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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robin Wells, director of Fossil Free London said:

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

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

Advertisement

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

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

Featured image via Fossil Free London

1) Building and maintaining muscle

2) Prioritising sleep and recovery

3) Reducing inflammation through lifestyle choices

4) Maintaining “metabolic flexibility”

5) Enjoying life, in moderation

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

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

UAV Engines

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

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

Calls to action

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

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

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

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

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

Global campaign

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

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

What does mid mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Sunder Katwala, Director, British Future.

The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) is bragging about how “successful” the Managed Migration to Universal Credit has been. This is despite over 360,000 vulnerable people being stripped of vital benefits in the process.

The DWP announced the closure of Employment Support Allowance and Housing Benefit following the campaign to force claimants to move to Universal Credit.

They bragged:

Over 1.9 million people now better supported to find good, secure jobs as the Government moves customers off outdated benefits and on to Universal Credit

Considering ESA was a benefit for disabled people who couldn’t work as much or at all, it’s absolutely gross that the focus here is on work. But it doesn’t come as a surprise from the department that wants to force disabled people into work by any means necessary.

What about those who haven’t migrated?

However, this ignores how many haven’t been able to claim or have been stripped of their benefits. The DWP sent out over 2,352,886 managed migration notices, and 1,985,703 have moved over. That means 367,183 people haven’t successfully moved over yet and could have them stripped away.

That means a huge number of disabled people who already live in poverty will be forced into even harsher living conditions. As the Canary has previously reported, making the move is especially difficult for chronically ill and disabled people, who struggle with stress and lack the energy to fill in excessive forms.

An internal report showed that some disabled claimants often have very little of what they were being asked to do. As a result, many failed to make a new claim for Universal Credit and lost their legacy benefit.

It’s been such a cause for concern that mental health professionals have warned the DWP that migration will put claimants at risk.

The National Association of Welfare Rights Workers told Work and Pensions committee chair Debbie Abrahams that:

These claimants will all have long-term health conditions and/or disabilities, and their legacy benefits are likely to be their only source of income. A failure to migrate to universal credit therefore carries a high risk of destitution, rapid deterioration in their health, and even death.

The latest DWP statistics, published on 11 November 2025, provide a detailed analysis of the migration of the ESA cohort to universal credit. The Department highlights that, for those sent a migration notice between July 2024 and May 2025, 3% failed to make a claim to universal credit and had their legacy benefits stopped. However, for claimants who were in receipt of ESA only, the figure alarmingly doubles to 6%.

Many lose out while DWP pushes workshy narrative

What’s also missing is that many forced onto UC have their benefits reduced and somehow have to survive on less as prices rapidly increase. Policy in Practice found that around 200,000 households lost around £59.54 a week. That’s over £230 a month that people are just expected to do without.

The DWP release also only mentions two of the benefits that are being amalgamated into Universal Credit. Others have an even worse success rate. As the Canary has previously reported, nearly a quarter of Tax Credits claimants who’ve been forced onto Universal Credit ended up without any benefits.

And once again, despite ESA claimants having already been found too sick to work, the DWP is obsessed with pushing the workshy narrative.

This Government is committed to updating the welfare system so that it promotes opportunity, rather than stifling it – as part of our Plan for Change.

The campaign means the number of people on Universal Credit has increased, particularly the number of people who receive the benefit with no requirement to look for work, as, since June last year, the focus has been on moving vulnerable people from Employment and Support Allowance.

There’s absolutely no need for them to constantly mention people with ‘no work requirements’ other than to remind people of this fact. By using this wording, they make it sound like people are choosing to work, as opposed to not being well enough to.

While the DWP are celebrating ‘supporting’ so many to switch to UC, it’s clear what their motives are. It’s easier to push people into work from Universal Credit, and even easier to turn the public against people with ‘no work requirements’.

Featured image via the Canary

4 min read12 min

One lesson from the conflict in Iran is that a cyber attack is the opening move of modern warfare. Israel proved this, hacking Tehran’s CCTV cameras to mark key targets and the Ayatollah himself for US and Israeli bombing.

But the UK is severely underprepared for this reality. As our energy sector rapidly digitalises like the rest of the world, a new target is opening up for hackers, and unless we learn from the Iran-US war, they will be able to strike at the heart of our industries, government and households.

Our nation is no stranger to having its energy weaponised, causing economic and social pain to British households. From blackouts in the 1970s due to the miners’ strikes and the oil crisis, to energy bills soaring when gas prices spiked following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Cyber attacks can recreate this economic damage, and no form of energy supply is safe from attack. Whether it is gas, renewables or nuclear, every form of energy that our nation relies upon is susceptible. And as our energy system continues to digitalise, the threat cyber attacks pose to our country is growing.

The UK’s energy system is not prepared for such attacks, and Labour is failing to address this threat to our security.

Our enemies know this all too well. Over 90 per cent of the largest energy firms have already fallen victim to cybersecurity breaches to date, with attacks becoming increasingly regular. And they can repeat the damage other hackers have done to major British companies on our energy system, similar to the attack on Jaguar Land Rover in my constituency of Meriden and Solihull East in 2025 that cost the UK economy an estimated £1.9bn. This also caused major disruption throughout the automotive supply chain and has left companies facing bankruptcy.

Unless we strengthen our security, a cyber attack from anywhere in the world could switch off our energy supply, bringing much of our daily life and our economy to a grinding halt.

Despite this urgent need to take action, the government has ignored the severity of this threat and failed to tackle it since taking office. The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill is a unique opportunity to tackle this glaring oversight. However, Labour ministers are squandering this opportunity to protect our energy supply from cyber attacks.

This is why I am calling on the government to strengthen our energy system against cyber attacks by going further in the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill.

Firstly, the bill should only allow data from the UK energy sector to be processed either within UK territory or that of allied countries with robust cybersecurity mechanisms. By limiting the processing of this data to places we can trust, we would make it harder for cyber criminals to access energy firms’ data and use it for nefarious purposes.

Furthermore, the government should also expand the requirements for energy companies to report when they are victim to cyber attacks. Reporting these attacks to government cybersecurity agencies is essential for deterring further attacks and alerting them to existing holes in our security. Although there are already reporting requirements in the UK, they are not fit for purpose, and the bill does not go far enough to improve them. The current state of the bill means many cyber attacks will continue to go unreported to the relevant cybersecurity agency, reducing our ability to establish where our energy grid is exposed and to respond accordingly.

The risk cyber attacks pose to the UK’s energy security is clear, as is the government’s failure to address this threat. By amending the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill to secure energy firms’ data and ensure more cyber attacks are reported, we can strengthen our cyber security and make it harder for our enemies to turn off our power.

Saqib Bhatti is Conservative MP for Meriden and Solihull East