On April 5, Prime Minister Keir Starmer issued a statement [1] declaring that "no matter the global uncertainty, I'm on the side of the British people". This bombastic utterance seems bizarre when compared with the content of his statement that "new measures come into force today to support workers, pensioners, and families with the cost of living". The highlight of what he had to say was more an admission of the criminality of the cartel parties in Westminster, for, if the two-child benefit-cap, "scrapped from today", would "lift nearly half a million children out of poverty", then why the delay in so doing? He also linked this measure to "his commitment to defend Britain's interests abroad and stand up for people at home".

This bogus claim was strained even further beyond belief as Starmer continued that "taken together, this action leaves the UK better placed to weather current economic challenges, while working with global partners to secure de-escalation and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to relieve pressure on prices globally". As if the measures he announced were somehow transforming the economic direction of Britain, let alone solving child poverty in Britain! Linking his claim to the crisis created by the US/Israeli illegal attack on Iran where Britain has been supporting Israel and the US all along is shameful. The closing or opening of the Strait of Hormuz and the movement of global oil prices have little or nothing to do with Starmer and his working with "global partners". It does not put him on the side of the British people or the people in Iran who have been brutally attacked.

Even on the two-child benefit cap, what was forgotten in Starmer's statement was that the government had promised to reverse this nearly two years ago when coming to power and had now only been forced to do it by a massive rise in poverty. According to the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) [2], 4 million children are now living in poverty in Britain rather than the "nearly half a million" that he claims will be lifted out of poverty by the removal of the two-child cap. Disability and rights groups have also pointed out that the overall cap on benefits to claimants introduced by previous governments will continue to impact particularly on those with larger numbers of children and higher rents [3].

On the other measures that Keir Starmer said were coming into force on April 5 "to support workers, pensioners, and families with the cost of living", his rhetoric is also very misleading. The government's own language is that it is "rebalancing" Universal Credit (UC) and that it will "improve basic adequacy" whilst addressing "perverse incentives". But the fact is that the claim that people don't want to work and prefer to exist on the receipt of UC - which is what is meant by referring to improving "basic adequacy" and addressing "perverse incentives" - cannot be sustained when the reality is that working people are simply being called on to exist in those jobs with poverty wages attached. The claim is that the "rebalancing" will be "making work pay".

As the press release of the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) says: "Incentives that discourage work and trap people on benefits [are] to be removed via legislation coming into force today." And: "Nearly £1 billion taxpayer money [is] expected to be saved thanks to measures to narrow the gap between payments for people on health-related benefits and those actively seeking work." The reality is that new UC claimants found to have Limited Capability for Work-Related Activity (LCWRA) will now receive a much lower amount, going from the higher rate of £429.80/month to the lower rate 217.26/month.

Overall the new measures mean that around 2.25 million families with the health element will lose about £500/year on average by 2029/30, whilst around 3.9 million families without the health element gain about £265/year on average. So the "rebalancing" is literally to take from the sick/disabled, redistribute a smaller slice to the wider UC population and the government bank the rest to increasingly spend on Starmer's war economy to "defend Britain's interests abroad".

The second big "rebalancing" is that of Personal Independence Payments (PIP), the main welfare benefit for people with serious physical and mental health disabilities. According to disability and rights groups, this measure is a subtle but brutal change. It targets people whose difficulties are spread across several activities (e.g. moderate problems with washing, dressing, preparing food, communication) rather than concentrated in one. To get the daily living component, claimants must now score at least four points in a singly daily living activity, not just eight points in total across multiple activities.

Along with tax increases on pensioners' income that Starmer claims will "support" pensioners, these and other measures - including the abolition of legacy welfare benefits - will remove vital protection for people with complex needs, often depriving them of housing and other vital benefits. The Universal Credit which over several governments now has replaced most other benefits, including sick pay, is being utilised as the central weapon in this by government to cut benefits and "make work pay".

These actions of Starmer and the government, while the Prime Minister claims the opposite, are not on the "side of the people". Neither is this to "defend Britain's interests abroad". What is revealed is that there is an ongoing restructuring of the welfare system in the direct interests of the oligopolies and war industries that is no longer hidden. In other words, the "rebalancing" of welfare benefits continues to cause serious hardship to the people and benefit the rich. It is imperative that those in need continue to make their claims on society, and be supported in doing so as a part of defending the rights of all.

For new benefit rates see: https://benefitsnews.co.uk/2026-27-benefit-uprates/

Notes
1. Prime Minister: No matter the global uncertainty, I'm on the side of the British people
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-no-matter-the-global-uncertainty-im-on-the-side-of-the-british-people
2. Poverty: Facts and Figures
https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/poverty-facts-and-figures
3. The benefit cap is a welfare policy that limits the amount in state benefits that an individual household can claim per year. It was introduced by the Cameron-Clegg coalition government in 2013 as part of that government's wide-reaching welfare "reform" agenda which included the introduction of Universal Credit and changes to housing benefit and disability benefits. The benefit cap primarily affects families with children, high rents, or both. By 2024, two-thirds of the families affected by the cap were single-parent families, half of whom had a child under five.

