UK state pension to rise again – but spare a thought for people on benefits
Share this post:
Pensioners in the UK are set to see their income rise by 4.7 per cent from April 2026, thanks to the much-trumpeted “triple lock” on the state pension. Hurray!
But what about the millions of people who rely on benefits like Universal Credit, ESA or JSA?
The BBC has reported that the full new state pension, currently £230.25 per week, will rise to around £241.05.
That means a pensioner with the full entitlement will be receiving £12,534.60 a year – up more than £560 on this year’s amount.
Those on the old basic pension, now £176.45 per week, will see their income rise to around £184.75 a week, an annual increase of more than £430.
This is the third year in a row that pensions have risen in line with earnings rather than inflation, reflecting average pay growth of 4.7 per cent between May and July.
It’s not entirely wonderful – while it may be welcome news for many retired people, it drags more pensioners into the income tax net because the personal allowance remains frozen at £12,570 until 2028.
What about benefits?
While ministers boast about protecting pensioners, there is little mention of the millions of people who rely on working-age benefits.
Universal Credit – which around 37 per cent of working people must claim because their employers don’t pay them enough, Employment and Support Allowance, Jobseeker’s Allowance and related payments are not protected by the triple lock.
Instead, they are uprated every April in line with inflation as measured the previous September.
That means the uprating for 2026 will depend on the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) figure for September 2025, which has not yet been published. The Bank of England currently expects it to be around four per cent.
If that proves accurate, a single person aged 25 or over on the standard Universal Credit allowance – currently £400.14 per month, or just £4,801.68 a year – will see their income rise by less than £200.
For a single person under 25, whose allowance is only £316.98 per month, the rise will be just over £150 a year. Boo!
The contrast is enormous.
Pensioners are looking forward to an extra £500 or more next year, while those of working age on benefits may receive a fraction of that – even though they face exactly the same rising costs for rent, food, energy and transport.
The big lie
Politicians fall over themselves to promise that the triple lock will be honoured for pensioners, but when was the last time you heard a minister defend the real value of working-age benefits?
Labour has already ruled out restoring the £20 that was cut from Universal Credit after the pandemic. Meanwhile, unemployment is rising again, and many low-paid workers are stuck on UC top-ups that barely cover the essentials.
So while the headlines trumpet “good news” for pensioners, the news for people of working age on benefits is all bad.
They remain trapped in poverty – told to “tighten their belts” by a ‘Labour’ government that couldn’t care less while it puts the spotlight somewhere else.
Share this post:
If the UN has found genocide in Gaza, why didn’t David Lammy?
Share this post:
The contrast could not be starker.
The United Nations’ Commission of Inquiry has released a report concluding that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza – only a week after we learned that David Lammy, until then the UK’s Foreign Secretary, now promoted to Deputy Prime Minister, had signed a letter insisting his government had not reached that conclusion.
The UN says Israel has committed four of the five genocidal acts defined in international law:
- Killing members of a protected group,
- Causing serious bodily and mental harm,
- Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy the group, and
- Preventing births.
The only act missed out is forcible transfer of children from one group to another group.
The UN also cites statements from senior Israeli leaders – President Isaac Herzog (who was welcomed to the UK by PM Keir Starmer only last week), Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former defence minister Yoav Gallant – alongside the destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure, famine, and forced displacement, as evidence of genocidal intent.
Navi Pillay, who chaired the Commission, told the BBC that the only reasonable conclusion from the pattern of conduct was genocide. The acts and the intent both matched the legal definition.
That is clear, blunt – and devastating.
Lammy’s denial
But Lammy’s letter – exposed by The Guardian – insisted the UK had not concluded genocide was being committed.
It was written in the face of more than 64,000 Palestinian deaths, overwhelmingly of women and children.
It was written after repeated warnings from the International Court of Justice that there is a plausible case of genocide.
And it was written despite Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups such as B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights declaring it to be a genocide, months ago.
Lammy claimed the government had not found “specific intent” to destroy the Palestinian people.
But that bar is far higher than the law requires.
Under the Genocide Convention, the UK is obliged to act when there is a serious risk of genocide – not only once it has been proven in court beyond doubt.
