There is something else you should know about new Green MP Hannah Spencer

When Hannah Spencer accepted her new role as the Green Party MP for Gorton and Denton in the early hours of Friday morning, she also had an apology to share. “To my customers, I’m sorry, but I think I might have to cancel the work that you had booked in, because I’m heading to Parliament,” she said. Afterwards, there may well have been plenty of Manchester households clamouring to find someone new to fix their pipes or fit their heat pump.

Not your average political victory speech, then. But Spencer, who managed to win 41 per cent of the vote in the long-time Labour stronghold in Greater Manchester, beating Reform to become the Green Party’s fifth MP and their first ever candidate to win a by-election in the process, is not your average politician. And that is undoubtedly a huge part of her appeal.

At 34 years old, hailing from a working-class background, and as someone who is trained as a plumber, Spencer will be something of a rarity in the Commons, dominated as it is by older, middle-class MPs, many of whom are career politicians, who took the time-honoured route to power (a PPE degree followed by a think tank job).

In fact, any one of those traits would make her pretty unusual in Westminster. Never mind the fact that she initially got into politics because she wanted to ban dog racing. Or that she adopts greyhounds (she currently has four of them: Olive, Judy, Forest and Will). Or that until a fortnight ago, she was juggling campaigning with getting up at the crack of dawn to drive down to Stoke for her plastering course (according to The Guardian, her fellow students added a sign to her workbench which read: “Ministry of Plastering and Plumbing – Hannah Spencer MP”).

But Spencer also feels like far more than the sum of these quirks. Her authenticity is striking (and certainly makes Starmer’s ever-repeated soundbites about being the son of a toolmaker sound even more wooden by comparison), and she is clearly a great communicator, largely by virtue of… just speaking straightforwardly.

And in a political era where it’s so common for would-be star candidates to get parachuted into constituencies they have no real passion for, purely based on polling, it is heartening to see someone with a connection to the area succeed.

Spencer was born in Bolton and dropped out of school after her GCSEs, before eventually going on to launch her plumbing business and branch out into installing heat pumps. She is, she has said, very proud of those working-class roots, and has vowed to represent people from similar backgrounds when she gets to Westminster. “We know how it feels to be looked down on, maybe because we didn’t do well at school, maybe because we do dirty manual jobs, because we are shut out of places we should be in,” she has said.

She only entered politics a few years ago, when she was elected as a councillor for Hale (a much posher Manchester suburb) in 2023. The following year, she ran as the Green Party’s candidate in the Greater Manchester mayoral election, ending up in fifth place.

While so many politicians strain to come off as relatable (or even just vaguely human), Spencer has this nailed, probably because she’s not trying to be anyone else. “People do keep saying, ‘You’re so relatable,’ and I think: ‘I’m no different to most people just walking down the street,’” she told Green leader Zack Polanski on his podcast, Bold Politics. “But what is rare is that any of us ever manage to get into politics. And that’s the difference.”

Instead of speaking in intangible soundbites about policy, her campaign saw her zero in on the cost of living as a major concern. This, she has said, came as a result of her nine-to-five in plumbing, where she’d constantly be in and out of people’s homes, speaking to them and hearing their worries: the boilers that haven’t been turned on all winter because of skyrocketing utility bills, for example. Her image is of someone who “gets it” because she’s lived it, as opposed to someone who spends their days having chummy lunches with wealthy stakeholders and then trots out a tired soundbite about “hard-working people”.

Focusing on, say, rising bills and rent controls rather than some of the Green Party’s trademark environmental policies was certainly a canny approach at a time when, frankly, many are so worn down by the sheer expense of existing that thinking properly about a greener future can feel a bit like a luxury. “I’m fighting for lower bills, for neighbourhoods scarred by austerity and underinvestment, and to stop the privatisation of the NHS,” Spencer wrote ahead of the by-election. “I’ve felt many of the pressures my neighbours face, which is why I’m determined to take their voices to parliament.”