Disarm Education - Excel Arms Fair Protest, Newham

An investigation by Declassified UK has revealed that executives from major arms companies, including BAE Systems, Leonardo, Thales, and Rolls-Royce, have been given direct influence over academic courses at British universities.

According to Declassified UK [1], these companies have been invited to sit on at least 53 university advisory committees across the country. The investigation states that they are usually asked to provide "strategic direction" for academic departments, and in some cases are also permitted to review the progress of research projects.

Using Freedom of Information requests, Declassified UK found that at least 21 universities had asked arms companies to sit on their committees. The institutions identified include the universities of Southampton, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leicester, Cardiff, York, and Queen's University Belfast.

Declassified UK reports that some of the universities openly acknowledge this arrangement, describing it as a way to "respond to the needs of employers." The minutes of one committee meeting, cited by the investigation, show that arms executives were thanked for "ensuring that our programmes fit industry requirements and demand."

Specific instances of this industry influence were also documented. During a meeting at the University of Hull, an official from BAE Systems said the company would "welcome applications" from students for "industrial placements" and expressed a wish to "develop the relationship." Separately, a committee at the University of Cardiff discussed whether "industry" could "teach material to students," noting that this would be "an appealing prospect for the School but would also offer good exposure for industry."

The findings from Declassified UK follow an earlier investigation by openDemocracy, which revealed that British universities had accepted almost £100 million from defence companies over a five-year period. That investigation noted that many of the companies involved are also arming Israel.

These findings coincide with mounting pressure on universities over their ties to the arms trade. In February this year, over 1,500 academics, researchers, and students signed an open letter demanding that UK universities cut their links with arms companies [2]. Campaign groups such as Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) have also called on institutions to "immediately stop accepting funding from arms companies."

Notes
1. Arms industry given direct influence over university courses - Declassified UK, April 8, 2026
https://www.declassifieduk.org/arms-industry-given-direct-influence-over-university-courses/
2. Universities face backlash over £2.5bn in defence partnerships as academics and students demand transparency and divestment, AOAV, February 26 2026
https://aoav.org.uk/2026/universities-face-backlash-over-2-5bn-in-defence-partnerships-as-academics-and-students-demand-transparency-and-divestment/

Human chain around power plant at Shahid Rajaei, Iran, April 26 2026 - Photo: Fars

On April 8, Iran declared a "historic and crushing defeat" of the United States and the Israeli regime after 40 days of war. "Iran has achieved a great victory and has forced criminal America to accept its own 10-point proposal," the statement issued by Iran's Supreme National Security Council read. "Iran and the Resistance have almost completely destroyed the American military machine in the region," it stated. "They have inflicted crushing and deep blows on the vast infrastructure and capabilities that the enemy had built and deployed around the region over many years for this war against Iran."

"We congratulate all the people of Iran on this victory," the statement read, "and emphasise that until the details of this victory are finalised, there remains a need for the resilience and prudence of officials and the preservation of unity and solidarity among the people of Iran."

According to the statement, the United States had agreed to a 10-point proposal that fundamentally committed it to:

- No new aggression against Iran

- Continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz

- Acceptance of enrichment

- Removal of all primary sanctions

- Removal of all secondary sanctions

- Termination of all UN Security Council resolutions

- Termination of all resolutions from the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors

- Payment of compensation to Iran

- Withdrawal of US combat forces from the region

- Cessation of war on all fronts, including against the heroic Islamic Resistance of Lebanon

For nearly 40 days Iranians had taken to the streets every night to defend the Islamic Revolution in defiance of US/Israeli savage bombardment. During the hours before the announcement of the ceasefire agreement, following US President Donald Trump's psychopathic threats to erase Iranian civilisation, crowds were noticeably larger. Demonstrators were condemning US/Israeli attacks, thanking the armed forces for their missile responses and demanding continued retaliation against the aggressors.

Israeli Media Admits Defeat

According to Israel's Maariv newspaper, the US/Israeli war ended in a "decisive victory for Iran", with both the US and Israel conceding to a "strategic surrender" and retreating from the battlefield. The report underscored the "massive defeat" of the US and Israeli forces, which would carry long-term consequences, particularly in Lebanon, and would bolster Iran's regional position in the Persian Gulf for years to come. The Israeli newspaper also emphasised that Iran has imposed a deal largely of its own design on the US, rejecting Trump's proposal.