radiofree.asia

Category: Analysis

  • The Holocaust of the Century: Israel has murdered 4% of Gaza’s population in the bloodiest onslaught in recent memory

    The Hebrew newspaper Haaretz has reported that the number of Palestinian victims in the Gaza Strip is approaching 100,000, including those who died directly in Israeli attacks or died due to the effects of war, such as hunger and disease, since the aggression began on 7 October 2023.

    The newspaper added that these figures mean that about 4% of the population of the Strip have lost their lives, making this war one of the bloodiest of the current century.

    Ministry of Health figures for Gaza are lower than reality

    Haaretz referred to a new study prepared by an international research team led by Professor Michael Spagat of the University of London, with the participation of Dr. Khalil Shqaqi. The study included a survey of 2,000 Palestinian families in Gaza, representing about 10,000 people.

    It concluded that about 75,200 people were killed as a result of the violence until January 2025, while the Ministry of Health in Gaza had announced 45,660 deaths at that time. This means that the actual number may be 40% higher.

    Indirect deaths and a high percentage of women and children dead in Gaza

    In addition to direct deaths, the study addressed deaths resulting from hunger, lack of medicine, the spread of disease, and the collapse of the health system, showing that the total number of deaths as of last January was about 83,740 people.

    According to the report, the death toll has increased since then, with the Ministry of Health in Gaza announcing that more than 10,000 people were killed after January, bringing the total to around 100,000 deaths.

    The study showed that 56% of the victims were women and children, an unprecedented percentage in contemporary conflicts. This percentage exceeds that recorded in conflicts such as Syria, Iraq, Kosovo, and Sudan.

    Spagat said that the death rate compared to the population was about 4%, one of the highest rates recorded in the 21st century.

    Absence of Israeli data

    The Haaretz report noted that the Israeli army did not announce any official figures on the number of civilian deaths in Gaza, which is unusual. Instead, Israel has repeatedly claimed that 20,000 members of Hamas and other factions were killed, but without providing any evidence or lists.

    The researchers confirmed that the Palestinian Ministry of Health’s data, despite Israeli skepticism, is accurate and may even be lower than the actual figures, pointing to its consistency with the results of other international studies.

    As of the end of June, the Ministry of Health in Gaza reported that the war had resulted in more than 189,000 deaths and injuries, in addition to more than 11,000 missing persons, most of them women and children, amid continuing siege, famine, and mass displacement.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Alaa Shamali

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • DWP PIP changes have NOT been scrapped – and the Welfare Bill will still kill disabled people

    Parliament voted on the Labour Party government’s so-called Welfare Bill on Tuesday 1 July. Predictably, the bill passed. In fairness, Labour only got it through by 75 votes – which, given its majority, is a huge embarrassment for it. It seemed to go through partly because most MPs don’t care about chronically ill and disabled people. But it also passed partly because of government amendments to it, which seemed to calm some Labour MPs. However, in a storm during the debate the government announced it was scrapping all the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Personal Independence Payment (PIP) changes entirely:

    Yet in reality, this is not the case – despite the corporate media reporting it as such.

    DWP PIP: no, Labour has no scrapped the changes

    As the Telegraph reported:

    Changes to the eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payments (PIP) have been removed from the legislation pending a review, in another concession to backbenchers.

    Under the proposals, claimants would have needed to score a minimum of four points – which measure how hard they find it to perform tasks unaided – in at least one daily activity to qualify for Pip from November 2026.

    Currently they need to score eight points to qualify – but these can be spread over several tasks.

    Sir Stephen Timms, the disability minister, had been set publish a report at around the same time as the change was due to come into effect, prompting warnings that the reforms would “put the cart before the horse”.

    But in a dramatic intervention in the Commons on the eve of the crunch welfare vote, Sir Stephen confirmed the findings of his review would come out before any changes to the Pip system were made.

    It is no longer certain that the proposed change, which had sparked fury from Labour MPs, will ever be introduced.

    Sir Stephen told MPs: “Others across the House during this debate have raised concerns that the changes to Pip are coming ahead of the conclusions of the review of the assessment that I will be leading.

    “We’ve heard those concerns and that is why I can announce that we are going to remove the Clause Five from the Bill at committee, that we will move straight to the wider review, sometimes referred to as the Timms Review and only make changes to Pip eligibility activity and descriptors following that review.”

    However, even though Timms announced this policy change on the hoof during the debate, some MPs were quick to point out that technically, nothing had changed:

    That is, the actual Bill that has been laid before parliament still has the DWP PIP changes in it. So, this gives Keir Starmer’s government room to bring back these cuts if it wants to. Even the Tories were pointing this out during the debate. Shadow DWP minister Helen Whatley called on the Speaker to intervene on this very issue.

    However, the government has not budged and the Bill in its current form it still now going to the next stage in parliament.

    What happens to DWP PIP next?

    So, what exactly will happen with the DWP PIP changes?

    Well, there is nothing stopping the government reintroducing the changes. There is also nothing stopping the report Timms mentioned (the so-called Timms Review) from recommending the four-point rule.

    Moreover, it is currently unclear what disabled people will be involved in the Timms Review. If it is charities such as MIND and Scope, then opposition to government changes will be weak – as these charities often fail to properly represent disabled people. MIND, for example, has historically had paid contracts with the DWP.

    So, DWP PIP claimants are still none the wiser as to whether they will see the government cut their benefits or not – regardless of what the media and politicians are saying.

    Moreover, Apsana Begum MP summed up the real issue anyway:

    The deserving and undeserving crips

    The focus in recent weeks from both campaigners and MPs has very much been on DWP PIP cuts in the government’s Bill. Of course, this is an easy target to focus on for MPs looking to improve their reputation and win over disabled people.

    Celebrity voices speaking out about DWP PIP cuts sums up the issue. Claimants of this benefit are the more acceptable face of disabled people reliant on the DWP. They often work. They’re often not working class. And they’re the kind of disabled people MPs can openly support. They’re the inspirational disabled people TV likes to show us.

    In reality, the people hardest hit by the government’s Welfare Bill will not be the celebrity DWP PIP claimants. It’s going to be the chronically ill Universal Credit claimants, and those living with mental health issues, who will see their Health Element either frozen or cut – when they’ve already suffered years of cuts previously, and already do not have enough to live on.

    However, these people are not the striving disabled people the media has been showing us. These are the scroungers that are costing hard-working tax payers too much. Therefore, who cares if they get hammered – as long as the deserving DWP PIP claimants don’t?

    This tactic worked, as only 49 Labour MPs ended up rebelling against the government and voting for the Bill – a number that is half of what it was just days ago.

    But fear not. There’s always the Assisted Dying Act if it all gets too much for chronically ill Universal Credit claimants.

    Labour climbdowns over DWP PIP are not a win for anyone – not when so many people will still be irreparably damaged by the rest of the government’s malicious Bill. Spineless MPs don’t care about this, of course – because it is ultimately not them who is going to suffer.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • DWP under more pressure as WASPI debate to also happen this week

    The long fight of millions of women born in the 1950s to win compensation for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) shambolic handling of their State Pension age rises has reached a critical parliamentary moment. This week, a debate is set to take place in Parliament that could finally force the UK Government to confront what the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign calls a “hat trick” of political U-turns necessary to right past wrongs.

    DWP facing another parliamentary mauling

    As the Daily Record reported:

    The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has announced there will be a parliamentary debate on a motion over “financial redress for 1950s women impacted by the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) maladministration of the State Pension ” this week. Bob Blackman confirmed the debate will take place on Thursday, July 3 during the weekly ‘Business of the House’ session in the Commons.

    For these millions of women, the pension age moved swiftly from 60 to 66 with barely enough warning, leaving many facing serious financial hardship in what campaigners see as one of the most damaging government blunders in decades.

    The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) laid bare the DWP’s failings, identifying maladministration for failing to provide adequate, timely communication to affected women and recommending compensation payments of between £1,000 and nearly £3,000 per individual.

    Yet despite the clear call from an independent watchdog, ministers have dug in, rejecting financial redress on the grounds that a blanket compensation scheme could cost taxpayers up to a staggering £10.5 billion.

