of 52% the following financial year.

By comparison, as Benefits and Work recently reported, this rate has continued to drop. For the quarter ending January 2026, the DWP approved just 35% of new claims. This was down from 43% the same quarter last year. In other words, a little over one in three applicants are actually getting awards of PIP. It’s also a decrease from the previous quarter that saw success rates reach just 38% (also a fall from 44% Q3 in 2024).

So contrary to the Tories’ rhetoric, no, the DWP isn’t handing out PIP more readily since the former Tory government implemented remote assessments.

DWP — more people should get PIP anyway

But why would Whately and co. let facts get in the way of a good vilifying soundbite?

When Whately bandies about her dubious figures, it’s the number of people claiming PIP she’s attacking. And of course, in this context, it’s easy to spin that PIP claims are spiralling. Because quite simply, more people are indeed applying for it.

It’s not rocket science to recognise that off the back of a disabling pandemic, more people will in fact be disabled.

What’s more, it’s also a good thing more disabled people are actually applying for it. As the Canary’s Rachel Charlton-Dailey recently highlighted:

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.

Instead then, it’s the above proportion figures that matter. Let’s not forget that PIP is to level the playing field for disabled people. It helps with the extra £1,095 a month costs disabled people incur.

However, the Tories would still have you believe it’s bullshit about the “bloated benefits bill”.

It didn’t go unnoticed either that Whately was banging on about this days after the Labour government announced its call for evidence for the Timms Review.

Ironically, the review should address all the above issues with the assessment system. As the Canary pointed out however, this is already shaping up to be a monumental stitch-up.

The simple fact of the matter is that to politicians on both sides of the House, disabled people are a convenient scapegoat to justify their austerity agendas. While these cronies of corporate capitalism run this country, disabled lives will only ever be a political football to kick to the sidelines.

Featured image via the Canary

UEFA has made its decision on the lists of teams participating in the Champions League. It rejected a proposal submitted by English clubs to increase the number of players to 28 players starting next season. Instead, UEFA preferred to maintain the current system that limits the list to 25 players.

According to the Guardian, the decision came after discussions witnessed by the Club Competitions Committee. However, these discussions did not succeed in reaching a consensus. This lack of agreement led to the proposal being excluded from the agenda of the next Executive Committee. This meeting is scheduled before the European League final in Istanbul on May 20.

UEFA tackle English demands and Spanish concerns

English Premier League clubs have pushed to expand the rosters, in light of the increasing number of matches as a result of the new tournament system. They consider that increasing the number of players is necessary. The main goal is to protect teams from injuries and increasing fatigue.

In contrast, prominent Spanish clubs, led by Atletico Madrid, Sevilla, and Real Sociedad, led the rejection front. They were motivated by concerns about devoting financial superiority to English clubs. Furthermore, they feared giving them an additional advantage by having deeper and more powerful rosters.

These concerns were clearly reflected this season, after all six English clubs succeeded in reaching the round of 16. However, only Arsenal and Liverpool continued their journey to the quarter-finals.

New system increases stress

This controversy comes amid changes to the Champions League system. There is now the adoption of a new format comprising 36 teams in the league stage, which has led to an increase in the number of matches.

Teams are now required to play at least two additional matches. There is also the possibility of playing two additional matches in the January playoff for teams that do not occupy the top eight places. As a result, this has doubled the physical pressure on the players.

The file was postponed and not closed

Although the proposal is currently rejected, the Guardian reported that the file has not been closed permanently. Available data indicates the possibility of re-offering it before the 2027-2028 season. This would coincide with the launch of a new cycle for television broadcasting rights.

Between English demands driven by the pressure of matches, and European reservations that fear an imbalance, UEFA remains committed to the status quo. For now, it is awaiting a moment of consensus that may reopen the discussion again.

Featured image via the Canary

The 2026 World Cup ticket dispute has escalated into legal action after the Football Supporters’ Association of Europe (FSE), in collaboration with Euroconsumers, filed an official complaint with the European Commission against FIFA, accusing it of abusing its monopoly position in ticket sales.

According to the official statement issued by the two organizations, the complaint was filed on March 24, 2026, in Brussels, Belgium, marking the first time such a large-scale action has been taken against FIFA at the level of the European Union institutions. The group said:

The cheapest openly available final tickets now start at $4,185 – more than seven times the cost of the cheapest 2022 World Cup final ticket. Last month FIFA president Gianni Infantino also defended the use of surge pricing at the tournament.