The UN’s experts analysed the same statements from Gallant, Herzog, and others that Lammy dismissed. They reached the opposite conclusion.
So the question is not whether the evidence exists – it does.
The question is why the UK government refuses to see it.
Politics, not law
The answer lies in politics, not in law or fact:
-
The UK follows the lead of the United States, which continues to shield Israel diplomatically and arm it militarily.
-
The arms industry profits directly from weapons sales – and the government admits UK-made components go into the F-35 jets bombing Gaza.
-
And both Tory and Labour leaders remain afraid of upsetting pro-Israel lobby groups, even at the cost of complicity in atrocity.
This is why Lammy’s Foreign Office raised the evidentiary bar and pretended not to see what UN lawyers, judges at The Hague, and human rights groups around the world already acknowledge.
Complicity by omission
By denying genocide, the government evades its obligations under international law.
By continuing arms exports, it profits from the slaughter.
By welcoming Israeli president Isaac Herzog – a man accused of inciting genocide – to address Parliament, it displays open contempt for justice.
And while the Foreign Office plays word games, children are buried under rubble, patients die on operating tables without power or medicine, and entire families starve in camps.
These are not accidents of war.
They are the predictable outcomes of policies pursued with genocidal intent.
The wrong side of history
Other nations are acting:
- South Africa has taken Israel to the ICJ,
- Spain and Ireland have recognised Palestine, and
- Even within Israel, rights groups say their government’s actions are genocidal.
The United Kingdom is doing the opposite.
Lammy’s letter, Starmer’s silence, and the continuation of arms sales all show a country determined to stand on the wrong side of the law and the wrong side of history.
History will record that when genocide was unfolding in Gaza, the UN recognised it – and the UK government denied it.
The only question now is whether the public will forgive the betrayal.
Share this post:
Old abuses, new consequences: Ovenden resigns but will Labour contain its factions?
Share this post:
Keir Starmer’s director of political strategy has resigned after sexually-explicit messages about veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott resurfaced after eight years.
Paul Ovenden apparently did not write the offending remarks but merely recounted them in a graphic sexualised game of “Snog, Marry, Avoid”. The messages were part of private conversations.
Ovenden expressed deep regret, but the fallout has exposed far more than personal misconduct — it threatens to reignite a long-running culture of factional hostility within the Labour Party.
These messages are part of a broader context
Ovenden’s communications were sent at a time when private messages containing sexist, racist, or politically hostile content were rife within Labour.
Between 2016 and 2018, under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, the party had become deeply factionalised. Mr Corbyn, a prominent Labour left-winger, faced repeated efforts from centrist and right-leaning factions to undermine him.
These factional battles often targeted his allies, particularly including Diane Abbott, the UK’s first black female MP, who has suffered more abuse – not just from her colleagues but from anybody – than all other MPs put together.
The attacks ranged from derogatory internal messages to online abuse and harassment. Many were made in private WhatsApp groups, emails, and other channels and were often dismissed by party officers, especially when originating from figures aligned with the centrist wing.
Labour Files and the culture of impunity
The “Labour Files” leak, published by Al Jazeera in October 2022, revealed hundreds of messages sent between 2016 and 2018 by Labour staff. The communications documented:
-
Anti-Black racism and Islamophobia
-
Sexism and misogyny
-
Internal factional hostility against Corbyn supporters
Ovenden was not part of these messages, we’re told, but the leak demonstrates the broader culture in which his own private communications occurred.
Many of those who were implicated faced minimal or no disciplinary action at the time because Labour’s predominantly right-wing apparatchiks systemically tolerated factional hostility.
Settlements to staff named in the dossier, paid in 2025, exceeded £2 million, underlining the legal and political costs of this culture.
Diane Abbott: a repeated target
Ms Abbott, who is also Labour’s longest-serving female MP, suffered abuse after abuse.
Ovenden’s messages were part of a pattern stretching back years, that were often dismissed by the party’s disciplinary officers. What happens when repeated abuses attract no punishment? They get worse – of course.
Ovenden’s resignation matters — and it also doesn’t
Ovenden’s messages were offensive – no doubt – but the impact of his resignation is much more ambiguous than some in Labour’s current leadership might wish you to see it.