    A glaring refusal from the government

    The government’s refusal stands out as a glaring contradiction given its own admission of maladministration and apology for a 28-month delay in notifying the women affected. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall contended that most women were “aware” of the pension age increases since they began in 1995 and argued compensation would be unfair and disproportionate to taxpayers.

    This stance has enraged campaigners and many MPs, who see it as a dismissal of the very real distress and financial damage suffered by about 3.8 million women born between 1950 and 1955. Critics argue the government’s refusal insults not only the affected women but also undermines the ombudsman’s authority and the principle of fair governance.

    The high stakes for the campaigners were underscored in recent weeks when the High Court granted WASPI a critical legal safeguard—a costs capping order that limits the campaign’s liability for legal defence costs to £60,000, shielding them from catastrophic financial ruin and allowing the fight for justice to continue.

    This legal protection is vital as WASPI prepares for a judicial review challenging the government’s refusal to offer compensation. The group’s chair, Angela Madden, made clear the emotional and financial toll of this long battle: “Without this safeguard, we faced a real risk of financial ruin—effectively being silenced by the threat of Government legal bills running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. This is the fight of our lives.”

    DWP under mounting pressure

    Amid mounting political pressure, including calls within Parliament for compensation schemes modeled on those provided to the Windrush generation or Post Office sub-postmasters, the government’s stance remains unchanged. However, the upcoming parliamentary debate scheduled for 3 July promises to bring renewed scrutiny on the DWP’s handling of the issue. Campaigners are hopeful that this political spotlight, combined with ongoing legal challenges, will force ministers to offer financial redress that truly recognises the hardship caused and finally honours the ombudsman’s recommendations.

    The refusal to compensate is particularly galling given the extensive independent investigation that revealed the government’s failure to responsibly inform women about pension age changes, causing significant distress and financial difficulty for millions. While the government highlights its broader pension support measures, such as the 8.5% rise in state pensions, many affected women see these as cold comfort after being denied fair compensation for a policy change that disproportionately impacted their lives.

    In this ongoing saga, WASPI women are not merely fighting for money—they are standing up for dignity and fairness, demanding recognition from a system that has repeatedly ignored their plight. Their struggle exposes broader failings in the Department for Work and Pensions and a Government too eager to brush aside inconvenient truths at the expense of some of society’s most vulnerable.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Trump’s ‘one big, beautiful bill’ set to screw over millions of Americans

    On Monday 30 June, US Senators held an overnight voting session to decide the fate of Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’. So far, the session has lasted 22 hours and is still ongoing.

    The 940-page bill would make sweeping cuts to healthcare and food programmes, whilst increasing spending on border security, defence, and energy production.

    The Congressional Budget Office is estimating that the bills’ sweeping tax and spending cuts will increase US debt by $3.3 trillion.

    Over the weekend, Senators passed a procedural vote (59-49) to advance the huge tax and immigration bill.

    Now, a megavote is underway on proposed amendments to the bill. If it passes in the Senate, it will go back to the House, for them to consider the changes.

    Trump: what does the bill include?

    The main focus of the Republicans’ debate so far has been how much to cut welfare programs.

    According to the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan federal agency, the proposed cuts would strip nearly 12m Americans of their health insurance.

    According to the BBC, the Democrats, who have criticised the cuts, have proposed several amendments to the bill. One of these included deleting provisions which would force rural hospitals to either limit their services or completely close down.

    As it stands, the Republicans are struggling to get the 50 votes needed for their bill to pass. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy told the BBC this was because it is a “moral monstrosity”.

    Republicans are also trying to permanently extend the tax rates that Trump signed into law in 2017. They are set to expire at the end of the year. These tax cuts had one clear objective – making the rich, richer.

    The White House claims:

    MYTH: The One Big Beautiful Bill is “just a tax break for billionaires.”
    FACT: The One Big Beautiful Bill delivers the largest middle- and working-class tax cut in U.S. history. The President’s legislation will put more than $10,000 a year back in the pockets of typical hardworking families. This is the most pro-growth, pro-worker, pro-family legislation ever crafted.

    The government provided households in the top 1% with average tax cuts of more than $60,000, compared to less than $500 for households in the bottom 60%. It also failed to deliver any of the economic benefits that Trump promised.

    According to NBC News, the bill will give Customs and Border Patrol $46.5bn to build their border wall, $2bn for the Department of Homeland Security, and $29.9bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The government would provide another $25bn for a “Golden Dome” missile defence system, $29bn for shipbuilding and $15bn for nuclear deterrence.

    Welfare, not warfare

    Just like the UK government, the US is taking from the poorest to make the rich richer, whilst also propping up their colonial and genocidal extra-curricular activities.

    To fund their tax cuts for the rich and ICE agents who are too afraid to show their faces, Republicans will be cutting Medicaid by nearly a trillion dollars over the next ten years. This will include forcing people to work at least 80 hours per month in order to be eligible for Medicaid, to complex changes to financing the program. 

    They are also aiming to save $52m by defunding Planned Parenthood or other organisations that provide abortions.

    Defending the indefensible

    Trump has one objective: stirring up racism and hatred towards immigrants, while making his billionaire pals even richer. Some Republicans have even had enough of Trump’s BS.

    The Whitehouse Press Secretary claims Trump is a “businessman first”. Yet he went bankrupt six times, and the US economy isn’t exactly in the best of health.

    What more is there to say? Trump – a moral, upstanding member of the community.  A great guy. A really great guy. A fantastic businessman. The best. Only has the people’s interests at heart.

    Feature image via the Canary

    By HG

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Chris Hedges: Gaza’s Hunger Games – how Israel is weaponising starvation

    ANALYSIS: By Chris Hedges

    Israel’s weaponisation of starvation is how genocides always end.

    I covered the insidious effects of orchestrated starvation in the Guatemalan Highlands during the genocidal campaign of General Efraín Ríos Montt, the famine in southern Sudan that left a quarter of a million dead — I walked past the frail and skeletal corpses of families lining roadsides — and later during the war in Bosnia when Serbs cut off food supplies to enclaves such as Srebrencia and Goražde.

    Starvation was weaponised by the Ottoman Empire to decimate the Armenians. It was used to kill millions of Ukrainians in the Holodomor in 1932 and 1933.

    It was employed by the Nazis against the Jews in the ghettos in the Second World War. German soldiers used food, as Israel does, like bait. They offered three kilograms of bread and one kilogram of marmalade to lure desperate families in the Warsaw Ghetto onto transports to the death camps.

    “There were times when hundreds of people had to wait in line for several days to be ‘deported,’” Marek Edelman writes in The Ghetto Fights. “The number of people anxious to obtain the three kilograms of bread was such that the transports, now leaving twice daily with 12,000 people, could not accommodate them all.”

    And when crowds became unruly, as in Gaza, the German troops fired deadly volleys that ripped through emaciated husks of women, children and the elderly.

    This tactic is as old as warfare itself.

    Ordered to shoot
    The report in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz that Israeli soldiers are ordered to shoot into crowds of Palestinians at aid hubs, with 580 killed and 4,216 wounded, is not a surprise. It is the predictable denouement of the genocide, the inevitable conclusion to a campaign of mass extermination.

    Israel, with its targeted assassinations of at least 1400 health care workers, hundreds of United Nations (UN) workers, journalists, police and even poets and academics, its obliteration of multi-story apartment blocks wiping out dozens of families, its shelling of designated “humanitarian zones” where Palestinians huddle under tents, tarps or in the open air, its systematic targeting of UN food distribution centers, bakeries and aid convoys or its sadistic sniper fire that guns down children, long ago illustrated that Palestinians are regarded as vermin worthy only of annihilation.

    The blockade of food and humanitarian aid, imposed on Gaza since March 2, is reducing Palestinians to abject dependence. To eat, they must crawl towards their killers and beg. Humiliated, terrified, desperate for a few scraps of food, they are stripped of dignity, autonomy and agency. This is by intent.