This emphasis will almost certainly have helped win over younger voters in my age bracket. People in their twenties and thirties are largely bearing the brunt of the cost of living crisis, stuck endlessly renting while their pay stagnates and their elders berate them for living out some sort of suspended adolescence.

Most of us, I reckon, aren’t looking to find a convenient scapegoat for these problems; we just want the needle to move in the right direction and feel a bit – whisper it – hopeful, rather than getting roundly slagged off for not having kids or not living an entirely monastic life in order to scrape together a house deposit. “I don’t think it’s extreme or radical to think working hard should get you a nice life,” Spencer said in her victory speech.

It was perhaps inevitable, though, that Spencer’s authenticity would be called into question. After all, it can sometimes feel like there’s nothing the British love more than assessing whether someone who identifies as working class does, in fact, meet some austere and ideologically perfect definition of that demographic, and pulling off a “gotcha!” moment when said person fails to stand up to that criteria.

And so Spencer ended up having her credentials put under the microscope and being painted by her detractors as some kind of “fake plumber”. “I’ve been a plumber for nearly 20 years,” she told the New Statesman in February. “What do they want, to see a toilet I’ve fixed?” It was a throwaway, but clever response that only doubled down on that sense of relatability. It’s hard to imagine a more establishment candidate offering that kind of retort; the undercurrent of slightly exasperated humour feels very northern, too.

Her critics, meanwhile, have accused the Greens of attempting to stir up division during the campaign, too, by appealing to Muslim voters over the war in Gaza and releasing a video in Urdu featuring a photo of Starmer with the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist. Spencer, for her part, described those claims as “disappointing”, and stressed that she had reached out to “tens of thousands of people across the constituency”.

In a by-election that has been branded one of the most fraught in recent memory, this hasn’t been the only bit of mud-slinging directed at her. Spencer’s living arrangements were also cited as some kind of black mark against her working-class credentials, when it emerged that she owns two homes, including one in leafy Altrincham that seemed to morph – in the minds of her critics, at least – into some kind of mega-mansion as the campaign went on. While the right-wing press slammed her as a hypocrite, this narrative was debunked in a snappily titled piece from the Manchester Evening News, which aimed to clear up the whole palaver with the Ronseal headline of: “No, Hannah Spencer doesn’t live in a massive house with a weird chimney.”

And her former partner even got dragged into the misinformation, when it was claimed that she was married to a top executive at the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca (her ex did work there, but as a scientist, and although they bought that much-discussed Altrincham home together, they were never married). She brushed off rumours of this wealthy husband on the campaign trail with a snappy: “I can’t even get a text back.”

Relatable without feeling forced – this is textbook Spencer and the kind of normal-speaking politician the country craves. They are the hopeful antidote to the stale and wooden performances coming out of Westminster that feel so utterly hopeless. It isn’t about being northern and working class, it is about connecting with how most of the country are feeling. These are the “fresh-air” politicians whose party you want to go to because you feel like it might be fun, even when things are hard.

After her historic victory, all eyes will certainly be on her as she hops on the Avanti Pendolino from Manchester Piccadilly to kickstart her Westminster career. But before that, she’ll be celebrating. With karaoke, of course.

Mahmood to launch fresh asylum crackdown to take on Farage’s Reform

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is set to defy demands by Labour MPs to move to the left as she introduces new legislation to overhaul Britain’s asylum system in an attempt to blunt the appeal of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

The home secretary, who is set to outline plans next week, will say the government must cut migration or risk opening the door to the right who would divide communities with the kind of anti-immigration raids seen in the US.

The plan comes after Labour came a humiliating third in the Gorton and Denton by-election, with the Greens winning the seat and Reform coming second.

The result has sparked new questions over Keir Starmer’s future as prime minister, but also opened up a civil war for the heart of the party, with many Labour MPs and trade union leaders lambasting the way it has become “Reform-lite”.