FIFA dabble in ‘dynamic pricing’

The complaint also focused on the adoption of a “dynamic pricing” system, which allows prices to change according to demand. The organisations concerned considered this a violation of the principle of transparency and an infringement on consumer rights.

The complaint also included sharp criticism of the ticketing mechanisms, pointing to ambiguity in essential details such as seat locations and team identities, as well as accusations of using pressured sales tactics and imposing fees of up to 15% on resale tickets.

Both parties also raised the issue of promoting low-priced tickets ($60) for group stage matches, asserting that these tickets were not actually available to the public when sales opened.

The crisis began in December 2025 when a supporters’ association criticized FIFA’s pricing policies in statements reported by European media outlets. The issue later escalated into formal legal action supported by consumer protection organizations.

Clear demands for European Commission

The complaint called on the European Commission to intervene and compel FIFA to:

• Halt the dynamic pricing system
• Fix prices at previously announced levels
• Publish the number of remaining tickets for each category before the next sales phases

This move presents FIFA with a new legal test in Europe, at a time of increasing public and media pressure, which could pave the way for fundamental changes in the ticketing mechanism for the world’s biggest football event.

Featured image via the Canary

Labour’s answer to the energy crisis, spurred on by the war on Iran, is to subsidise the profits of fossil fuel companies. According to the Times, only households on benefits will receive the money that helps prop up energy companies.

Instead, Labour should bring energy into public ownership, while transitioning to a Green New Deal to address not only the climate crisis, but volatile international markets and sky high costs, in one fell swoop.

Corporate stranglehold

While energy is privatised, companies have a stranglehold on individuals in our society. The free market is supposed to be about an individual choice, but everyone needs energy so there is no choice but to purchase it from a provider. Households and businesses’ costs may deviate across companies, but publicly owned energy could provide the absolute cheapest through wholesaling renewables for the entire country.

Labour has so far announced a £53 million support package for “vulnerable” households who use heated oil.

Labour — welfare for large companies

Again, the market is supposed to be ‘free’, yet corporations receive huge benefits from the government. 22% of The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers receive universal credit (UC). That means the public purse is significantly subsidising the profits of companies like Tesco, which makes £6,150 of profit per employee.

Direct subsidies is another way the public purse delivers corporate welfare. The government is providing £2.5bn to the steel industry this parliament, without taking a stake in steel companies that would provide public monetary benefit.

This is a continuation of the Conservative agenda. In the 2023/24 year, some of the government’s subsidies to corporations amounted to a whopping £32bn. The year before, they were £53bn because gas inflation not only increased bills but also the government increased corporate handouts to profiteering fossil fuel companies. And now Starmer has announced a further £22bn bung to the fossil fuel sector for carbon capture projects that don’t work.

Government intervention appears to be focused on benefiting corporations, rather than the whole of society.

Featured image via the Canary

UNISON members at Ash Field Academy, a SEND school in Evington, Leicester, have voted overwhelmingly to take strike action to demand the reinstatement of their elected representative, Tom Barker.

In a formal industrial action ballot which closed on 18 March, 87% of voting members supported strike action. This is due to the suspension of Barker, their workplace steward, who has been suspended since October 2025, and the attack this represents on their trade union rights. The turnout easily cleared the legal 50% participation threshold.

For more than four months, UNISON’s Leicester City branch has been campaigning for Barker’s reinstatement. Discovery Schools Academy Trust (DSAT), the multi-academy trust which runs the school, claims it’s still investigating his case. Although DSAT has changed the allegations it claims to be investigating since the initial suspension.

More than 400 trade unionists, including UNISON’s new general secretary Andrea Egan and MP Zarah Sultana, have signed an open letter demanding Barker’s reinstatement.

Background to Barker’s suspension

During the 2024/25 academic year, UNISON, which represents the vast majority of Ash Field’s support staff, repeatedly raised concerns relating to health and safety. This situation worsened when DSAT, despite UNISON’s strenuous objections, cut several further staff via a hugely rushed redundancy process. UNISON members voted for strike action over the staffing situation, with that ballot closing on 20 October 2025.