It matters because he was a senior adviser to the prime minister and his departure allows Keir Starmer to present himself as decisive, willing to act firmly against misconduct, and sensitive to the mistreatment of Diane Abbott.
By removing such a visible figure, Starmer can project accountability and discipline at a time when his government is under extraordinary pressure.
But there are also ways in which it doesn’t matter.
Ovenden’s resignation does not carry much real weight. He had already announced his intention to leave government before the summer, meaning the move comes at little personal cost and makes no real difference to his career.
In practice, it is nothing more than a symbolic sacrifice: Ovenden is a convenient sacrificial lamb, taking the blame and deflecting attention from broader cultural problems inside the Labour Party.
In summary, Starmer wants you to think the optics are powerful – but it is clear to anybody with a brain that the substance is thin.
The implications for Starmer’s leadership
Starmer’s premiership is under pressure: Angela Rayner resigned as deputy prime minister, Peter Mandelson was sacked as ambassador to the US, and criticism of Downing Street operations is mounting.
In this context, highlighting Ovenden’s historic messages allows Starmer to appear “tough on misconduct,” signalling accountability while deflecting attention from his own leadership challenges.
Lessons from the past — and a big warning for the future
Ovenden’s resignation is more than an individual case: it is symptomatic of a wider illness within Labour.
Between 2016 and 2018, factional warfare led to the systemic abuse of left-wing MPs, and this was often ignored or dismissed by those who should have punished it, while right-wing MPs did nothing. We may conclude that they believed it was in their interest to let the left take a drubbing so they could have the upper hand again.
The 2025 resignation shows little has changed apart from the victims: with the right-wingers now holding leadership positions once again, there’s no need to tolerate past misconduct – especially if it can now be leveraged to make someone like Keir Starmer appear to look good.
But if it’s all for show, then there’s no genuine change of the culture within Labour; it’s just selective enforcement designed to manage appearances.
What mechanisms are in place to prevent similar factional abuses in the future? And are they applied equally to everybody – or only to those who aren’t deemed to be friendly to the current ruling cadre?
For Abbott and other historically targeted MPs, this story is a reminder of how factional politics, private communications, and leadership strategy intersect at the expense of transparency, fairness, and justice.
Ovenden may be leaving, but in doing so he has opened a can of worms that Starmer probably hoped never to have to contain.
Share this post:
The Whip Line – August edition: What we’re publishing, and why it matters
Share this post:
Our politics is collapsing into a shop window of spin.
Figures in power seize single lines from reports, cut them into social-media-sized slogans, and use them to paper over enormous choices — choices about pensions, health care, housing and war.
The Whip Line exists to pull those scraps apart and show the wiring beneath.
From August 2025, Yr Obdt Srvt collected eight articles that do three things at once: expose the spin, document the human damage, and outline the alternatives the mainstream refuses to discuss.
Inside this issue you’ll find:
- Forensic reporting on the IMF’s Article IV review and how it was weaponised;
- A clear-eyed analysis of Labour’s about-face on recognising Palestine;
- An urgent piece from Israel’s own human-rights groups; and
- Investigations into the government’s treatment of disabled people, asylum claimants, and the communities that are losing their pubs.
Why a pamphlet? Because some stories need a permanent record.
Newspapers report; pamphlets preserve.
A pamphlet sits on a shelf, gets passed around, and can be consulted months later when the spin has faded.
It lets us do what daily headlines cannot: connect the dots.
I’ll be launching the pamphlet on Saturday – September 20.
Over the coming week I’ll publish previews of the pamphlet so you can decide whether you want the full collection.
If you care about the facts rather than a polished narrative, this is for you.
Share this post:
Tyler Robinson’s ‘groyper’ connection – truth, or conspiracy theory?
Was Tyler Robinson a member of the far-right “groypers” who hated Charlie Kirk? Here’s all the evidence that’s currently fit to publish.
In the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, speculation has flown in every direction.
Some voices have rushed to brand the alleged gunman, Tyler Robinson, as a “left-wing extremist”.
Others suggest he may instead have been influenced by the far-right “Groyper” movement — followers of Nick Fuentes, who famously clashed with Kirk during the so-called “Groyper Wars” of 2019–20.
So what evidence actually exists, and what does it tell us?
