The number of people in hardship who are having to pay for private dentists has almost doubled in two years, according to new research by Healthwatch England.

A survey commissioned by the independent health watchdog found 27% of people who described themselves as ‘struggling financially’ had used a private dentist in 2025 compared to 14% in 2023.

A lack of dentists offering NHS appointments, particularly in more deprived areas, and there being no guaranteed right to care from an NHS dentist are fueling the rise in people going private.

Rebecca Curtayne, acting head of policy, public affairs and research at Healthwatch England, said:

Our findings are a warning that for some people, there’s only one tier dental care — private. And it’s the most vulnerable people in our society who bear the brunt of the ongoing shortage of NHS dental appointments.

The government won’t end health inequalities until it fixes NHS dentistry. Too many people on low incomes are being forced into private care they struggle to afford, or are going without treatment altogether. The system is failing those who need it most.

Use of private dentists up since 2023

People living in deprived areas who can’t find an NHS dentist, and feel they have no choice but to pay for private dental care, are potentially penalised twice, the report highlights.

They must pay significantly more for the same treatment, up to £75 for a routine examination that costs £27.40 via the NHS, and patients who are exempt from NHS dental charges, such as pregnant people, will lose the benefit of the exemption.

The data is from Healthwatch’s upcoming report, The public’s perspective: The state of health and social care, and based on a poll of nearly 2,600 adults in England last year.

It shows the number of adults who have sought private dentistry increased by 10 percentage points to almost a third (32%).

Between 2023 and 2025, the share of people who consider themselves ‘financially comfortable’ who reported using private dentistry also rose from 30% to 36%.

Financially comfortable households are still more likely to use private care, but the gap between the two groups has narrowed sharply.

Curtayne continued:

It’s positive to see that public’s confidence in NHS dentistry has increased slightly. The government needs to build on this, by improving access to NHS dentistry especially in rural and more deprived areas, and setting out its plans for fundamental reform of the NHS dental contract.

These plans should aim to give everyone the right to a permanent NHS dentist, in the same way people get a local NHS GP care who is there for both new and urgent problems.

Healthwatch England is calling for the government to introduce a legal right for people to register with an NHS dentist for life, similarly to their GP, and to review NHS dental charges amongst other reforms to help improve access to dental care.

Featured image via Pixabay

Sky News reported that Queen Camilla has met with courageous Gisèle Pelicot and was apparently left “speechless” after reading the memoir penned by the French rape survivor. Pelicot had been touring the UK to promote her book ‘Hymn to Life: Shame Has To Change Sides’ at the time and joined Camilla at Clarence House. Pelicot has received widespread support and respect for her courage in exposing the extensive, sinister abuse she endured at the hands of her husband and his sick pals.

Her case made shockwaves across the world as victims and survivors of sexual abuse drew strength from her bravery. Pelicot waived her anonymity at the time of trial so that the offences and those involved would become public knowledge. Like the title of her book, she intends to ensure that shame is felt by the abusers and not their victims.

Camilla and hypocrisy

However, the hypocrisy at play is difficult to ignore. Camilla has made little effort to centre the victims connected to the so-called Epstein files or to address the role powerful men played in perpetrating such traumatic abuse against young girls and women. Perhaps she will draw inspiration from the courage of Gisèle Pelicot and begin speaking truth to powerful men while prioritising the suffering of their victims.

After all, both cases involve networks of men who believed they had the right to do whatever they wanted to their victims. The case draws clear parallels with the thousands of pages connected to the Epstein network of elites, which included her brother-in-law, the disgraced former prince Andrew.

On the other hand, she will likely just continue prioritising the comfort of those powerful men whilst being careful to maintain public appearances.

