Past three years has seen UK descend into a cesspit of racism, terror plots and zealotry.TA
Division in the wake of Oct 7 atrocity has weakened UK… while Israel has grown stronger (Image: Getty / Express)
Three years ago, while on holiday in Israel, I woke up to what sounded like distant thunder. Only to discover that the boom reverberating across the sky that October 7 morning was, in fact, the sound of gunfire and grenades as Hamas terrorists butchered the largest number of Jewish people in a single day since the Holocaust.
Spool forward three years and, although Israel bears the wounds of the massacre, the country remains unbowed. Despite the consequent (and unwanted) war, the economy is rocketing. Israel’s GDP is forecast to outperform all G7 countries in 2026. Visiting the country again this week, walking along promenades buzzing with joggers and cyclists, passing the soaring skyscrapers and overflowing cafes, the can-do sense of ambition and vitality was palpable.
Contrast this with what Britain has become since that terrible October day. We should be stronger, more determined and tougher on dangerous extremism. Instead, we are weaker, more divided and more helpless as over the last three years the country has descended into a cesspit of racism, terror plots and dangerous zealotry.
We see it in the Greens – the first mainstream party to adopt a racist policy. And in those who can’t even allow Jews their pain and instead organised an anti-Israel protest yesterday on October 7. Not forgetting all the other Free Palestine marches which have overrun town centres). Meanwhile public bodies from our universities to the NHS have become places for antisemitism to fester.
Ironically friends in Israel express concern for my welfare living in the UK. Not least because our sclerotic authorities – by default or design – do nothing. Britain is already struggling on so many fronts – the cost-of-living crisis, our massive tax burden, illegal immigration, youth unemployment, an anaemic defence budget and a crippling welfare bill.
That’s without spending the past three years on a war footing, as Israel has. This should be the focus. Yet instead we have a Prime Minister whose political calculus is driven by appeasing an Islamist and hard-Left vote, and thus creating a climate in which antisemitism can flourish.
This is not simply a matter for Jews. Permission for any form of racism diminishes all decent people. So this is where we are three years on. Instead of becoming a catalyst for healing, October 7 has, in Britain, become a touch paper for hatred.
For a country that I, and so many people, love, this isn’t just a source of sorrow, but terrible, terrible shame.
Get the latest news from around the world and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Andy Burnham clarifies ‘fairer’ state pension triple lock changes for those born 1967-1996
Andy Burnham says the change is fairer and asked people what they think
Andy Burnham announced the change (Image: CHRISTOPHER FURLONG, POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
Andy Burnham has provided clarification following proposed alterations to the State Pension. The Prime Minister has confirmed that should Labour secure victory at the next general election the party intends to reform the mechanism determining yearly increases.
Existing regulations mean that the State Pension increases each April by a figure based on the “triple lock“, meaning the rise corresponds to either the inflation rate, average earnings growth or 2.5% – whichever proves highest. But concerns have been raised over its long-term viability, given it has produced substantial growth in State Pension values.
Data from the Institute for Fiscal Studies reveals that since it was introduced in 2011, the triple lock has seen State Pension values rise considerably faster than had it followed solely prices or earnings. It said the pension was now approximately 14% higher than it would have been if it had only tracked earnings.
At present, most people on a full State Pension receive £241.30 a week. Under the triple lock this is likely to increase to approximately £250.70 a week in April 2027.
The proposed reforms, unveiled during the Labour Party Conference, mean the State Pension will no longer increase by whichever is highest of 2.5%, average earnings or inflation, but will instead rise by the greater of inflation and 2.5%. Funds generated through these modifications will go towards establishing a National Care Service, designed to address care costs borne by families while simultaneously alleviating pressures upon the NHS.
The government’s proposals have provoked a mixed response. Critics included Sharon Graham, general secretary of the Unite union, who cautioned that the plans risked amounting to “electoral suicide”, reports the Mirror. Conversely, Tom Pope, chief economist at the think tank Institute for Government, welcomed the move, stating the triple lock was “a much more sensible way to increase pensions”.
Andy Burnham has since taken to social media to clarify what the proposed changes would mean in practice – and to canvas public opinion. Writing on his Facebook page, he said: “I want to explain what’s happening with the Triple Lock and why.
“The first thing to know is this: The state pension will keep going up. The Triple Lock means your pension rises each year by whichever is highest: inflation, wages or 2.5%. So it’s always rising.
“That exact system will stay in place until the end of this Parliament. Then, pensions will still continue to rise every year. Going up at least by inflation or 2.5%, whichever is higher. And under these proposals, wages still matter too. The state pension will continue to keep pace with earnings over time.
“The savings generated from this adjustment will help to fund a National Care Service, so older people can have the security of a State Pension that keeps rising every year, and the peace of mind of knowing they won’t face catastrophic care costs if they need support later in life.
“I think this is a fairer deal for older people. What do you think?” The post generated thousands of responses alongside more than 18,000 likes, with opinions sharply divided.
David questioned: “Why is it that when the country needs to raise money it always looks at raising it from the poorest in society i.e. pensioners and people on benefits. State pension is not a benefit it is a payment from an insurance policy that has matured. If the tax rate on earnings over 200k were to be raised by 5% it would not affect the lifestyle of those earning it.”
It will come into effect in 2030 (Image: Getty)
Brenda suggested: “It would be fairer to give pensioners the living wage and link future increases to MP’s pay rises.”
However, Stephanie supported the proposal, stating: “It’s fair, and I speak as someone a few years away from state pension age who this will affect. If we want an NHS that works then we need a care system that works too. At least you’ve grasped the nettle, which is more than your predecessors did.”
Stephen concurred, saying: “I’m in my Seventies and think the proposed changes are a good compromise for both present pensioners and younger people who have to fund our pensions.”