But Ms Mahmood’s move follows Mr Farage and his home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf announcing draconian immigration plans at a press conference in Dover last week, where they vowed to introduce mass deportations, set up a British version of Donald Trump’s ICE immigration force, and cancel welfare for all foreign nationals among a series of extreme measures.

Ms Mahmood, who is facing the prospect of a backbench revolt over the plans, will argue next week that migration reform is consistent with Labour values.

According to a government source, she is expected to say Britain will always provide sanctuary to people genuinely fleeing war and danger, but the generosity of the asylum system is attracting people from across the world, funding human traffickers and encouraging false asylum claims.

A minister has suggested that she will also open up more safe and legal routes abroad for genuine asylum seekers to come to the UK.

But her move will deepen the rifts in the Labour Party, which have opened up in the wake of the by-election, with Sir Keir now facing the prospect of being ousted as prime minister after the local and devolved elections in May.

One minister, who supports Ms Mahmood’s plans, told The Independent: “My fear is we will now lurch to the left because we will wrongly believe that we need to stop our supporters switching to the Greens and because the PM will be persuaded it is the only way to save his job. That route only leads to disaster.”

However, a series of Labour MPs have insisted the Green insurgency on the left means the party needs to “return to Labour values.”

York Central MP Rachael Maskell, who led the welfare rebellion, said: “Voters clearly did not have sufficient confidence in Labour yesterday, so it cannot be business as usual. As many of us have been saying from the heart of the Labour Party, people need to have a clear vision of how Labour will positively transform their lives.”

Leeds MP Richard Burgon, who chairs the Socialist Campaign Group, added: “If Labour is to be the ‘Stop Reform’ party, then the leadership must stop treating progressive voters with contempt – and start appealing to them.”

Norwich South MP Clive Lewis said: “This government has burned its base, alienated its core vote, sidelined its activists and stuck two fingers up to the very people we came into politics to represent. And we’re surprised voters are walking away?”

Meanwhile, opponents latched on to the plans in a bid to capitalise on the elections on May 7.

SNP MP Pete Wishart said: “Looks like Labour has learned absolutely nothing from their electoral hammering yesterday. Chasing Reform votes by trying to emulate their sickening attacks on immigrants will only confirm their continuing decline. The very definition of ‘cloth-eared’.”

Last week, the home secretary visited Denmark, which has one of the toughest asylum and immigration systems in Europe.

Denmark’s Social Democrat-led government has reduced the number of asylum applications to the lowest number in 40 years and removed 95 per cent of rejected asylum seekers.

Ms Mahmood has made little secret of her admiration for the approach.

Denmark has sought to deter new arrivals by largely moving from a permanent to a temporary stay model, where most asylum seekers are sent back to their home country once they are deemed safe.

The home secretary believes that unless Britain follows a similar approach, the far right will gain momentum, bringing “havoc and chaos” to Britain’s streets.

Touring the Danish asylum system earlier this week, Ms Mahmood was taken to a reception centre on the outskirts of Copenhagen, where asylum seekers are taken by police to stay on a short-term basis.

The migrants’ biometrics are taken, and they are given health checks. The home secretary was then taken to a returns centre where migrants go before being sent back to their country of origin.

The centres, operated by the Danish Red Cross, included communal canteens and outdoor exercise machines.

She was shown accommodation which included plain rooms furnished with small single beds or bunk beds and lockers.

Denmark’s tough stance on asylum seekers began in the mid 2010s when the hard-right Danish People’s Party began to rise in the polls.

Facing a collapse of working-class support for her party, Mette Frederiksen – now the prime minister but then in opposition – moved to make protection for asylum seekers temporary.

Her Social Democrats also argued that uncontrolled immigration was placing huge pressure on working-class communities.

Reform is in big trouble –which means it will fight dirtier than ever

Last week, I played an informal game with some acquaintances: would it be worse for Labour if the Greens won the Gorton and Denton by-election, or if Reform’s Matt Goodwin did?

