As doctors’ strike looms: talks begin – but trust is fractured
Share this post:
Less than two weeks from the next wave of strike action, Labour has agreed to sit down and talk with resident doctors.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting will meet BMA representatives in an attempt to avert a five-day walkout set to begin on July 25.
But while doctors say they’re “happy to continue discussions,” the government has already made it clear that the current pay offer won’t be improved.
That means no movement on the 5.4 per cent pay rise for this year — despite a workforce that has already seen real-terms salaries collapse by around 20 per cent since 2008.
Streeting says further strikes would be “a disaster for patients”.
But he won’t acknowledge that the disaster is already here — and it wasn’t caused by doctors.
Broken promises, broken trust
Labour campaigned on fixing the NHS and ending industrial unrest.
Resident doctors suspended strikes last year after Labour promised to deliver.
A 22 per cent backdated pay rise over two years was a start — but nowhere near what is needed to restore real-terms value.
Now, with Labour in power, doctors are being told the purse is empty — again.
The BMA says all it needs is a “credible pathway” to restoration.
That doesn’t mean an immediate fix, just a commitment to undo the damage of 15 years of cuts.
Instead, they’ve been met with the usual lines: “We can’t be more generous.” “We have to stick to fiscal rules.” Sound familiar?
This is political
The government isn’t negotiating over maths.
It’s negotiating over ideology.
Streeting wants to appear reasonable while ruling out the one thing that would end the strikes.
His department says he’s “sympathetic” to doctors’ working conditions — just not their pay.
But sympathy doesn’t pay rent.
This is the same tactic we saw from the Tories for years: talk up concern, then hide behind budget spreadsheets while letting the NHS rot.
It’s a political choice — to deny workers fair pay, to manage decline instead of reversing it, and to hope the public blames the unions rather than the government.
Public support wavers — but why?
New polling suggests public support for resident doctors’ strikes has halved — from 52 per cent last summer to just 26 per cent today.
But the question is: why?
After years of relentless disruption, the government knows it doesn’t have to win the argument — it just has to exhaust the public.
Even medical figures like Lord Robert Winston are now breaking ranks, resigning from the BMA and warning that strikes risk damaging trust.
But that trust is already fractured — not by industrial action, but by political inaction.
Labour’s credibility crisis
This is about more than a single dispute.
It’s about whether Labour can be trusted to deliver real change — or if it’s just Tory policy with a softer press release.
Doctors aren’t asking for miracles.
They’re asking for a plan.
They want some recognition that their work — and the years of sacrifice — matter.
Instead, they’re being blamed for the consequences of a system that is already broken.
If Streeting enters next week’s talks without a real offer, the strike will go ahead – and Labour will have made its position — and its priorities — painfully clear.
In the words of the BMA: “Our pay may have declined, but our will to fight remains strong.”
But Labour seems to have already given up.
Share this post:
Here’s why the new ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal is a GOOD thing
Share this post:
For the first time in years, a British government has taken a step toward a migration policy that’s not built on cruelty or chaos.
Last week, in the shadow of record Channel crossings and rising political pressure, the UK signed a deal with France that does something radical in its simplicity: it opens a safe, legal route for some asylum-seekers to come to Britain.
Let’s say that again — a safe route, negotiated with France, designed to offer a real alternative to smuggling gangs and deadly dinghies.
It may be small, it may be bureaucratic, and it may come with strings attached.
But it’s a breakthrough — and if we build on it, it might just be the lifeline that shifts the Channel crisis away from deaths, desperation and division.
What the deal actually does
Under the so-called “one in, one out” agreement, up to 50 people per week will be returned from the UK to France — people who arrived in small boats and are deemed inadmissible under current asylum rules.
In exchange, France will send the UK an equal number of asylum-seekers from French territory, selected in cooperation with British officials.
Those eligible to come will be:
-
People with family or historical ties to the UK,
-
Vulnerable individuals most in need of protection,
-
Or others selected through agreed humanitarian criteria.
It’s not an open door.
It’s not automatic.
And it’s capped at just 50 per week — about 2,600 people a year — and only if an equal number are returned.
But for the first time in over a decade, the UK is recognising in policy what human rights advocates have said all along: if you want fewer people risking their lives in the Channel, you have to give them another way.
This is the carrot we’ve been missing
Much of the British approach to Channel crossings has focused on deterrence — punishment, deportation, imprisonment, and hostile headlines. Rwanda flights. Barges. Bans. The stick.
Yet the crossings have continued to rise. In fact, 2025 has already seen record numbers, with several tragic deaths including children.
Why? Because when there is no safe route, people will take the unsafe one.
This new deal offers something else: a rational, predictable, legal alternative.