NEW: After the years of work Queen Camilla has carried out for victims and survivors of domestic abuse, today she met the brave Madame Gisèle Pelicot.
Her husband is serving 20 years for drugging and raping her with other men.
Camilla has previously written to Gisèle to express… pic.twitter.com/HRpPRCAhx3

— Chris Ship (@chrisshipitv) February 23, 2026

Parallels between Pelicot’s case and the Epstein Files

The optics here are, at best, disingenuous and, at worst, a sucker punch to victims and survivors of the sinister web of sexual abuse and rape linked to Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump and their associates. The extraordinary bravery of Gisèle Pelicot led to 50 men being convicted of rape or sexual offences, exposing a horrifying network in which her husband repeatedly drugged her unconscious and allowed other men to assault her.

The so-called ‘Epstein files’ similarly revealed a web of powerful men exploiting women and girls to satisfy their own fantasies. At the same time, the abuse appears to have served as a double-edged weapon: by creating compromising situations and images involving influential figures, those involved could wield power on a far more lucrative and political scale.

We have written extensively on the revelations borne from the release of the Epstein Files.

Speaking about the Royal Family’s failure to recognise victims of abuse in connection to Epstein and arrogant paedo-prince Andrew, the Canary wrote:

Undoubtedly, the Royal Family feel discomfort around this issue. But that discomfort pales in comparison to the serious trauma experienced by victims of sexual abuse. Shamefully, the monarchy deepens that trauma by showing palpable disinterest in the harm powerful men cause.

Another reminder that they will never be on our side.

Gisele Pelicot, who has been internationally hailed after testifying against her husband and dozens of other men who raped her, has been awarded France’s top civic honour https://t.co/mkE2QdN6YD pic.twitter.com/l44Esx1RFN

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) July 13, 2025

Advertisement

Stop pretending you care and ACTUALLY do something

Powerful white women have much to answer for in British society. If they prioritised solidarity with victims over solidarity with the powerful, we would make far greater progress in holding those men accountable for the harm they have inflicted.

Sexual fantasies should never take precedence over the victims who must live with that trauma for the rest of their lives. Gisèle Pelicot’s advocacy and determination cannot have been easy; women who have suffered such violations rarely find it easy to expose that depth of pain. Nevertheless, she has spoken out to raise awareness about the disturbing realities of abuse and to show how even those we trust most can commit some of the worst assaults.

Therefore, this should have been an opportunity for Camilla to raise the need for thorough investigations into powerful men in the UK, who sit in positions of trust and responsibility. Instead, she has continued to look away, just like the rest of the royal family, when the call is very much coming from inside the house.

Until the royals actually engage with the implications of the Epstein files for Andrew’s behaviour, it’s hard to take platitudes from them about violence against women remotely seriously.

Featured image via the Canary

Lisa Nandy shared some trite words on the government’s Covid-19 Day of Reflection. And rightly, disabled people ripped her to fucking shreds.

Covid Day of Reflection: lockdown through rose-tinted specs

According to the government, on March 8:

the nation will reflect and come together to remember those that lost their lives and to honour the tireless work and acts of kindness shown by many during the pandemic.

Of course, what actually happened was a few bullshit words and brushing the fact that COVID-19 still exists under the carpet.

Case in point, Lisa Nandy tweeted:

Today marks the national Covid-19 Day of Reflection.

Every one of us was impacted. My thoughts are with people who experienced loss and still carry the effects of the pandemic.

We also honour the dedication of our NHS staff, key workers and volunteers who helped us through.

Every March now, disabled people experience untold anger at the way “the pandemic years” are portrayed through rose-tinted glasses by politicians, the media, and even a lot of the general public.

They reminisce about banging pots and pans for the NHS instead of the government actually giving healthcare workers extra funding.

They laugh over socially distanced street parties while families couldn’t even hug at funerals. And get misty-eyed over Zoom games nights, talking about being “trapped” indoors.

When disabled people, who were actually abandoned in their homes, are ignored and still to this day derided.

Even though we know just how many of our community died and how many more disabled people Covid-19 is still creating.

Lisa Nandy ripped to shreds

A lot of hatred was rightly heaped onto the Tories for their handling of 2020, but it’s the way Labour is treating disabled people now that should also be in the spotlight.

Which is why Lisa Nandy’s tweet hit a nerve:

Today marks the national Covid-19 Day of Reflection.