The argument for the Greens was that their victory would suggest the existence of a viable party to Labour’s left that would terminally split the vote or even replace Labour altogether: a trick that was last achieved when Labour eclipsed the Liberals at the 1922 general election.

I went for Reform, arguing that such a victory might add new momentum to Reform’s attempt to become the governing party at the next general election, whereas the Greens winning could well prove to be that most ephemeral of political phenomena, a protest vote. I think the same calculation is probably true for the (remaining) Tories who will have allowed themselves a great sigh of relief at Goodwin’s defeat.

By-elections are generally less historic than hysterical. If they are historic, it’s not usually in the ways that over-excited pundits predict. The SDP’s victory in the 1981 Crosby by-election broke no mould, and the then beleaguered prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, won the next election by a landslide. Nor did Labour’s Hartlepool by-election defeat of 2021 spell an end to Keir Starmer.

The prosaic truth is that only at general elections do you choose governments. The loss of Gorton hardly makes a dent in Labour’s majority, and unless the party actually splits, the next election doesn’t have to be before the middle of 2029. Already, I imagine that some voters in last May’s Kent, Warwickshire, Leicestershire and Durham local elections, now enduring their utterly incompetent Reform councils, are reflecting on the difference between protest and power. After May’s local elections, some will wake up wondering the same about their Green councils. General elections are different.

Commentators in the era of social media very rarely allow that results are “interesting” rather than epochal. But Gorton is just that. Three years out from a national vote, the result is, in one way, a typical “protest” vote. Unlike Reform, not many voters know what the Greens stand for, and probably very few think they will be in government. In Gorton (which has one of Britain’s largest Muslim populations), by most accounts, Gaza featured more heavily in the victorious campaign than climate change. At which point, you may wonder what the Greens are for. If they’re polling this well before the general election, someone might actually get around to asking them.

As for Reform, they came second in a seat that was tricky for them since many Reform supporters would like to deport half the constituents. But at one point, Farage’s party thought they’d take it and now are complaining that Muslim jiggery-pokery robbed them of victory. Complaining, Trump style, but – unlike Trump – not making a formal complaint that would need to be investigated. It adds to the feeling, as indicated in the polls, that Reform may have peaked.

Labour is in the doldrums for sure. But as of today, Labour’s loss is what Labour makes it. Starmer won’t go unless his cabinet colleagues force him or he decides he’s had enough. Angela Rayner saying the government must be braver is not exactly a call to murder Caesar.

A leadership battle any time soon is unlikely to help them, because any new PM faces the same problems Starmer does, and there are no magic bullets here, even if there is plenty of snake oil being offered by various political vendors. A sensible candidate to replace Starmer will wait another 18 months and hope to persuade him that he has done his duty. In the medium term, there’s some suggestion of an economic upturn but whether that will be enough to turn Labour’s fortunes around is moot.

If you want to get beyond horse-race politics and look at the bigger picture, the uncertainty about which of three parties might win an election in a single seat points to the transcending problem: that our electoral system can no longer cope with the voters’ reluctance to be corralled into two-party politics. In 2024, it gave us Labour’s absurdly oversized majority, and in 2029, it could bring us the election of most people’s least preferred government.

Fifteen years ago, thanks to Nick Clegg, David Cameron and Ed Miliband, a half-arsed referendum was held on changing the voting system and the idea of changing to the alternative vote (where your preference can transfer) was defeated. One of the ways Labour could now be “braver” is to use its majority to bring in AV for 2029. The alternative may be chaos.

Neil Sedaka, legendary ‘Amarillo’ songwriter, dies aged 86

Neil Sedaka, the legendary songwriter behind hits including “(Is This the Way to) Amarillo,” “Breaking Up Is Hard to Do” and “Love Will Keep Us Together,” has died. He was 86.

The New York-born songwriter was reportedly rushed to hospital in Los Angeles this morning. No cause of death has yet been announced.