    Yousef al-Ajouri, 40, explained to Middle East Eye his nightmarish journey to one of four aid hubs set up by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The hubs are not designed to meet the needs of the Palestinians, who once relied on 400 aid distribution sites, but to lure them from northern Gaza to the south.

    Israel, which on Sunday again ordered Palestinians to leave northern Gaza, is steadily expanding its annexation of the coastal strip. Palestinians are corralled like livestock into narrow metal chutes at distribution points which are overseen by heavily armed mercenaries. They receive, if they are one of the fortunate few, a small box of food.

    Al-Ajouri, who before the genocide was a taxi driver, lives with his wife, seven children and his mother and father in a tent in al-Saraya, near the middle of Gaza City. He set out to an aid hub at Salah al-Din Road near the Netzarim corridor, to find some food for his children, who he said cry constantly “because of how hungry they are.”

    On the advice of his neighbour in the tent next to him, he dressed in loose clothing “so that I could run and be agile.” He carried a bag for canned and packaged goods because the crush of the crowds meant “no one was able to carry the boxes the aid came in.”

    Massive crowds
    He left at about 9 pm with five other men “including an engineer and a teacher,” and “children aged 10 and 12.” They did not take the official route designated by the Israeli army. The massive crowds converging on the aid point along the official route ensure that most never get close enough to receive food.

    Instead, they walked in the darkness in areas exposed to Israeli gunfire, often having to crawl to avoid being seen.

    “As I crawled, I looked over, and to my surprise, saw several women and elderly people taking the same treacherous route as us,” he explained. “At one point, there was a barrage of live gunfire all around me. We hid behind a destroyed building. Anyone who moved or made a noticeable motion was immediately shot by snipers.

    “Next to me was a tall, light-haired young man using the flashlight on his phone to guide him. The others yelled at him to turn it off. Seconds later, he was shot. He collapsed to the ground and lay there bleeding, but no one could help or move him. He died within minutes.”

    He passed six bodies along the route who had been shot dead by Israeli soldiers.

    Al-Ajouri reached the hub at 2 am, the designated time for aid distribution. He saw a green light turned on ahead of him which signaled that aid was about to be distributed. Thousands began to run towards the light, pushing, shoving and trampling each other. He fought his way through the crowd until he reached the aid.

    “I started feeling around for the aid boxes and grabbed a bag that felt like rice,” he said. “But just as I did, someone else snatched it from my hands. I tried to hold on, but he threatened to stab me with his knife. Most people there were carrying knives, either to defend themselves or to steal from others.

    Boxes were emptied
    “Eventually, I managed to grab four cans of beans, a kilogram of bulgur, and half a kilogram of pasta. Within moments, the boxes were empty. Most of the people there, including women, children and the elderly, got nothing. Some begged others to share. But no one could afford to give up what they managed to get.”

    The US contractors and Israeli soldiers overseeing the mayhem laughed and pointed their weapons at the crowd. Some filmed with their phones.

    “Minutes later, red smoke grenades were thrown into the air,” he remembered. “Someone told me that it was the signal to evacuate the area. After that, heavy gunfire began. Me, Khalil and a few others headed to al-Awda Hospital in Nuseirat because our friend Wael had injured his hand during the journey.

    “I was shocked by what I saw at the hospital. There were at least 35 martyrs lying dead on the ground in one of the rooms. A doctor told me they had all been brought in that same day. They were each shot in the head or chest while queuing near the aid center. Their families were waiting for them to come home with food and ingredients. Now, they were corpses.”

    GHF is a Mossad-funded creation of Israel’s Defense Ministry that contracts with UG Solutions and Safe Reach Solutions, run by former members of the CIA and US Special Forces. GHF is headed by Reverend Johnnie Moore, a far-right Christian Zionist with close ties to Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu.

    The organisation has also contracted anti-Hamas drug-smuggling gangs to provide security at aid sites.

    As Chris Gunness, a former spokesperson for the United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA) told Al Jazeera, GHF is “aid washing,” a way to mask the reality that “people are being starved into submission.”

    Disregarded ICC ruling
    Israel, along with the US and European countries that provide weapons to sustain the genocide, have chosen to disregard the January 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which demanded immediate protection for civilians in Gaza and widespread provision of humanitarian assistance.

    "It's a killing field" claim headline in Ha'aretz newspaper
    “It’s a killing field” says a headline in the Ha’aretz newspaper. Image: Ha’aretz screenshot APR

    Ha’aretz, in its article headlined “‘It’s a Killing Field’: IDF Soldiers Ordered to Shoot Deliberately at Unarmed Gazans Waiting for Humanitarian Aid” reported that Israeli commanders order soldiers to open fire on crowds to keep them away from aid sites or disperse them.

    “The distribution centers typically open for just one hour each morning,” Haaretz writes. “According to officers and soldiers who served in their areas, the IDF fires at people who arrive before opening hours to prevent them from approaching, or again after the centers close, to disperse them. Since some of the shooting incidents occurred at night — ahead of the opening — it’s possible that some civilians couldn’t see the boundaries of the designated area.”

    “It’s a killing field,” one soldier told Ha’aretz. “Where I was stationed, between one and five people were killed every day. They’re treated like a hostile force — no crowd-control measures, no tear gas — just live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars. Then, once the center opens, the shooting stops, and they know they can approach. Our form of communication is gunfire.”

    “We open fire early in the morning if someone tries to get in line from a few hundred meters away, and sometimes we just charge at them from close range. But there’s no danger to the forces,” the soldier explained, “I’m not aware of a single instance of return fire. There’s no enemy, no weapons.”

    He said the deployment at the aid sites is known as “Operation Salted Fish,” a reference to the Israeli name for the children’s game “Red light, green light.” The game was featured in the first episode of the South Korean dystopian thriller Squid Game, in which financially desperate people are killed as they battle each other for money.

    Civilian infrastructure obliterated
    Israel has obliterated the civilian and humanitarian infrastructure in Gaza. It has reduced Palestinians, half a million of whom face starvation, into desperate herds. The goal is to break Palestinians, to make them malleable and entice them to leave Gaza, never to return.

    There is talk from the Trump White House about a ceasefire. But don’t be fooled. Israel has nothing left to destroy. Its saturation bombing over 20 months has reduced Gaza to a moonscape. Gaza is uninhabitable, a toxic wilderness where Palestinians, living amid broken slabs of concrete and pools of raw sewage, lack food and clean water, fuel, shelter, electricity, medicine and an infrastructure to survive.

    The final impediment to the annexation of Gaza are the Palestinians themselves. They are the primary target. Starvation is the weapon of choice.

    Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for 15 years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He is the host of show “The Chris Hedges Report”. This article is republished from his X account.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • New polling shows Labour has overtaken the Tories as the party of the wealthy

    New polling shows Labour is ahead of the Conservative Party, but in an entirely backwards way that is an affront to the history of the party. People in the UK who earn £70,000 or more are now more likely to vote Labour than any other party, according to analysis by YouGov.

    Labour are the new Tories

    Unfortunately, meanwhile, many working class voters have turned to Nigel Farage’s Reform. 32% of households with £20,000 or less in yearly income are opting for that party. But they are voting against their own interest.

    In the 2024 election, Reform pledged to halve the rate of inheritance tax and raise the threshold to estates worth more than £2m. This would usher in a new wave of unearned wealth for the children of family dynasties. Reform would lower the rate from 40% to 20% and raise the £325,000 threshold. It certainly wouldn’t benefit the working class people voting Reform.

    People voting for Farage’s party are more likely to be older. 54% of those who switched from Labour to Reform are 50 or over.

    Reasons for the exodus

    And it turns out Keir Starmer lying his way to the Labour leadership and then carrying out policies that weren’t detailed in the manifesto is unpopular with voters. The greatest proportion – 29% of Labour defectors – said that Starmer breaking or not delivering on promises was the main reason they left.

    Another 24% said that Labour have done too little about the cost of living. Indeed, research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) shows literally everyone except pensioners will be worse off from Rachel Reeves’ October budget. And that’s before one gets to their planned cuts to disability support. JRF modelling found that the average family will have £770 less in real terms by October 2029.