Every one of us was impacted. My thoughts are with people who experienced loss and still carry the effects of the pandemic.

We also honour the dedication of our NHS staff, key workers and volunteers who helped us through.

— Lisa Nandy MP (@lisanandy) March 8, 2026

Advertisement

She’s correct in saying every one of us was impacted, but some of us far more than others. Nandy’s vast, wide-ranging hypocrisy was swiftly pointed out in the quote tweets.

Nandy turned off comments. Judging by the amount of anti-vaxxers in the quotes, this almost makes sense. But it also sent a clear message to disabled people that Labour don’t want your outlook either.

Some pointed out that COVID has not gone away, and Labour are doing nothing to stop it

You can catch Covid TODAY and get long term health effects from that infection starting NOW and UK Labour have done nothing to address airborne infection control backsliding in hospitals or run public health campaigns. You’re a joke https://t.co/ofRtYuvw9G

— null space (@null_nullspace) March 9, 2026

Advertisement

People are STILL losing their lives to Covid & others becoming disabled every day, including children. We need prevention; ventilation, filtration in all public buildings. Until then, 😷 @UKLabour have failed us, at least @TheGreenParty have an against covid policy. https://t.co/tPtKO8Lzfw

— Lara – Covid is Airborne (@fillthewhole) March 8, 2026

What are you doing TODAY for people catching covid, dying from it, and having long covid from past or recent infections? Presenting the pandemic is over is not a strategy. https://t.co/03TMGMmFhy

— Biology – 🧬 🔬 (@BiologyAwesome) March 9, 2026

But others, angry at the Labour planned cuts, pointed out just how dangerous Nandy’s party are for disabled people since COVID-19 started

What are you doing TODAY for people catching covid, dying from it, and having long covid from past or recent infections? Presenting the pandemic is over is not a strategy. https://t.co/03TMGMmFhy

— Biology – 🧬 🔬 (@BiologyAwesome) March 9, 2026

Advertisement

Labour want to slash benefits of people struggling with long term COVID. This MP has played lip service to the COVID struggle and blocked replies. Why bother being on here if you can’t take criticism? https://t.co/ZhPo5FBH8O

— McBea (@Mcbeath_on_sea) March 9, 2026

This, from a former NHS key worker, is heartbreaking:

I was one of those key workers.

Since COVID left me Disabled, @UKLabour have made me feel like a burden and a scrounger, even though I lost my health working hard to look after others.

Now you plan to slash benefits for people like me, while letting C19 rip.

Advertisement

Reflect harder. https://t.co/Q9aJZrEltl

— Nico Reznick 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🇪🇺🌍 (@NicoReznick) March 8, 2026

This is who the Labour Party really is

For all their platitudes about ‘honouring’ key workers and protecting people, they don’t give a fuck about disabled people. If they did, the DWP wouldn’t be trying to make it harder to claim PIP and slashing Universal Credit for new claimants.

At the end of the day, if successive governments hadn’t spent years demonising disabled people, it wouldn’t have been so easy for people to accept so many disabled deaths by COVID-19.

And that is the uncomfortable truth Labour needs to live with. Enough of the bullshit, politicians caused all these deaths. Now they get to have them on their conscience.

Featured image via the Canary

Petrol Prices Set To Go Up

Energy Bills Expected To Rise

Interest Rates Expected To Go Up

Overall Economic Impact

What is reverse searing?

Does it work for all steaks?

Reverse-searing steak recipe

Terrel Mollel is an undergraduate at Queen Mary University of London studying Comparative Literature. He is a Young Conservative who has interned in Parliament, for the former Solicitor General, Robert Courts.

I first came to Parliament at 18-years old, unsure of how to negotiate my ideological position within our broad party.

I expect that some Liberal-Conservatives may share this challenge too. However, now at 22-years old I have made some headway to understanding how I fit in our broad-church Conservative Party. This journey involved considering another ideology, as well as (One-nation) Conservatism: New Liberalism. In summary, I weigh up aspects of One-nation Conservatism against New Liberalism to discern the value of the centre-right ground.