In a statement posted to social media, Sedaka’s relatives said: “Our family is devastated by the sudden passing of our beloved husband, father and grandfather, Neil Sedaka.

“A true rock and roll legend, an inspiration to millions, but most importantly, at least to those of us who were lucky enough to know him, an incredible human being who will be deeply missed.”

Sedaka was born in Brooklyn on 13 March 1939. His father was a New York City taxi driver. Sedaka showed a talent for piano from a young age, and won a scholarship to the Juilliard School of Music’s Preparatory Division for Children at the age of eight.

While still a teenager, he teamed up with lyricist Howard Greenfield and the pair found work at New York’s Brill Building, one of the most influential hit factories of the era.

In 1958, Sedaka released his own debut single “The Diary”, which became a Top 20 hit. The song was included on his debut solo album Rock with Sedaka the following year.

Sedaka had a number of further hits in the following decade, including 1960’s “You Mean Everything To Me” and 1962’s “Breaking Up Is Hard To Do”.

He also continued writing songs with Greenfield for other artists, including Connie Francis (1958’s “Stupid Cupid”) and “When Love Comes Knockin’ (At Your Door)” for The Monkees in 1967.

In 1971, Sedaka and Greenfield’s song “(Is This The Way To) Amarillo” was recorded by English singer Tony Christie. The song was very successful in mainland Europe but only a minor hit in England until many years later.

In 2002, the song enjoyed a resurgence in popularity after its use in comedian Peter Kay’s sitcom Phoenix Nights. It was re-released in 2005 accompanied by a video starring Kay, and in 2006 a soccer-themed version was re-recorded by Christie under the title “(Is This The Way To) The World Cup”.

Sedaka released his version of “Love Will Keep Us Together” in 1973. It was covered two years later by pop duo Captain & Tennille, becoming a worldwide hit.

Sedaka married Leba Strassberg in 1962. He is survived by his wife and his two children, Marc and Dara Sedaka.

How millennial-favourite Lucy and Yak fell foul of the internet

I am a Caucasian woman in her late thirties who works in media and resides in a creative seaside town. That’s probably all the information you need to glean that I have at least two pairs of Lucy & Yak dungarees. (And three pairs of their trousers. And two floor-length skirts. And a boiler suit.)

I’m not alone; the vast majority of the women and non-binary people I know have similar collections in the brand’s distinctive colour palette and range of bold prints.

Lucy & Yak is a legitimate success story – an initially small, British company that became an almost overnight sensation after launching in 2017. It was founded by Lucy Greenwood and Chris Renwick, two northerners who dreamt up the idea of manufacturing simple, high-quality dungarees made by people who really cared about the product. They took a trip to India, held a bunch of meetings and had almost lost hope when they met a man called Ismail in a rural village in Rajasthan. A tailor by trade, he shared their ethos of treating workers with respect and paying them fairly.

The trio made the first 30 pairs together and sold out within minutes of listing them on Depop. That initial explosion of popularity continued – middle-class, millennial women with a slightly artistic bent were champing at the bit to order their very own pair of Lucy & Yaks, beguiled by the sustainable principles, comfy and fun designs, quality, durable fabric and inclusive sizing. Nine years on, Ismail employs over 100 people in a factory he built from scratch and the brand’s rapid growth has seen bricks and mortar shops open in 13 locations around the UK. A whole range of garments are stocked on top of the signature overalls, from patterned fleeces to underwear.

But trouble is brewing in paradise: rumblings of discontent have been stirring alongside whispers that perhaps such rapid growth has led to a decline in quality. Customers noticed that items started being delivered wrapped in plastic, where they’d previously come swaddled in quirky, recycled sari fabric bags as a more unique and eco-friendly alternative. Having once been held up as a pioneer in inclusivity and body positivity thanks to its use of diverse models and sizes up to a UK 32, the brand caused uproar when it recently announced that it was phasing out its biggest sizes from spring/summer.