It’s modest, yes — but it introduces the very thing campaigners have demanded: a safe path for legitimate asylum-seekers who would otherwise risk the Channel. The carrot.
And if that path becomes known, trusted, and even modestly expanded, it can pull people away from the smugglers.
It can give hope to those who qualify — and make the case for rejecting dangerous crossings more morally coherent.
Critics are missing the point
Already, the deal has its critics.
Some on the right say it’s a “backdoor scheme” or “too soft”.
Some on the left call it a distraction — a PR gesture too limited to matter.
Both miss the bigger picture.
No one thinks this deal alone will end the crisis.
But this is the first sign of a strategy that doesn’t rely on cruelty or chaos.
For years, we’ve been told safe routes encourage more crossings — yet the opposite is true. E
vidence from previous UK resettlement schemes (for Syrians, Afghans, Ukrainians) shows that when people are given a real option, they take it.
Would you rather wait in France to be considered for legal resettlement — or spend your family’s last £5,000 on a dinghy?
The answer isn’t theoretical. It’s life or death.
What happens next matters most
This deal should not be the end — it should be the beginning.
Campaigners, unions, mayors and parliamentarians should now press for:
-
An uncapped version of this scheme for vulnerable people with family in the UK that may establish how many legitimate claims for asylum there might be,
-
A transparent application process with NGO support,
-
Real-time information sharing with asylum-seekers in France,
-
And an end to tying safe routes to removals — a person’s life shouldn’t depend on someone else being kicked out.
This is also a chance to reframe the debate.
If the UK wants to cut illegal migration and meet its humanitarian obligations, this is how you do it: not with cruelty, but with clarity and compassion.
A quiet breakthrough — if we don’t waste it
This agreement won’t grab headlines the way Rwanda did.
It doesn’t come with triumphant soundbites or Daily Mail photo ops.
But that’s exactly why it matters.
For once, a government has moved toward a policy that works for everyone: the state, the refugee, and the public.
It’s small.
It’s imperfect.
But it saves lives.
And it could — just maybe — shift the entire conversation.
We’ve had enough deterrence.
Enough death.
Enough dehumanisation.
This might just be the beginning of something better.
Let’s not waste it.
Share this post:
Our spending money shrank so it’s no surprise the economy did too
Watch the video:
Share this post:
Recovery? What recovery? For millions of us, it never started, no matter what economists told us about GDP increasing by 0.7 per cent between January and March.
Now we’ve had two months of negative growth – but wages, confidence and security have been falling for far longer.
If Rachel Reeves really wants to “put money in people’s pockets”, she’ll need to do much more than simply recite inadequate fiscal rules.
She’ll need to start an economic reset – from the bottom up.
False dawn: why the growth was always fragile
Back in May, we were told the UK had “turned a corner”.
GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was up – with the fastest growth in the G7 – and Chancellor Rachel Reeves was quick to claim credit.
But now that the dust has settled, and we’ve seen two straight months of contraction, it turns out that the corner we turned may have led straight into a cul-de-sac.
That “world-beating” growth in Q1 was driven by one-off surges:
-
Exporters raced to beat new US tariffs.
-
Businesses front-loaded investment to avoid tax hikes.
-
Home-buyers rushed purchases ahead of stamp duty and mortgage changes.
None of that was sustainable — and now the economy is slumping back to reality.
If this is growth, why does it still feel like recession?
Even when GDP was rising, most people didn’t feel any better off.
-
Real wages are stagnant or falling once inflation and housing costs are factored in.
-
Food and energy bills remain high, and this has become “the new normal”.
-
Rents continue to rise, while mortgage rates remain punishing.
-
Employers in low-wage sectors are cutting hours or freezing hires, thanks to squeezed margins.
This isn’t prosperity — it’s subsistence.
Businesses are holding back – and who can blame them?
While the government insists it’s laying the groundwork for growth, many businesses say they’re still stuck in limbo.
Manufacturing is down.
Construction is down.
Retail is “very weak,” according to the Office for National Statistics.
Even companies doing well — like Hallmarq, the export-led veterinary firm — admit the UK environment is “tough” with rising costs, geopolitical instability, and fragile demand.
One manufacturer told the BBC: “We don’t know which way we’re going — 10 per cent off a margin is quite a lot… We’re holding fire.”
That’s not a recovery – it’s anxiety with a hard hat on.
As Vox Political warned back in May, the Q1 surge was driven by artificial boosts: exporters rushing to beat tariffs, consumers front-loading spending, and firms avoiding tax changes.
Here’s the piece that called it.
A ticking clock – and a ticking tax time bomb
Even the government’s own forecasters now admit it: the UK’s public finances are in a “vulnerable position”.