On 30 October, DSAT leaders suspended Barker from his duties, citing allegations against him. Originally they said that the suspension was due to an incident that allegedly took place on 29 October. However, Barker obtained emails via a Subject Access Request. And these showed that, as far back as December, the independent investigating officer had reported that there was no case to answer and recommended lifting the suspension. But DSAT failed to act on this.

Many UNISON members at Ash Field signed a statement describing his suspension as “a bad-faith attack on…. UNISON members” and a “reprisal for [members] voting for industrial action”.

On 12 January 2026, DSAT leaders asserted that Barker’s suspension was to protect the integrity of an investigation into a grievance. This investigation concluded in February, yet DSAT didn’t reinstate Barker.

The external investigators into the two previous allegations found no case to answer. But the trust has since appointed a new investigator from a separate organisation to investigate again. And Barker, after 4 months out of work, has been resuspended.

UNISON Leicester City continues to call for Barker’s reinstatement, and for DSAT to cease this union-busting activity. Sam Randfield, UNISON Leicester City’s branch secretary, stated at a public meeting in February:

It was clear at the time of the suspension, and it is even clearer today, that this was an act of bad faith towards UNISON and Tom himself. The case against Tom is practically non-existent. There is no reason to keep him suspended for this long.

What has happened to Tom is appalling, and is as clear a case of trade union victimisation as I have ever seen. In voting for strike action so overwhelmingly, our members have made a clear statement that they will not tolerate union-busting in their workplace.

There is a quick and easy way for DSAT to end this dispute and avoid strike action. They simply need to lift Tom’s suspension and reinstate him to duty. That is the one and only demand our members are making.

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

The Save Bristol Gardens Alliance gathered to protest outside Acorn Property Group’s offices in Clifton on 25 March.

Ever since the closure of Bristol Zoo in September 2022, campaigners have been opposing the site’s planned redevelopment.

The Alliance wants see the gardens preserved as “a site of huge cultural, historical and environmental importance with many listed buildings.”

Acorn Property Group

Although the sale of the former Bristol Zoo has not yet gone through, Acorn have nonetheless started clearing bushes and felling trees.

Campaigners are concerned about Acorn’s track record, and have written to the Bristol Zoological Society (BZS) repeatedly to raise their objections.

A spokesperson for Save Bristol Gardens Alliance said:

Acorn Property Group is a wholly unsuitable developer for the Zoo Gardens site, and it seems clear that BZS Trustees have failed to complete independent due diligence on Acorn.

Our concerns relate directly to the reputation, financial resilience, track record, and funding model of Acorn, as well as to the likelihood of Acorn not delivering on its agreement with BZS, the development itself or indeed any of the so-called ‘public benefits’.

Given the site’s importance to the local area, campaigners are also disappointed in the lack of transparency surrounding the planned redevelopment. The spokesperson continued:

Trustees are required to demonstrate that they have properly scrutinised risk, applied independent judgement and operated transparently – particularly in relation to decisions of this scale and sensitivity.

Given the significance of the decision and the level of public interest the people of Bristol are entitled to expect transparent decision making. It is not enough just to delegate due diligence to Savills, who of course act for Acorn in respect of a number of other developments.

So far, the Society “have declined to answer a single point” the Alliance has raised. They are now urging the BZS “to address these concerns fully and transparently before any contractual commitment is completed.”

They argue that the BZS “risks making a reckless decision, which could be catastrophic for trustee reputations, BZS’s reputation and, of course, for a treasured part of Bristol’s heritage.”

More protests to come

The protest on 25 March was the third – and largest – protest to take place outside Acorn’s offices in recent weeks. 50 members of the Save Bristol Gardens Alliance first gathered there on 11 March.

The Alliance plans to keep demonstrating outside Acorn’s offices, meeting every Wednesday at 12:30.

A newly discovered documentary film provides an extraordinary first-hand account of the General Strike of 1926. And it shows how close many of the strikers thought it brought them to a revolution.

This historic documentary, The General Strike – A Revolution Betrayed?, made in the early 1970s, was unearthed in the archive of radical filmmaker Platform Films.

Norman Thomas of Platform Films says that the power of the 70 minute film lies in its extensive use of first hand testimony of strikers and strikers’ relatives.

Thomas said:

This is the General Strike of 1926 as told by the people who actually lived through it. The film vividly illustrates how the strike was opposed by the full force of the British establishment but how close the strikers felt they came to success.