The Yaklash was swift and merciless, with former fans calling the move “disappointing but completely unsurprising”. Plus-size influencer fatpheebs wrote on Instagram: “What a lovely way to thank the plus-size community, who are one of the core reasons your business became so successful. What happened to sustainable inclusion?”

The latest nail in the coffin came courtesy of Leena Norms, a British poet, vlogger and presenter with more than 60,000 Instagram followers, who posted a thorough takedown of Lucy & Yak on social media entitled “Why I quit Lucy & Yak as a customer and influencer”, plus a 53-minute deep dive YouTube video reviewing all of the brand’s clothes that she owns.

Norms had previously partnered with Lucy & Yak. She’d been a supporter of the brand since its inception, loving the durability of the fabric and the fit. “My thighs, which usually wore holes in my jeans within the year, were no match for their denim twill fabric, which seemed indestructible,” she wrote. “I admired how size inclusive they were, even as a small brand without huge profits, including different bodies in their pictures as well as their listings.”

When Lucy & Yak approached her to work together, she jumped at the chance. But as time went on, she claims, she started noticing issues: jeans with thin, badly finished pockets that tore easily; tops that bobbled after one cold wash and started sagging within a couple of wears; more restrictive, less size-flexible designs; jeans that ripped along the seam despite being brand new and in the correct size. “As I sat naked on a public toilet repairing my Lucy & Yak gifted item, I started to question whether I had backed the wrong horse… or if the horse I had bet on was now a different beast entirely,” she added.

Then there were what Norms called “aggressive” discounts and three-for-two deals, designed to convince customers to buy more. “Clothes that were built to fail, wrapped in plastic with the constant encouragement to overconsume – where had I heard that before?” she observed, in a damning comparison to the fast-fashion practices Lucy & Yak purported to oppose. “I knew I had to accept that the company I had supported with my own money all those years ago wasn’t the same radical place.”

The post gained a huge amount of attention, attracting more than 80,000 likes and thousands of comments. The floodgates had opened: hundreds of other former stans shared their own disappointing experiences of allegedly poorer quality materials and tailoring, plus inconsistent sizing. “The pair of jeans I bought from them over the last year completely ripped open in the crotch after just a few washes,” commented climate justice activist and author Mikaela Loach. “Quality has definitely gone down big time, and yes feels just like fast fashion now.”

“I was a loyal L&Y customer for years until I got overwhelmed with their constant drops and emails after they claimed to be a sustainable brand,” replied user Courtney Doom. “So disappointing that they’ve lost all of their integrity.”

There were other murmurings about manufacturing expansion, with multiple other factories being used on top of the original one to pump out more stock. At the same time, commenters pointed out that prices have climbed even as quality allegedly appears to have deteriorated. Out of interest, I went back and looked at the first pair of Lucy & Yaks I bought – a pair of maroon dungarees purchased in 2019 that I still happily wear on a weekly basis. They cost me the princely sum of £40, which I considered a good deal for an ethically made item of clothing that I assumed (correctly) would be worn for years to come.

The same item would cost me almost 50 per cent more today, priced at £59.

When I mention the topic of this article with friends, those who’ve bought from the brand in recent months all seem to have their very own “Lucy & Yuck” stories. “I got some of their trousers in the sale and wore a hole in the crotch within a couple of outings,” one tells me. “I just have the thighs of a normal, 40-something woman. It’s not my thighs that are the problem – it’s their trousers!”

The reason customers seem so disappointed is because one feels they should be better. Rather than selling out to a faceless corporation, in 2025, Greenwood and Renwick handed the business over to their employees. The transition to an Employee Ownership Trust started in August; the trust holds a controlling stake in the business on behalf of all employees, who will become beneficiaries.