Why? Because Reeves – and Rishi Sunak before her – reversed spending cuts without raising enough revenue to pay for it.
That means one of two things is coming:
-
More austerity, which hurts growth.
-
Or higher taxes, which — if aimed wrongly — hurt households.
Mel Stride, the Tory shadow chancellor, is already blaming Labour.
But the truth is, both parties have helped create this bind by chasing growth headlines without addressing structural inequality.
“Putting money in people’s pockets” means doing more than talking
Rachel Reeves says her mission is to get more money into people’s pockets.
So here’s a challenge: prove it.
Right now, Reeves is boxed in by her own “fiscal rules” — rules that were designed to please markets, not people.
To break free, the government could:
Support low earners directly
-
Boost in-work benefits and Universal Credit.
-
Reverse stealth cuts to benefits and support schemes.
-
Raise the tax threshold for lower earners, rather than just raising the minimum wage and hoping for the best.
Cut costs where they bite most
-
Introduce temporary rent caps or controls in overheated housing markets.
-
Break supermarket and energy monopolies to rein in prices.
-
Offer targeted mortgage support or refinance options through state-backed lenders.
Stimulate the economy from the bottom up
-
Fund infrastructure in under-served regions, not just London and the South East.
-
Offer National Insurance rebates for firms hiring full-time, permanent workers.
-
Restore and expand public investment in green jobs, care work, and digital industries.
Real recovery starts with real people
We can’t keep pretending that GDP growth alone means progress.
A true recovery doesn’t just increase output.
It lifts wages.
It lowers costs.
It builds confidence.
If the government wants a growing economy that people can actually feel, it needs to invest in people — not just in numbers.
Until then, the only thing growing is the gap between what we’re told — and what we’re living.
Share this post:
Predatory parking: the case that shows why reform can’t wait
Share this post:
It began with an honest mistake.
A driver parked in a private car park, paid more than was necessary for her stay, but entered only part of her registration number at the pay machine.
There was no attempt to avoid payment.
No overstay.
No damage or obstruction.
Just a small typo — the kind of thing any of us could do.
But that small error was all a private parking company needed to issue a “Parking Charge Notice” demanding £100, escalating to threats of court action and debt collection.
Her appeal was denied.
The so-called independent body POPLA backed the company, despite her clear evidence of payment.
Her “breach”?
A partial registration plate entry — a technicality.
Welcome to the wild west of UK private parking, where paying doesn’t always mean you’re safe — and where regulation has failed.
The cost of a typo
This isn’t a one-off.
Across the UK, millions are being hit with fines for minor and often irrelevant infractions.
We’re not talking about blocking emergency bays or refusing to pay.
We’re talking about:
-
Taking longer than five minutes to pay at a hospital (Rosey Hudson: £1,906)
-
Delays due to poor mobile signal (Hannah Robinson: £11,390)
-
Missed characters in a number plate despite valid payment (this case, and thousands more)
In 2024–25 alone, parking firms paid the DVLA for 12.8 million keeper details — a 673 per cent increase since 2012.
Most of those are used to issue fines that enrich private firms, and do not support public services or improve access.
The government admits the problem
Finally, the government appears to be listening.
Earlier this month, ministers launched a consultation on a new Private Parking Code of Practice, explicitly aimed at stopping “unfair penalties” caused by:
“payment machine errors, accidental typos, or poor mobile signal.”
The new code — if passed and enforced — would limit charges, prevent exploitative practices, and potentially block abusive firms from accessing DVLA data.
Alex Norris MP, the Local Growth Minister, put it plainly:
“Too many people are being unfairly penalised… our code will tackle misleading tactics and confusing processes.”
The AA went further, calling many private operators “shark-like businesses” and warning that the consultation doesn’t go far enough.
Why reform can’t wait
This driver’s case — and the millions like it — show the need for immediate regulation.
A previous code was published in 2022, only to be withdrawn after legal challenges by parking firms.
That left the industry regulating itself — with predictable results.
As things stand:
-
Operators are free to exploit grey areas
-
Appeals are often handled by bodies funded by the industry
-
Firms can access DVLA data with no real oversight
-
The public has little protection unless they’re willing (and able) to fight in court
It’s a system built to punish the law-abiding — not the dishonest.
What you can do
If this has happened to you, or someone you know, here’s what you can do right now:
-
Respond to the consultation – share your experience before it closes on 5 September:
👉 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice -
Report abusive firms to the Information Commissioner’s Office – if your data has been used unfairly, they may have broken the law:
👉 https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/ -
Don’t pay without a fight – many “fines” are unenforceable. Make them take you to court. Many judges reject these claims as disproportionate or unfair.
-
Share your story – online, in the media, and with your MP. Public pressure is the only reason reform is even on the table.