He added:

Many strikers believed they were on the verge of a revolution – a revolution that only failed because they were betrayed by union leaders.

It’s been a hundred years since workers across the country come out in support of over a million miners locked out of work for refusing to accept lower pay. Thomas claims the film contains vital lessons for present day trade unionists.

He said:

The film highlights the importance of rank and file solidarity across industries, highly disciplined grassroots organisation – and a deep distrust of union leaders!

The film also provides a unique insight into the human impact of the General Strike – an aspect, Thomas argues, that’s had too little coverage.

He said:

The film shows how people came out of the strike devastated. Whole communities were in pieces. The failure of the strike was a hugely traumatic event.

And Thomas added:

Watching the film, you get a real sense of how close the strike came to success. If it had succeeded, the strike would have undoubtedly changed the course of British history.

Award-winning radical filmmaker Platform Films has made the documentary available for screenings and viewings. You can get a copy of the film on memory stick, DVD or via an online link. The cost to institutions, including trades union councils, is £60. For individuals and union branches the cost is £20. There is no additional charge for screening the film publicly but donations are welcome. Email [email protected] for more details.

Watch a trailer of the film on YouTube.

Featured image via Platform Films

British Medical Association (BMA) staff have set further strike dates for Monday 6 and Tuesday 7 April. These will coincide with the start of the six-day resident doctors’ strike on 7 April.

The first round of BMA strikes kicks off this week, on Friday 27 and Saturday 28 March.

Like the resident doctors, BMA staff are in dispute with their employer over years of sub-inflationary pay awards, which have seen staff pay eroded by almost 17%.

The BMA’s most recent pay offer to its staff of 2.75% is lower than the latest doctors’ and dentists’ pay review body recommendation of 3.5% to resident doctors. The BMA described that as a “crushing blow” to doctors.

Hundreds of staff, who are represented by GMB Union, recently voted 96% to strike on an 80% turnout.

Many doctor BMA members have shared public messages of solidarity with the staff.

Gavin Davies, GMB senior organiser, said:

These strikes have laid bare the BMA’s ongoing hypocrisy. Our members want to focus on doing what they do best: supporting their members at work.

But just like the resident doctors they support, they cannot continue to accept another year of pay erosion while the cost of living continues to spiral.

Advertisement

We are urging the BMA to come back to the table with a constructive offer that recognises our members’ value.

Picket details for BMA staff strikes on Friday 27 March:

• London 8am-2pm: BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JP.
• Belfast 11am: BMA Northern Ireland, Urban HQ, Eagle Star House, 5-7 Upper Queen Street, Belfast, BT1 6FB.
• Cardiff 10am-12pm: BMA Cymru Wales, 2 Caspian Point, Caspian Way, Cardiff Bay, Cardiff, CF10 4DQ.
• Edinburgh 10.30am-12pm: BMA Scotland, 14 Queen Street, Edinburgh EH2 1LL.

Featured image via the Canary

The executives behind 5’s new drama about Huw Edwards have opened up about the show’s surreal final moments.

Power: The Downfall Of Huw Edwards aired on Tuesday night, starring Martin Clunes as the disgraced former BBC News presenter.

While the feature-length drama opened with a recreation of Edwards announcing the news of Queen Elizabeth II’s death to the nation, in what was intended to serve as a reminder of the position of authority he held before he became embroiled in scandal, it ended with an imagined news broadcast featuring him reporting on his own fall from grace.

On Tuesday, Variety published an interview with 5 commissioners Guy Davies in which they reflected on how these book-end scenes came to be.

Testar said the opening sequence highlighted that “there is no more trusted emblem of the establishment in our society than the person who’s given the responsibility of telling the public that the Queen had died”.

Davies agreed: “[Edwards was] incredibly trusted by the public, and in a way, that trust became a bit of a metaphor in the film, because that’s also about power and the abuse of power. And that’s why I think it’s such an interesting story…”

Testar said that the idea for the final scene wasn’t in “the very first draft” but arose “pretty early on” in the creative process.

“It felt like a very important thing to end the story on, to remind the audience what the scale and detail of Edward’s crimes were,” he claimed, with Davies adding: “And being, you know, finally accountable to the public in the medium which he worked in.”