Meanwhile, the company’s “Re:Yak” sustainability programme sees the brand embrace circular fashion – keeping as much out of landfill as possible – by allowing customers to return items in any condition for a money-off voucher, and reselling second-hand and upcycled garments via a special “pre-loved” collection. The company’s “marketplace” allows people to swap or sell Lucy & Yak products online; there’s even a dedicated seamstress working out of a Barnsley studio, repairing and upcycling products into one-of-a-kind pieces. According to the website, more than 39,000 items have been “Re:Yakked” in total since 2023.

And there is, potentially, hope on the horizon. Shortly after Norms published her take-down, Lucy & Yak shared an open letter from the managing director, Lydia Coley, on social media (previously planned or a kneejerk bit of damage control? Impossible to say for sure). “Lucy & Yak is entering a new chapter,” read the post. “Lucy & Yak has always been more than a clothing brand; it is a space rooted in acceptance, creativity and belonging.” Coley went on to share some U-turns that addressed the very gripes raised by Norms and other critics: reversing the size reduction changes and reinstating size 32 on some of the most popular styles from next autumn; bringing back the beloved sari bags instead of using plastic packaging.

“Our loyal customers and early supporters are the foundation of this brand, and you deserve openness, clarity, and a genuine voice in where we go next,” the post continued. “I am committed to investing the time to listen carefully and understand how we can improve.”

The hundreds of comments were a mixed bag – some thanked the company for listening to the community and making changes, others remained sceptical and implored for a return to smaller collections of a higher quality instead of frequent drops and a bombardment of email marketing. Time will tell if these voices are listened to.

“I still think some items are worth it, but ‘sustainable’ means built to last, not built to rot,” Norms finished her Instagram post. “L&Y grew into a huge company because of the goodwill and money of a climate-conscious, size-inclusive customer base. I really hope they can reverse their trajectory away from the fast fashion route and back to us, but until then, I’m no longer a customer or a partner.”

When we approached Lucy & Yak for comment they sent an additional quote from Lydia Coley. “Quality and responsible sourcing are at the core of our brand. We use organic and recycled materials that are independently certified to recognised environmental and social standards, and we choose our manufacturing partners carefully, with a focus on skill and ethics. We’ve received valuable customer feedback and are using it to further refine our fabrics and fits. We continue to work closely with our product team to prioritise durability and long-term wear.”

Idyllic beaches and vivid sunsets: Relaxing Spanish island escapes

More than 300,000 lose benefits as DWP makes major changes

Hundreds of thousands of benefit claimants have had their payments stopped in recent years, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has revealed, as it continues to overhaul the universal credit system.

Official statistics show that 356,521 households in the UK have had their benefits closed due to failing to claim universal credit after being invited to.

This means a loss of payments averaging over £1,000 a month, for failing to respond to the “migration notice” that the DWP has sent to most households still on “legacy benefits”.

These include tax credits, income support, jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, and housing benefit. The government is aiming to complete the migration of all of these benefits to universal credit by the end of March 2026.

Of the 2.3 million households that have been sent a migration notice so far, 1.9 million have successfully migrated. Around 10,000 are still undergoing the migration process, which started in July 2022.

While anyone who has their legacy benefits closed can later apply to universal credit, they will not be guaranteed the same transitional protection. This ensures that all people who undertake the DWP’s managed migration process will not see their total payments decrease as a result.

However, the payments will also not increase annually in line with inflation as in previous years, instead staying the same until they are equivalent to universal credit levels.

Anyone who receives a migration letter has three months to make a universal credit claim. If no reply is received within 11 weeks, the DWP says it will intervene with an “enhanced support journey” which could involve letters and even home visits.

Welfare experts continue to advise any benefit claimant who receives a letter to act in good time to ensure they do not miss out.

Conor Lawlor, a benefit specialist at Turn2Us, said: “If someone gets a managed migration letter now, they should make a claim for universal credit before the deadline in their letter to ensure they get transitional protection.

“They should already be going through the enhanced support journey, so the DWP will be in touch with them if there’s no response following a notice being issued. If they need additional support with their claim, they should use the Turn2us find an adviser tool.”