    And those with the least broad shoulders will relatively lose more. The poorest third of households will see their disposable income drop by 3.3% by October 2029. And the richest third will only see a drop of 1.7%.

    A further 22% of Labour defectors said Labour is too right wing, while just 2% said Labour’s too left-wing. This demonstrates that Starmer’s ‘right of centre’ approach is not only detrimental to the country it is also not electorally viable. For instance, consistent polling over the years shows high levels of electoral support for public ownership of utilities, across all parties.

    31% of the wealthiest Britons are opting for Labour compared to just 17% for the Conservatives. What was once a party of progressive economic change has become the residence of the upper class. Shame on Starmer.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Liz Kendall met with insurance industry in the midst of the DWP cuts scandal

    Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) boss Liz Kendall met with the insurance industry as part of the Labour Party government’s flagship Child Poverty Taskforce just a month before one infamous insurance company celebrated opportunities for “collaboration between government and group risk insurance providers”.

    The insurance corporation in question made the comments over the DWP’s major package of welfare ‘reforms’ in the government’s Pathways to Work green paper. Of course, this publication included the department’s devastating plans to cut disability benefits – that its own impact assessment conservatively estimated would plunge 50,000 children into poverty.

    Child Poverty Taskforce: a cynical distraction from real DWP-led solutions

    Fresh from the election in July 2024, the Labour Party government established its key ministerial Child Poverty Taskforce. Joint-led by DWP secretary Kendall and education secretary Bridget Phillipson, it forms Labour’s main answer to spiralling child poverty rates.

    The taskforce’s core focus is to develop Labour’s ‘child poverty strategy’. It set out how it would meet a range of stakeholders and experts from across the public and private sector.

    Its launch came just a week before Starmer suspended seven of his own MPs for rebelling against the party whip over the two child benefit cap.

    The government has repeatedly cynically held up the taskforce as a ward against calls to scrap the two child limit on benefits. Yet, according to the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) the single move alone could immediately lift 400,000 children out of poverty. A further 950,000 children would also be living in less deep poverty thanks to the change.

    In May, the government delayed the publication of its much-vaunted child poverty strategy. It told the BBC that the taskforce would now be publishing this in time for the budget in autumn. Yet, this is all while the disgusting policy continues to push more children into abject poverty. Just since Labour entered government, the two-child limit on benefits has done so to 37,000 more children.

    Scrapping the two-child benefit limit?

    Early details on what the strategy might contain from an October policy paper omitted any mention of the DWP two child benefit limit. Since then, media reports have floated the possibility that Starmer and co may well be reconsidering their position on this. Crucially, this could be with a view to finally scrapping it.

    However, information on Labour’s plans for the cap has arguably been a constant merry-go-round of Cabinet minister contradictory statements. And alarmingly, as the Canary’s Steve Topple pinpointed in May, comments transport secretary Heidi Alexander made suggested this could involve a two tier system. Specifically, the DWP would determine which parents are deserving of support.

    Of course, this two-tier eugenicist approach would also not be out of step with recent government plans. Its latest calculated move to push its callous welfare bill through parliament entails a similarly divisive . It will involve carving up Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and the health element of Universal Credit into two groups. Future claimants will operate under its new repressive, restrictive criteria. Meanwhile current claimants will continue – for the moment – under the current system.

    Disgraceful DWP benefit cuts

    Instead of scrapping the DWP two child limit, the short policy paper indicated that the government would centre much of its child poverty strategy around driving parents and care-givers into work.

    In other words, without a shred of irony, its welfare cuts will likely form the basis of its plan to tackle child poverty.

    This is also despite the findings of the department’s own impact analysis. It identified that the cuts will push 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, into poverty. And this is likely a huge underestimate anyway – since the figures relied on a flawed analysis. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has estimated this would be closer to 400,000 people, including 100,000 children.

    Of course, these estimates also applied to the government’s welfare plans prior to its last-minute changes. The new – arguably enormously unethical – so-called ‘concessions’ the government announced in response to the Labour MP rebellion inevitably alters these figures.

    A new impact analysis states the bill will push 150,000 working age adults into poverty. Purportedly, it suggests the impact on children will be ‘negligible’. However, the analysis is once again based on flawed reasoning. Specifically, as the Canary highlighted in the original one, it took into account previous government ‘plans’ for the DWP Work Capability Assessment (WCA) – ones it had never implemented. Therefore, it’s not actually estimating these figures on the current welfare landscape – so it’s almost certainly a major underestimate.

    Undoubtedly, the impact will still be far-reaching and devastating. Nonprofit Trussell has estimated the bill will still leave 430,000 future PIP claimants £4,300 worse off a year on average. On top of this, 700,000 future UC LCWRA claimants will lose an average of £3,000 a year.

    Obviously, it’s a gap in the social security safety net the insurance industry will be only too happy to exploit. And lo and behold, one infamous insurance vulture has already been circling the welfare cuts announcements.

    Association of British Insurers gets a seat at the taskforce table

    On 25 February, DWP secretary Kendall and department minister Alison McGovern hosted a roundtable meeting of the Child Poverty Taskforce.

    Stakeholders present at the meeting included the Association of British Insurers (ABI), the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), Iain Duncan-Smith’s brainchild the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), and the Local Government Association (LGA). Also present at the roundtable were numerous other organisations including Fair4All Finance, Citizens Advice, Black Equity Organisation, Nest Insight, Step Change, Fair By Design, and Changing Realities. The Financial Times and the University of York also participated in the taskforce meeting.

    ABI is the leading industry insurance body. It counts some of the largest insurance companies among its board. For instance, it includes Unum, Aviva, Zurich, Swiss Re, and Allianz, among others.

    The sparse details the DWP provided on its ministerial meeting register disclose only that the focus of the roundtable meeting revolved around discussions on:

    the critical role of financial resilience and income maximisation in alleviating the effects of child poverty

    It reflected passages from the policy paper. This also laid out “increasing incomes” and “increasing financial resiliency” as two key areas of the upcoming strategy. The first encompassed its back-to-work agenda. For the second, this was all about “problem debt” and “low savings levels”.

    The ABI’s presence at the meeting makes it clear the Labour government envisions a leading role for insurance companies in addressing all this. And to be sure, it’s a profit-making opportunity the insurance industry is evidently not about to pass up.

    Notably, the language is strikingly similar to the corporate chatter of recent months from certain industry bigwigs.

    Enter: Unum

    In March, insurance major Unum’s CEO Mark Till spoke to industry publication Cover Magazine. It was over the role of the insurance sector (our emphasis):

    in increasing the level of financial resiliency and activity through improving public health.

    Crucially, this was in the context of the government’s freshly announced DWP disability benefit cuts. Till told Cover Magazine that vocational rehabilitation was a key focus for the insurance giant. Obviously, the company has a stake in championing this in order to evade paying out for claims.

    It also must have been entirely by coincidence that Till joined ABI’s board in October 2024. Specifically, this was just before the government laid down its early child poverty strategy.

    In another article following Kendall’s green paper, Unum head of product proposition Clare Lusted remarked on chancellor Rachel Reeve’s reaffirmation of investment in DWP work programmes.

    She said:

    With the announced cuts, it’s critical employers have access to the tools and financial resources needed to support their employees when they need it the most, and to keep them healthy and productive.

    Lusted continued that:

    Employers with comprehensive benefit packages can play a crucial role in preventing ill-health, helping to keep people in work and rehabilitating those who have fallen out of work to help get them back in a successful and sustainable fashion. This not only enhances business resilience and productivity but also contributes to the wellbeing of society and the broader economy.

    Separately in March, Lusted also commented on the DWP’s publication of former John Lewis chairman Charlie Mayfield’s discovery report for its ‘Keep Britain Working’ review. Referencing the freshly published green paper in tandem, Lusted said that:

    The path to an 80 per cent employment rate demands collaboration between the government and group risk insurance providers. Unum’s Group Income Protection rehabilitation service, with its 97 per cent success rate, proves that prevention and early intervention change lives, benefit businesses and have a positive impact on wider society.

    And Lusted welcomed Unum’s chance to share its “insights, expertise and experience” for the next part of the review.