The engravings on the bullet casings
Court documents and media reports confirm that Robinson had engraved messages on bullet casings recovered from the scene. These included:
-
“Hey fascist! Catch!” followed by a sequence of arrow symbols linked to the video game Helldivers 2.1
-
“O Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Bella ciao, ciao, ciao!” — lyrics from a partisan anti-fascist anthem, later popularised by Money Heist and widely reused in meme culture.2
-
“If you read this, you are gay LMAO.”3
-
“Notices, bulges OwO what’s this?” — a phrase from “furry” subculture and meme communities.3
These inscriptions are real, verified by multiple outlets. What they mean is far less clear. They point more to meme culture and irony than to any coherent political programme.
Messages to friends
According to a probable-cause affidavit, Robinson’s roommate presented investigators with online messages in which Robinson allegedly talked about:
-
Leaving a rifle hidden in a bush and retrieving it.4
-
Wrapping the rifle in a towel.4
-
Engraving inscriptions on bullets.5
These messages have been reported by several outlets, but they are not uncontested.
Discord, the messaging platform, has since suggested that some of the alleged exchanges may not have originated from Robinson’s account, raising questions about their authenticity.4
Robinson’s political views
Robinson’s own family told investigators that he had become “more political in recent years” and expressed dislike of Charlie Kirk during a family dinner prior to the shooting.6
A note, reportedly written by Robinson and later destroyed, allegedly described his intent to target Kirk.7
This is strong evidence that he opposed Kirk personally.
But whether this was ideological, or a more individual grievance, remains unresolved.
Who are the Groypers, and what is their beef with Charlie Kirk?
Nick Fuentes is a far-right commentator whose followers, the “Groypers,” are known for heckling conservative events in order to push them further right. Their most famous clashes with Charlie Kirk and his Turning Point USA organisation between 2019 and 2020 are now known as the “Groyper Wars.”8
At the time, Groypers accused Kirk of being too moderate, questioned him on immigration and Israel, and labelled him a “fascist” and even an “undercover liberal.” This tactic of flipping the “fascist” accusation onto liberals is common in far-right rhetoric.9
Some Groypers even circulated a “Groyper Wars” Spotify playlist, which included the song Bella Ciao.8 That may explain why some are now linking Robinson’s casing inscription to Groyper culture.
What is not confirmed
Here are the claims that have not been proven in court or law enforcement filings:
-
There is no confirmed evidence that Robinson was a member of the Groypers or had any direct contact with Nick Fuentes.10
-
While some Groyper-linked memes and playlists featured Bella Ciao, Robinson’s choice to engrave it could just as easily come from anti-fascist, ironic, or pop culture sources. The meaning is ambiguous.2 8
-
Reports of Robinson’s Discord messages exist, but their authenticity has been challenged by the platform itself.4
What are we to think?
The available evidence shows that Tyler Robinson opposed Charlie Kirk and engraved slogans on bullet casings that drew from meme culture, gaming, furry subculture, and one anti-fascist anthem.
While some of these overlap with imagery that has circulated in Groyper circles, there is no proof that Robinson was part of Fuentes’s far-right movement.
It now seems clear that the Left had nothing to do with this attack, but nor is there yet any hard evidence tying Robinson to the Groypers.
Until investigators release more, the safe conclusion is that his motivations remain muddy — a mixture of personal hostility, irony, and internet subculture.
The warning is simple: don’t jump to conclusions that aren’t supported by facts.
Footnotes
-
Vanity Fair – “Bella Ciao inscription and its ambiguity” ↩ ↩2
-
Washington Post – “Affidavit details, Discord messages questioned” ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4
-
Associated Press – “Family testimony about Robinson’s views” ↩
-
Vanity Fair – “Background on Groypers and the Groyper Wars” ↩ ↩2 ↩3
-
X.com – “Popular Right-Wing Figures Who Have Referred to Democrats as ‘Fascists'” ↩
-
Reuters – “Summary of affidavit, no link to Groypers confirmed” ↩
- ☕ Support Vox Political on Ko-fi or donate via PayPal
- 📘 Buy our books — political analysis and satire you won’t find elsewhere
- 📨 Join the mailing list for real headlines, direct to your inbox
- 🔗 Follow us on Facebook and Twitter/X