On reflection, identifying as a One-nation Conservative can appear like preferring a liberal persuasion within a traditional Party. So, this can prompt an important question: why choose the Conservative Party over the Liberal Party, if you’re more Liberal than traditional Conservatives? I have an answer, shaped by a comparison of the two liberal branches within these Parties. Yet a comparison of One-nation Conservatism and New Liberalism is due – to arrive at my answer. I begin with the former.

‘Young England’ originally featured in the former Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli’s novels (such as the Two Nations of 1845). A term referring to the energetic economic activity of England – stimulated by talented individuals. Disraeli was certainly optimistic about an England united under One-nation Conservatism. However, what does One-nation Conservatism amount to now? For example, before the 2024 general election the Times suggested that this branch of Conservatism may pervade the Parliamentary Party. But this powerful One-nation force has not manifested.

For instance, the Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch MP, is adamant about prioritising the “common ground” over the “centre ground”. Therefore, an appraisal of the Party’s relationship with its One-nation Conservative heritage is important. It can provide insight on how centre-right Conservatives can navigate political thought. Key to doing this is reconciling One-nation Conservatism with its ideological counterpart: New Liberalism.

The ‘Young England’ ideal – a meritocratic society, in which every citizen can harness their talent as an economic agent – is contentious because it does not address inequality. So, this dream of England when applied to reality appears like a collision that incurs extensive collateral damage. For example the 1897 Rowntree and 1902 Booth studies validated the Liberal Party’s concerns about inequality.

So, an alternative vision to ‘Young England’ was shaped. In particular the New Liberals, valuing the primacy of the individual, sought to ‘wage war against poverty’. Their 1909/1910 People’s budget was emblematic of a progressive approach to social security. It created a safety net through its liberal reforms. Meanwhile, the Conservatives – persuaded by the centre ground – were in the process of expanding the franchise substantially that same century.

I digress, following the Rowntree and Booth studies, the New Liberals identified a range of vulnerable people in Britain who could not be economic agents: the young, the elderly, the sick. Indeed, the liberal reforms sought to redress these peoples. But the legacy of One-nation Conservatism is more abstract than British New Liberalism. While thinkers like Benjamin Disraeli and Edmund Burke supported reform, One-nation Conservatism in comparison with Liberalism defines its reform tenet less clearly. This problematises an edifice that attempts to reconcile ‘two nations’ (the upper and lower classes respectively).

However, notably Burke advocated for a state to change and permit preservation of other aspects of its apparatus (in their book Reflections on the Revolution in France). In this way, One-nation Conservatism seems to value the stability of the polity as much as social cohesion. Therefore, ‘Young England’ is emblematic of more than just a free-market creed (‘Young England’).

One-nation Conservatism is a free-market and a dynamic state, whereas New Liberalism reduces everything to the primacy of the individual. Particularly as to Burke the logical progression from ‘Young England’ led to an ambition for a dynamic state. Such a society can accommodate the liberal reforms. Indeed, after the 1922 Conservative meeting that decisively defeated the Liberals, the Conservatives retained the Liberal’s ‘safety net’.

Young Conservatives like me value One-nation Conservatism. Particularly as Benjamin Disraeli’s ‘Young England’ ideal can be traced as the antecedent for much more than just a meritocratic creed. New Liberalism can appear more ambitious than the One-nation Conservatism on economic terms alone, but that does not account for everything. One-nation Conservatism is oriented around a different – greater – aim, rather than one prescriptive policy platform (the safety net).

One-nation Conservatism can appeal to our aspirations toward agency and our concerns about social cohesion. In contrast, New Liberalism just offers a reductive imagination of our capacity. While One-Nation Conservatism derives from an economic creed, ‘Young England’ was just the origin of a dynamic ideally that can be advanced. By reappraising our understanding of the two ideologies discussed, I believe that the value of the centre-right can be advanced. In summary, One-nation Conservatism remains a promising product of political thought. We must engage with it.