    In short, Unum was ostensibly celebrating the welfare cuts amid Labour’s coercive work rhetoric. Of course, it was undoubtedly all for the probable boon they could signal for its income protection insurance (IPI) business.

    Insurance industry at it again over DWP welfare cuts

    ABI’s involvement in the Child Poverty Taskforce is also not the only indication the industry has likely been influencing recent DWP welfare policy-making.

    Its 2024 annual report stated how:

    We’ve continued to work closely with senior UK officials and policy leads in the Treasury, DWP and DHSC and were delighted to welcome Liz Kendall, now Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, at our Annual Conference to discuss the role of our sector in supporting people to stay in work.

    We will be continuing to engage with developments in workforce health via the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, the Making Work Pay: Strengthening Statutory Sick Pay consultation, and the Get Britain Working white paper.

    So  DWP boss Kendall, then a shadow secretary, was a keynote speaker at its 2024 conference. Not only that, but the industry body effectively confirmed it has maintained close ties to the Labour government. What’s more, it openly admitted how it has fed into discussions on the sister paper to the government’s welfare reforms.

    Of course, we’ve been here before. It wouldn’t be the first time insurance companies have sought to shape government welfare reforms.

    Unum was at the forefront of influencing cruel reforms previous governments designed to restrict welfare. It funded research which paved the way for the Gordon Brown government’s controversial introduction of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) in 2008. Notably, it financed Tony Blair’s chief medical adviser Mansel Aylward and orthopaedic surgeon Gordon Waddell to develop the controversial biopsychosocial (BPS) model. This essentially facilitated the DWP denying chronically ill and disabled people access to welfare benefits. Unum later bragged about its role in Incapacity Benefit (IB) reforms that resulted in multiple disabled claimants deaths.

    And as the Disability News Service (DNS) noted at the time:

    tougher welfare rules – including replacing incapacity benefit with employment and support allowance (ESA) – are likely to persuade more people to take out IPI, boosting the company’s profits.

    Nothing new from corporate-captured Labour

    So once again, it’s in this neoliberal New Labour tradition that the current brutal cuts to DWP welfare emerge. Of course, it seems almost inconceivable that Starmer’s corporate-captured Labour hadn’t been hitching its benefit ‘reforms’ to the vested business bandwagon all along. But now, here are the receipts.

    When it comes down to it, Labour’s welfare cuts have little to do with helping chronically ill and disabled people. Yet, if the industry murmurings and its seats at the table are anything to go by, they’ve had everything to do with pushing them into the hands of profiteering insurance companies.

    Needless to say, it’s no child poverty strategy to strip hundreds of thousands of poor, chronically ill, and disabled people of their benefits. However, it’s sure a winning plan for the predatory insurance sector to cash in on.

    Feature image via Flickr/the Department for Education, cropped and resized 1200 by 800

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Economist Richard Murphy takes down Starmer’s DWP cuts with one insightful point

    Political economist Richard Murphy has taken to social media to point out that the public spends as much on subsidising wealthy pensioners as it does on Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) disability benefits. This is another lense that exposes the reverse robin hood impact Keir Starmer’s cuts will have.

    Sure, Starmer may have exempted people who currently claim personal independence payments (PIP) from the cuts. But the DWP’s own assessment has found the changes will still bring at least 150,000 people into poverty. And that’s only before 2029/30.

    DWP cuts: going backwards

    In a Twitter thread, Murphy notes that the total DWP expenditure on disabled people is around £70bn. That’s the same amount that the public spends on tax breaks for predominantly wealthy pensioners through income and corporation tax breaks as well as tax free growth within pension funds.

    The key point here is who benefits. The wealthiest 20% of the country own 62% of pension wealth. Meanwhile, the least well off 50% own less than 10% of the total pension wealth.

    It’s different to disabled people claiming what they need to support them where they can work and where they cannot.

    So Labour could rebalance the economy to the tune of around the entire DWP disability spend through reforming pension tax breaks.

    The real scroungers

    That’s before you get to the people claiming way more without any disability: landlords.

    Positive Money has calculated that between 1990 and 2022 landlords in England made £400bn because of real house price rises. And that doesn’t include the rent people have been paying them. The ‘value’ of homes in England sky rocketed by an average of 432% over this period. It means a landlord who bought a property in 1990 and sold it in 2022 would make an average of £240,634 per house.

    That’s literally taking away the housing stock, calling it an asset and sitting on it while the bank balance increases. It’s the total opposite of Starmer’s mantra of ‘make work pay’.

    On top of that, capital gains tax is less than income tax. So landlords are not only making an absolute fortune from doing precisely nothing, they are taxed less on it as well.

    Indeed, despite housing being a common necessity to all that could be organised at cost price, Real Estate is the most profitable industry in the UK. Top companies average an astonishing £686,000 of profit per year per employee. That’s a private tax on homes at 23 times the UK average salary, per employee. No wonder housing is so expensive, the system is rigged.

    There are multiple ways Starmer could rebalance the economy in a way that doesn’t foster such grotesque inequality. But he’s going in the opposite direction with his DWP cuts.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • DWP “Thatcherite” welfare cuts condemned in scathing report by disabled people

    A blistering 17,000-word consultation response from Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) Cymru has lambasted the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) over proposed reforms to disability benefits—branding them “half-baked, insulting, harmful, cynical, [and] Thatcherite” and accusing the UK government of a “sham” consultation process.

    The response raises issues of:

    • DWP failings and disability discrimination.
    • MP and ministerial misconduct.
    • Government methodology failings.
    • Human rights issues.
    • Constitutional issues.

    The group warns the policies will devastate disabled people, especially in Wales, where up to 190,000 people could be affected and £466 million per year removed from the economy. Included in the response is 47 pages of personal testimony from chronically ill and disabled people.

    A DWP “fait accompli” disguised as consultation

    DPAC Cymru’s central contention is that the Pathways to Work Green Paper consultation process is a charade. “The government has already introduced the first bill to Parliament,” the report notes, “with MPs voting the day after the public consultation ends, before the ink is even dry.”

    The group accuses the DWP of deliberately undermining accessibility in Wales: the only in-person consultation was originally planned at a “remote and inaccessible” venue, cancelled just days before due to protests, and eventually rescheduled in Cardiff only after intense campaigning. Even then, only 15 disabled people were admitted to the consultation, under heavy security, while “Joshua Reeves BEM was denied entry and left outside in 30-degree heat.”

    “We do not ascribe all this to malice,” the report concedes, “but to the DWP institutionally being ignorant of disability.” That ignorance, however, DPAC Cymru argues, makes the department unfit to lead any reform.

    A direct attack on disabled people and carers

    The proposals include:

    • Freezing and/or reducing the health element of Universal Credit.

    • Tightening PIP criteria.

    • Scrapping the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) without a credible replacement.

    • Introducing time-limited ESA payments and potential means testing for PIP.

    • Withholding the Universal Credit health element from under-22s.

    DPAC Cymru warns the proposals could “abolish incapacity benefits entirely,” leaving people who are genuinely unable to work with no financial support.

    “It is profoundly alarming,” the group states, “that the government does not seem to understand that there are people… who may never be able to work again.”

    The impact extends to carers too. Because PIP acts as a gateway to Carer’s Allowance, removing PIP for disabled people will mean carers lose out as well—“taking away a meagre £83.30 a week from the carers who save the UK economy an estimated £184 billion a year.”

    Fabricated figures and “perverse incentives”

    The government claims the current system is financially “unsustainable.” But DPAC Cymru dismantles that rationale using the government’s own data.

    Spending on incapacity benefits is forecast to remain flat as a share of GDP after 2025, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. “The rise in claims is due to worsening health outcomes, especially post-pandemic—not because of ‘perverse incentives’,” the report explains.

    The government’s argument that benefit growth exceeds the rise in health conditions is “a claim that has no evidentiary value,” they say. The report accuses MPs of relying on “guesses” rather than data and weaponising technical language to confuse the public.