This is not about dodging payment. It’s about fairness.
When someone pays for their stay, they should not be fined for failing to type a full plate number into a worn-out keypad — and certainly not threatened with court over it.
Predatory parking enforcement isn’t about order or justice — it’s about profit. And it must end.
Share this post:
Blaming benefits for a broken system misses the point
Share this post:
Two comments circulating on social media lately caught my attention.
“I think people forget that the welfare state was set up to help people going through hard times, not to fund a lifestyle choice. We are now at a point where people staying at home can get more money than someone on basic wage – how was that ever allowed to happen?”
And:
“Outrageous that someone on benefits can receive £25,000 a year – more than what two million people earn on the minimum wage after tax. This isn’t just economically unsustainable, it’s morally wrong. We should be rewarding work, not dependency.”
At first glance, these comments seem to strike a chord.
Shouldn’t work always pay more than benefits?
Isn’t it unfair that someone not working might receive more than a minimum-wage worker?
But when you take a moment to dig into the reality, these arguments unravel.
Some benefit claimants get £25k — but that’s not the full story
It’s true that, in certain cases, benefit income can add up to more than £25,000 a year.
This usually involves Universal Credit, disability support like Personal Independence Payment (PIP), and Housing Benefit.
But this only applies to a small number of claimants, typically those who are:
-
Seriously ill or disabled
-
Caring for children or other dependents
-
Living in areas with high rents
-
Unable to work due to health conditions or lack of support
These are not people choosing a “lifestyle.”
They are people the welfare system is designed to support — because their costs are higher and their ability to earn is limited.
Work doesn’t pay enough — that’s the real scandal
Let’s compare the figures.
From April 2025, the UK’s National Living Wage (NLW) for over-21s is £12.21 an hour. That means someone working full time (40 hours a week) earns £25,396 per year before tax.
After tax and national insurance? Their take-home pay is roughly £21,800–£23,000.
That’s less than what some disabled claimants — receiving additional support for their housing, health, and care needs — are entitled to.
Not because the welfare system is over-generous, but because work doesn’t provide enough.
Remember: even full-time workers often rely on benefits like Universal Credit to survive. It’s not a case of workers vs claimants — many are both.
So what’s really going on here?
Blaming benefit claimants is a convenient distraction from the real problems:
-
Wages are too low. Even with the 2025 increase, the National Living Wage still falls short of the Real Living Wage: £12.60/hour across the UK, and £13.85/hour in London.
-
Living costs are too high. Rent, energy bills, childcare, and food costs have soared — and support hasn’t kept up.
-
The safety net is doing its job. When people are unable to work, or earn too little, benefits are meant to help them live with dignity.
Calling that “dependency” is an insult to people facing serious hardship — and to the idea that we live in a fair society.
Let’s talk about what really needs fixing
We’re told that cutting benefits will “incentivise” people to work.
But work already isn’t paying enough.
Instead of punishing claimants, we should be:
-
Raising wages so people don’t need to rely on benefits to survive
-
Investing in childcare, transport, and social care to support people into work
-
Fixing housing, so sky-high rents don’t swallow up earnings and benefits alike
-
Making work secure, with proper contracts, sick pay, and career progression
The problem isn’t that some people on benefits receive more than some workers.
The problem is that too many workers are earning less than they need to live on — and that’s not the fault of the welfare system.
It’s a failure of the economy.
To fix it, we must stop scapegoating people on benefits – and start fixing the reasons why benefits are needed in the first place.
‘Work should always pay,’ they say. Why doesn’t it, then?
here’s the uncomfortable truth for the politicians who keep saying “work should always pay”: It doesn’t. And that’s their fault.
They set the minimum wage.
They shape the tax system.
They choose whether to regulate rents, fund childcare, support public transport, and enforce fair employment practices.
So when a full-time job still can’t cover the basics — and the benefit system has to step in — it’s not a failure of the that system.
It’s a failure of economic policy.
Yet rather than take responsibility, they turn around and point the finger at people struggling to get by.
“Too many people are dependent on the state,”
they say — while ignoring the fact that millions of working people are also dependent on state support just to survive.
That’s not a moral failing by the public.
That’s a political failure by the government.
If we’re serious about making work pay, it’s time to stop attacking those who need help — and start asking why help is needed in the first place.
That means higher wages.
Lower costs.
A real living wage.
Secure work.
Affordable homes.
In short: not punishment, but reform.
If work is supposed to pay, then make it pay.
If people are relying on benefits, ask why the economy is leaving them behind — instead of blaming them for trying to stay afloat.
The real scandal isn’t that some people can survive on benefits.
It’s that millions of people can’t survive on work.