Research from the DWP released this week found that some of the key reasons that people choose not to claim after receiving a letter are confusion about eligibility requirements, believing they were earning too much, and feeling the process was too much effort.

Some also believed they had too much in savings as, unlike with legacy benefits, no claimant with over £16,000 in savings can claim universal credit. However, the DWP has said this rule will be disregarded for 12 months for anyone who undergoes managed migration.

A DWP spokesperson said: “It is important people respond to the letter asking them to make the move to universal credit in order to continue receiving benefits.

“Help is at hand for those making the move, including our dedicated helpline, guidance on gov.uk, and the Citizens Advice’s free and independent help to claim service.

“We’re also giving extra help to people moving from employment and support allowance, such as phone calls and additional guidance.”

Pakistan declares ‘open war’ on Taliban after bombing Afghanistan

Pakistan has declared “open war” on the Taliban after bombing Afghanistan’s major cities, including its capital Kabul, on Friday.

The strikes mark a serious escalation after months of clashes between the warring nations, threatening the breakdown of a fragile Qatar-mediated ceasefire negotiated last year.

Both sides claim their actions are in retaliation in response to provocation from the other.

“Our cup of patience has overflowed. Now it is open war between us and you [Afghanistan],” Pakistan’s defence minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said in the aftermath of the escalation.

On Thursday night, the Taliban launched a large-scale offensive against Pakistani military posts along their shared border, which runs 2,600km (1,615 miles).

They had previously threatened action after a Pakistani attack on Sunday killed 13 civilians.

The group said the operation marked a “response to repeated provocations and violations by Pakistani military circles”, in a statement by Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesperson for the Taliban administration.

But Pakistan insisted the actions were “unprovoked” and launched what it called an “immediate and effective response” in return. Major cities, including Kabul and Kandahar and the province of Paktia, were hit in the attacks.

Thick plumes of black smoke were seen rising about the residential neighbourhood of Darulaman in western Kabul and a fierce blaze engulfed part of a depot in video footage verified by Reuters.

The clashes have resulted in heavy casualties with 274 Afghan Taliban officials killed and more than 200 wounded, according to Pakistan’s military spokesperson Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry. He said 12 Pakistani soldiers had died.

At least 22 Afghan military targets are reported to have been destroyed.

Afghanistan’s defence ministry says more than 55 Pakistani soldiers have been killed and several “captured alive”. It says eight Afghan soldiers have died, while 11 others have been wounded. It says that it has hit 19 Pakistani military outposts.

The countries’ allies have expressed concern about the escalation and urged both parties to resolve their differences through diplomacy.

Russia’s foreign ministry called on Pakistan and Afghanistan to halt the conflict with immediate effect and to return to the negotiating table.

Officials from Russia, Turkey, China and Saudi Arabia are reportedly attempting to mediate, according to diplomats and news reports. Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, announced Tehran is also ready to mediate.

UN human rights chief Volker Turk also appealed for “urgent political dialogue” between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Afghanistan said on Friday that it hopes to resolve its conflict with Pakistan through dialogue, according to Afghanistan’s spokesperson Mr Mujahid.

But Pakistan’s military says it is continuing its operation at the direction of prime minister Shehbaz Sharif.

Islamabad has long accused Kabul of harbouring Tehreek-e-Taliban militants, also known as the “Pakistani Taliban”, claims that the Taliban deny.

The group have been involved in several terror attacks across Pakistan as Pakistan saw its deadliest year for combat deaths in a decade in 2025 due to counterterrorism operations.

Both countries share a significant Pashtun population, complicating the conflict.

The instability comes at a delicate time for the region, which is facing the prospect of war between the US and Iran after American warships and fighter jets inched ever-closer to the Islamic Republic in recent weeks.

Afghanistan is gripped by extreme poverty, unemployment and hunger since a collapse in the delivery of aid after the Taliban returned to power in 2021 after the withdrawal of US forces and a two-decade insurgency against the US-backed government.