    Abuse from politicians: “children’s pocket money” and “scrapheap” comments

    Some of the most damning passages in DPAC Cymru’s response target elected officials’ rhetoric. Labour MPs including Darren Jones and Rachel Reeves compared DWP disability benefits to “children’s pocket money” and suggested disabled people could offset loss of income through unpaid training. Liz Kendall accused people of “taking the mickey.”

    The response highlights how such language fuels ableism, noting: “The fraud rate for the PIP benefit itself is zero percent.” By contrast, underclaiming of disability benefits remains widespread.

    Torsten Bell MP is singled out for particular criticism. A founding supporter of the bill, he is accused of repeatedly ignoring and maligning Swansea DPAC. The group accuses him of violating the Nolan Principles, and of using other disability groups as “political cover.”

    A catastrophic impact on services and society

    If implemented, the DWP proposals will force more people into poverty, homelessness, and ill health. They will shift the burden to already-stretched local authorities and the Welsh NHS. DPAC Cymru points out:

    “Cuts kill – particularly as hundreds of thousands more are pushed into poverty.”

    Access to Work—a scheme to support disabled people in employment—is already in chaos. Support that once arrived “within days” now takes “six months to two years,” the group says, with delays so long that “some employers are refusing to hire disabled people.”

    There’s also the issue of a digital divide. One-third of rural Welsh residents lack internet access; one-third of disabled people lack the digital skills or tools needed to engage in online consultations.

    A constitutional crisis and institutional DWP failure

    DPAC Cymru also raises grave constitutional concerns: the government’s use of primary legislation to bypass judicial review mechanisms is described as “a tactic that undermines… checks and balances on executive power.”

    The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) fares no better. Once a watchdog, DPAC Cymru says it has now “waged war against the trans community,” failed to protect disabled people’s rights, and must be replaced.

    National and international condemnation

    The critique of the DWP is far from isolated. The UN said in 2024 that the UK has made “no significant progress” since 2017 when it found “grave or systematic violations of the rights of persons with disabilities.” Amnesty International states the UK has created “a cascading effect of human rights violations.”

    Organisations like Carers UK, Disability Wales, and the Social Workers Union have echoed these warnings, as have major trade unions including PCS, UNISON, NEU, and Unite. Carers UK calculates that 150,000 people will lose access to Carer’s Allowance by 2029/30—worth £500 million. The Resolution Foundation calls the reforms “a short-term ‘scored’ savings exercise.”

    In a particularly cutting section titled Welfare, not Warfare!, Swansea DPAC member “Bee” questions the government’s priorities: “What is the point of defending a country when there is absolutely nothing worthwhile to defend?”

    This sentiment underscores the core thesis: these reforms are not about saving money or supporting people into work. They are about ideological warfare against the most vulnerable.

    “We’ve gone beyond co-production – disabled people must run the DWP”

    DPAC Cymru’s final word is one of resistance and leadership. They argue that disabled people are best placed to run the system, because they are the true experts. “The government has no clue, and it should listen.”

    The document closes by demanding the full withdrawal of the green paper and the bill, immediate resignation of its architects, and an overhaul of welfare reform led by those it affects most.

    If this bill passes, it will be in defiance of disabled people, not in partnership with them. That is the DWP’s legacy.

    You can read the full submission here.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • CAAT and ICJP condemn High Court ruling over UK F-35 exports to Israel

    On 30 June, the UK High Court ruled that the government’s decision to continue exporting F-35 fighter jet components to Israel is lawful, despite Labour acknowledging that these parts could potentially be used in violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) in Gaza. This decision has sparked significant criticism from human rights organisations and legal experts who argue that it undermines the UK’s commitment to upholding international law and human rights.

    F-35 exports are legal, says High Court

    The case was brought forward by the Global Legal Action Network and the Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq, with support from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam.

    They contended that the UK’s continued supply of F-35 components, which are part of a global spares pool accessible by Israel, makes the UK complicit in potential IHL violations committed by the Israeli military in Gaza.

    UK industry makes 15% of every F-35, with the value of UK components in Israel’s F-35s estimated by CAAT to be well over £500m. This is by far the most significant part of the UK arms trade with Israel. At least 75 UK companies are involved in manufacturing components. For example, BAE Systems makes every rear fuselage for the F-35 and also makes its active interceptor system. Leonardo makes its targeting lasers and L3 Harris makes the weapons release cables.

    Israel is using its 45 F-35s intensively to bomb the Palestinian people in Gaza, including using horrifically destructive 2,000lb bombs. By March this year, Israel had carried out 15,000 flight hours with the F-35 since the start of the war, using the planes in “beast mode”, with extra munitions attached to the wings.

    A “cowardly ruling”

    In their 72-page ruling, Lord Justice Males and Mrs. Justice Steyn stated that such matters are political and best left to the executive branch and Parliament, not the courts. They emphasised that the issue at hand was whether it is appropriate for the court to mandate the UK’s withdrawal from a multilateral defense collaboration, which ministers consider vital to national and international security, due to the possibility that UK-manufactured components might be used in serious IHL violations.

    Critics argue that this ruling effectively allows the UK government to prioritise political and economic interests over its legal and moral obligations to prevent complicity in potential war crimes.

    Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT’s) Media Coordinator Emily Apple said:

    This is a cowardly ruling that absolves any responsibility from the court to rule on the UK government’s compliance with international law. International law exists to keep all of us safe. It should be the founding principle of our arms export criteria, not one the government can pick and choose when to implement.

    Successive governments have claimed that our arms export licensing criteria are the most robust in the world. This claim is now in tatters.

    This court ruling vindicates Palestine Action. Palestine Action are not terrorists – they have the courage our courts clearly lack. It shows the only option open to us is to take direct action against the arms trade, to stop the genocide profiteers in their tracks. We cannot rely on our institutions to uphold international law, we can only rely on ourselves and the power we have to create change.

    When our government and our courts fail us, it is down to us, ordinary citizens, to take action. We cannot wait for the history books to vindicate us. We cannot wait for Israel to obliterate Gaza and the West Bank. We cannot wait and watch while Israel kills more Palestinian children with 2000lb bombs dropped by F-35s. We will not stand by and we will not stay silent while the government prioritises its relationship with a genocidal state and arms dealers’ profits over Palestinian lives.

    A biased assessment

    Furthermore, the government’s limited investigation into potential IHL breaches by Israeli forces raises concerns about the thoroughness and impartiality of its assessments.

    Despite reports of at least 56,000 Palestinian deaths, the government identified only one case—the April 2024 World Central Kitchen strike—as a possible IHL violation. This narrow focus fails to account for the broader pattern of civilian casualties and destruction in Gaza.
    theguardian.com

    The ruling also highlights the UK’s significant role in the F-35 program, with British manufacturers supplying approximately 15% of the aircraft’s components. This involvement not only ties the UK economically to the program but also raises questions about the influence of defense industry interests on government policy decisions.

    The government is committing war crimes with its F-35 exports

    Human rights organisations and legal experts have expressed deep concern over the implications of this ruling. The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) said:

    We are disappointed by the High Court’s refusal to grant permission for judicial review, but recognise the significant steps made in the course of this case so far. The Court accepted the government’s own finding that Israel is not committed to compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL). The Court accepted that there is a clear risk that UK-manufactured F-35 components may be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of IHL in Gaza. These findings are profoundly serious, and without Al-Haq’s claim the government may well have continued to deny these facts.

    Yet despite those acknowledgements, the Court held that the legality of the UK’s decision to continue F-35 exports is not a matter that the courts can properly decide. We believe that the Court was wrong in law to conclude that the Geneva Conventions, the Genocide Convention, the Arms Trade Treaty, or customary international law are non-justiciable. The government must be held to account – in the Courts and in the court of public opinion – on these well-evidenced risks of atrocity crimes.

    ICJP commends the efforts of Al-Haq, the Global Legal Action Network, interveners in this case, and those who provided their eyewitness testimony. Without them, the troubling reality may not have been exposed: that the UK government can acknowledge the risk of war crimes, admit the likely involvement of British-supplied weapons, and still continue exports to the perpetrators – shielded from judicial scrutiny.

    ICJP remains committed to pursuing all available legal avenues to end the UK’s complicity in serious violations of international law. We have worked to support this case for over 18 months and will continue to do so should an appeal be launched.

