Follow this link to complete the survey.

With all the talk about the triple lock pensions going on, I have seen numerous clips of talk shows etc. where a host/guest says something along the lines of “the state pension is only £185 per week” then continues to use that as justification for needing to protect/increase rates. Whoa… hold your horses there before you continue with that argument! If I discount my mortgage (since ~75% of current pensioners own their home outright already), then my subsistence rate living with my fiancée is £130 per week (£260 combined). This covers all our bills (council tax and utilities including broadband and TV licence), all our food (groceries and usually 2 or 3 days/nights out a month), home insurance and even subscriptions (Netflix and Disney+). We live in an average 3-bed terraced house in the South East, so not the cheapest area, don’t have kids and are well-enough paid to not need to budget too much meaning that we could probably spend less if we needed to since we don’t scrimp for example at the supermarket, instead we just buy what we want; not to say that we waste money, but equally we don’t always look for the cheapest thing.

If my understanding is correct, I think the married couple rate is £295 per week, and the new scheme (reaching pension age after 2016) is £240 per person; someone please correct me if that’s not right. On top of this we can assume that most people will have some form of private pension(s) to supplement their income, have the safety net of being able to release equity from their home if required and, depending on eligibility, pensioners can also claim things like winter fuel payments and a free TV licence. In any case all those figures are higher than the money we currently require to live comfortably but not extravagantly if we didn’t have a mortgage. The rest of our money goes towards our mortgage, saving for luxuries such as nice holidays and saving for our future (home improvements, children, our wedding etc.) which are all likely to be expenses which the average pensioner won’t have other than saving for some nice things.

If I had no mortgage and a guaranteed income of £185 per week right now, I can honestly say that I would be financially comfortable enough to sit and watch Antiques Roadshow until the cows come home and still have change to spare to go out once a week for a nice meal or something. To make out that any pensioner who currently owns their home outright is in any way “hard-up” is just an out of touch joke.

​

From 6 November, new offences under the Crime and Policing Act 2026 will criminalise possession and publication of certain pornographic images depicting strangulation or suffocation, specified incest scenarios, and adults portraying sexual activity involving someone under 16.

The government's stated aim is to address material it believes can normalise harmful behaviour. I think that raises some important questions about evidence, civil liberties, and where the law should draw the line.

How should we distinguish between depicting something harmful and actually causing harm? What evidence should be required to justify criminalising possession of fictional material? And how do we ensure that legislation intended to protect people doesn't create unintended consequences for freedom of expression?

I recognise that there are serious arguments on the other side, particularly around the normalisation of violence against women and the protection of children. Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously, too.

But I don't think the existence of a legitimate public-safety concern means every proposed restriction should escape scrutiny.

What evidence would you want to see to assess whether these offences are likely to prevent harm, and how would you weigh that against the implications for civil liberties?

Official guidance: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/crime-and-policing-act-2026-offences-relating-to-pornography

I'm a lifelong Labour voter and was over the goddamn moon at their landslide victory a couple years back; but increasingly, this government feels like it's repeating some of the worst habits of the Tories and their tenure. The revolving-door politics/factional manoeuvring and the apparent inability to settle on a direction are all depressingly familiar and woefully out of touch with what the country needs at the mo.

The whole saga around getting rid of Starmer (that chewed up months of time/press coverage to boot) and Andy Burnham's rather convenient emergence as the successor after what looked very much like a long-planned backstabby campaign, had a distinctly Tory-esque whiff about it. Meanwhile, backbenchers seem determined to obstruct meaningful, lasting change, only for the government to retreat into another U-turn rather than take the political hit that's needed for us to move on and see things through. Despite his recent speech, Burnham still seems unwilling to tamper with the triple lock in any substantial way, for instance. Not because it wouldn't be a big cost saving, no, but because he's presumably afraid of what it'll do to his votes. Now there's apparently another fault line opening up over Ed Miliband's opposition to AI data centres on environmental grounds. These are legitimate issues to debate, but does everything really have to become another factional battle?

The country is in turmoil. People are struggling. Public services are under pressure and trust in politics is already on the floor. Labour was elected to bloody well govern, not to spend its time fighting. At some point, you have to accept that doing anything worthwhile will make you unpopular with somebody. Not every difficult decision can be softened into consensus, and not every policy can survive contact with a backbench rebellion if the government actually believes in it.

I'm not asking Labour to be perfect, or to abandon scrutiny and internal debate. I'm asking it to demonstrate some conviction, get its priorities straight and crack the fuck on. If it can't do that with a historical parliamentary majority, what exactly was the point of winning one?