    In light of this decision, there is a growing call for greater transparency and accountability in the UK’s arms export policies. Critics urge the government to reassess its commitments and ensure that its actions align with its legal and moral obligations to prevent complicity in serious violations of international humanitarian law.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour delaying the reform of the Hunting Act is now putting the public at risk of harm

    Protect the Wild has released a report on the 2024/25 hunting season in England and Wales. It reveals that hunts were involved in 1,620 anti-social incidents during the season, ranging from driving offences and causing havoc on roads to physical and verbal assaults on people and widespread trespassing. This dangerous behaviour by hunts and their supporters poses a clear threat to public safety. Protect the Wild urges the UK government to bring in its promised Hunting Act reforms in haste to protect the British public.

    The Hunting Act: not fit for purpose

    Protect the Wild’s 2024/25 hunting season report is the third of its kind, with the organisation’s first report being compiled in 2022/23.

    In this latest edition, Protect the Wild has reviewed publicly available information across the period July 2024 to April 2025 to gather statistics and data. As with earlier season reports, much of the information comes from reports published by hunt saboteur and monitor groups. In addition, messages from members of the public, information from the police, and data provided directly to Protect the Wild, have informed the findings.

    The annual hunting reports have a dual focus. Naturally, they assess the scale of wildlife persecution by hunts. Like the previous two years, the 2024/25 report shows that persecution is rife. There were over 700 incidents of hunts chasing or killing wild animals, namely foxes, deer, and hares.

    This figure should be seen as just the tip of the iceberg because most hunt meets are not observed. Based on the witnessed incidents targeting foxes during the season, for instance, Protect the Wild estimates that 3,772 of these wild animals were potentially persecuted across the July to April period.

    Shocking behaviour

    The annual report also documents levels of anti-social behaviour by hunts. This analysis shows that such behaviour is currently off the scale, with 1,620 witnessed incidents. The breakdown of these incidents is as follows:

    • 439 driving offences, such as driving vehicles without number plates or with illegal loads.
    • 367 road havoc incidents, whereby hunts dangerously disrupted public highways.
    • 245 minor attacks on people, such as physical and verbal assaults.
    • 11 major attacks that resulted in people being seriously physically harmed.
    • 332 instances of trespass on both public and private land.
    • 137 incidents of interference with badger setts, which is against the law.
    • 89 disturbances of or attacks on non-quarry animals, such as dogs, cats, sheep, and horses.

    A risk to the public

    As these eye-watering figures make clear, hunts’ current behaviour poses a significant threat to people’s safety and wellbeing. Their recklessness on roads risks traffic accidents. Their lack of hound control also puts people’s companion animals and other kept animals at risk.

    Meanwhile, the extreme levels of verbal and physical abuse metered out by hunts, mainly at wildlife protectors who follow meets to stop hunts persecuting wild animals, is wholly unacceptable. Even worse, 63 of the 143 hunts observed during the season were connected to some form of verbal or physical attack. This shows that violence runs through the veins of the hunting industry, rather than being confined to just a few ‘bad apple’ packs.

    Considering this, it is unsurprising that communities are beginning to take matters into their own hands by declaring areas off limits to hunts. As the report highlights, residents of George Nympton, Devon, collectively agreed to make their village a “hunt free zone” in May.

    Put simply, the hunting industry is rotten to the core and unlikely to change its ways voluntarily. So, for the sake of everyone – people, wild animals, and kept animals – it is imperative that the government reforms the Hunting Act.

    Reform of the Hunting Act is needed now

    Ahead of being elected in 2024, the Labour Party said it would ban trail hunting. Reports since have also highlighted that it is considering other Hunting Act reforms. But almost a year has passed, and the government has yet to make good on its promise to the British public.

    Further delay will only put the safety and wellbeing of more individuals at risk. The time for action is now.

    Protect the Wild founder Rob Pownall said:

    This report makes one thing absolutely clear:  hunts are out of control, and the government’s failure to act is putting people in harm’s way. From dangerous driving to physical assaults and widespread trespass, hunts are causing chaos week after week and getting away with it.

    The Labour Party promised to ban trail hunting and strengthen the Hunting Act. That promise must be honoured now. Every day of delay is a day the British public remains at risk.

    Featured image via Protect the Wild/Hunt Saboteurs Association 

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Tory MP in cash for access scandal as he begs company to tell him “what to ask about” in parliament

    Former Tory minister George Freeman is facing cash for access claims after a company paid him £60,000 per year to effectively write his parliamentary questions.

    George Freeman: cash for access

    In April 2024, George Freeman started working as a paid advisor for GHGSat Limited. The firm uses sensors to monitor emissions and to help companies reduce their greenhouse gases. Of course, the government could address the issue of climate change at the fastest pace through rolling out a publicly owned Green New Deal, while reducing energy prices. You don’t need to measure emissions if you simply end climate-destroying practices across the board.

    On 27 November 2024, Freeman emailed the company’s managing director:

    following our latest catch up I’m preparing some written parliamentary questions to table on the DSIT [Department for Science and Technology] space data and Desnz [Department for Energy Security and Net Zero] emissions tracking platforms.
    “So that I get the wording right can you email me the key technical terms / names of the projects / frameworks and what to ask about & I’ll then convert into the right parliamentary language.”

    In response, the managing director, Dan Wicks, told Freeman to ask for insider information from the government related to the satellite data that GHFSat collects, questioning whether the government would continue to invest in:

    the Earth observation Data Pilot run by the Geospatial Commission and whether that will be extended or grown into a pan-government purchasing mechanism

    As the Times reported:

    Freeman said that, while he did not believe he had done anything wrong, he was immediately referring himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the watchdog responsible for policing MPs’ conduct.

    Labour too

    It’s not just Tories like George Freeman who face questions about cash for access.

    An investigation found Labour peer David Evans offering undercover reporters posing as property developers access to housing minister Angela Rayner. Evans said:

    It’s great being a Labour peer at the moment because we’ve got our mates who now have senior jobs, which is wonderful

    And in October 2024, Labour offered corporate bosses the “unique opportunity to become a commercial partner at our business policy round-table over breakfast” for up to £30,000.

    For £15,000, corporations would give a keynote speech, have photographs with business secretary Jonathan Reynolds and have a dedicated Labour Party staffer to make introductions. And for £30,000, the corporation could also decide who else would attend the breakfast.

    Labour wheeled out Ed Miliband to defend the offer, who said: “Don’t do it again, is my message. The answer is – whether it is me or Jonathan Reynolds – it is not about paying to have access. That is not what we are about, no”.

    And cash for access scandals go beyond this. At both the Labour and Conservative conferences, business executives could pay £3,000 for “networking opportunities” with ministers or shadow ministers. Big banks and oil companies were among the lobbyists and executives that attended Labour’s largest ever business event at its conference.

    Donations: cash for influence

    Donations are another way corporations can circumvent democracy. Since Keir Starmer became leader in 2020, Labour has accepted 11 donations of one million pounds or more from an individual or corporation. In turn, those 11 donations total a whopping £23.6m from just a handful of people.

    Rachel Reeves and Labour have also received £44,000 in donations from FGS Global, a lobbying firm owned by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR). KKR also happens to be the NHS’ new landlord, set to make millions from NHS privatisation.

    Transparency International (TI) has recommendations to curb the corrupting influence of big money in politics. The organisation suggests capping donations at £10,000 per year for individuals and organisations. This would keep big money out of politics. Indeed, it would’ve prevented Labour from receiving its largest donation ever this year – £4m from an offshore hedge fund with investments in fossil fuels, private health firms, and weapons manufacturers.

    The corporate control of our democracy is unacceptable – whether it’s George Freeman, Labour, or anyone else allowing it to happen.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Chaos at the DWP as more MPs rebel against Labour’s PIP ‘concessions’

    Following the threat of a significant rebellion, Keir Starmer has supposedly backed down on his mission to strip disabled people of support. We say ‘supposedly’ because the concessions will only benefit people who claim Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and other benefits now; not those who claim them in future. While some Labour rebels seem to have accepted this so far, there are many others who are refusing to back down:

    Concessions over DWP PIP

    Reporting on Labour’s DWP PIP ‘concessions’, the Guardian wrote on 27 June:

    Ministers wanted to set a higher bar for [PIP] eligibility to reduce the amount being paid out. Under the new system, claimants would have to score four points in one category to be eligible.

    The categories include whether a person is able to move around unaided, whether they can wash themselves and whether they can cook their own meals. The tougher eligibility rules would have meant people who could not wash half of their body or cook their own meals might not have received the payment.

    Many Labour MPs who opposed the changes wanted to scrap those new rules altogether. The compromise that has been reached is a promise that the new rules will apply only to new claimants and that the entire criteria system will be reviewed in conjunction with disabled people.

    While Labour is promising a ‘review in conjunction with disabled people’, it’s also the case that MPs are being asked to vote on this bill before any such review has taken place, leading to concerns that the government will ultimately just ignore disabled people’s concerns.

    Some MPs, like ‘leading rebel’ Meg Hillier, have been assured by the concessions. Others have not:

    Rebellion

    Keir Starmer and work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall clearly want to force this bill through at any cost. People aren’t foolish, however, and they can see that the so-called DWP PIP ‘concessions’ are just a temporary grace period.

    Writing in Big Issue, Cat Eccles MP said:

    The past week has shown the chaos these rushed reforms are creating. Conversations around the welfare cuts have been happening non-stop and inboxes have been flooded with concerns, not just from constituents but from charities, disability groups and even from employers who feel unprepared to step in with the level of support that will be required if these cuts proceed.

    We need to recognise that pushing through a bill that has not been fully thought through, without sufficient consultation with those who will be impacted, is not just unwise, it is irresponsible.

    Concessions are still being negotiated. Nothing will be confirmed until Monday at the earliest.

    The concessions that are being reported however, are not good enough for me. I’m seriously concerned the PIP suggestions would create a two-tier system which is a constant critique levelled at the government. The timeline of carrying this out effectively is far too short and we still have no impact assessments to base our voting on. I will therefore still be voting against these poorly thought out cuts to disability benefits.

    And on that ‘two-tier system’, we also now know the following:

    In an interview with BBC Politics South East, Labour MP Peter Lamb said:

    I’m part of a reasonably-sized group of people who are very clear that the conditions are still not acceptable.

    He added:

    This is ultimately still a cost-cutting measure and that means however they try and co-produce the system for these new people moving forwards, we’re going to be taking billions of pounds out of the pockets of people with high levels of vulnerability when there are better alternatives on the table.

    Summing up how far Lamb was prepared to go, the BBC wrote:

    Lamb said he would vote against the bill, regardless of a three-line whip.

    “I will be a Labour MP when I vote down these proposals,” he said.

    When it was put to him that he might not be a Labour MP after the vote, he replied: “I’ll be living up to the spirit of the party”.

    There are also plenty more Labour rebels speaking out over the party’s planned DWP PIP cuts:

     

    A need for review of DWP PIP – just not the one Labour is doing

    One thing being lost in all of this is that our welfare system does need to be reviewed, as it is hostile to the people who make a claim for things like DWP PIP. The problem is that Labour wants to make things worse, not better.

    The following individuals gave examples of the reprehensible ways in which the DWP is screwing over claimants:

    People have also been posting under the hashtag #TakingThePIP:

     

    Among them are the general secretary of Unite:

    The damage done

    The damage around DWP PIP and other benefits has already been done, though. In May of this year, Ruth Hunt reported on the case of Katty King-Coulling for the Canary:

    In 2018, Katty woke up to excruciating pain in her legs, which she described as “immense burning and shocking pain”. She was eventually diagnosed with cauda equina syndrome, a rare and often misdiagnosed condition which leads to spinal cord injury caused by compression of the lower spinal cord.

    Katty was working as a healthcare assistant for the NHS when she sustained her injury but has since had to give up work. Since her injury, Katty has gone through three DWP PIP assessments and says she has struggled each time to get people to understand her disability.

    On average, it’s estimated that it costs an additional £1,010 a month for a disabled person to have the same standard of living as a non-disabled person. At her latest assessment, Katty was downgraded to the daily living standard rate of £73.90 a week, or £320 a month, and has lost her mobility funding.

    As Katty has full use of her arms and core, can walk short distances, and has no visible signs of her disability, she believes people have a harder time understanding her injury and her needs. She says she often feels “not disabled enough” to receive compassion, understanding, and help. She said:

    “If you can wash your top half, if you can dress your top half, then you’re seen as not that disabled.”

    But this is far from the reality for Katty, who needs her husband’s support to shower, dress, cook, and clean. She said:

    “On a bad day, I’m lucky to get out of bed and the only reason why I do get up is because of my daughter. She needs me and I’m prepared to go through more pain if it means that she is looked after the best I possibly can.”

    Further demonstrating the devastating impact that the DWP has on claimant’s lives, Steve Topple reported the following for us in 2022:

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has effectively admitted it has not made progress on a plan that was supposed to reduce the number of claimants taking their own lives. In the process, the department has also failed to account for the £66m it had assigned to the programme. Moreover, it is using the pandemic as an excuse – and only admitted to all of this because an independent media outlet forced it to.

    For many years, countless claimants have taken their own lives on the DWP’s watch. It’s hard to put a number on the exact figure. However, for example, in 2018 alone there may have been 750 people who took their own lives while claiming from the DWP. The department is supposed to review these deaths using Internal Process Reviews (IPRs). However, across five years the DWP only carried out 69 of these.

    One such person who took their own life was Jodey Whiting. As the Canary previously reported:

    “Jodey Whiting was a 42-year old mother. She took her own life after the DWP stopped her social security. Because the DWP stopped Whiting’s ESA, she also lost her Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction. Whiting lived with various health conditions and mental health issues. These included a brain cyst, curvature of the spine, and bipolar disorder. Whiting was taking 23 tablets a day for her illnesses and conditions.

    “She took her own life on 21 February 2017, three days after the DWP made her last Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) payment. This was because she missed a Work Capability Assessment (WCA).”

    This cannot stand

    The Canary has been reporting on issues around the DWP and PIP and how it treats disabled people for as long as we’ve existed. As such, we’re well placed to say that Labour’s proposed changes will make a grotesque system even worse than it already is, and we fully support everyone who will continue to fight this rancid bill.

    Featured image via House of Commons

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Why manufacturing consent for war with Iran failed this time

    COMMENTARY: By Ahmad Ibsais

    On June 22, American warplanes crossed into Iranian airspace and dropped 14 massive bombs.

    The attack was not in response to a provocation; it came on the heels of illegal Israeli aggression that took the lives of more than 600 Iranians.

    This was a return to something familiar and well-practised: an empire bombing innocents across the orientalist abstraction called “the Middle East”.

    That night, US President Donald Trump, flanked by his vice-president and two state secretaries, told the world: “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace”.

    There is something chilling about how bombs are baptised with the language of diplomacy and how destruction is dressed in the garments of stability. To call that peace is not merely a misnomer; it is a criminal distortion.

    But what is peace in this world, if not submission to the West? And what is diplomacy, if not the insistence that the attacked plead with their attackers?

    In the 12 days that Israel’s illegal assault on Iran lasted, images of Iranian children pulled from the wreckage remained absent from the front pages of Western media. In their place were lengthy features about Israelis hiding in fortified bunkers.

    Victimhood serving narrative
    Western media, fluent in the language of erasure, broadcasts only the victimhood that serves the war narrative.

    And that is not just in its coverage of Iran. For 20 months now, the people of Gaza have been starved and incinerated. By the official count, more than 55,000 lives have been taken; realistic estimates put the number at hundreds of thousands.

    Every hospital in Gaza has been bombed. Most schools have been attacked and destroyed.

    Leading human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have already declared that Israel is committing genocide, and yet, most Western media would not utter that word and would add elaborate caveats when someone does dare say it live on TV.

    Presenters and editors would do anything but recognise Israel’s unending violence in an active voice.

    Despite detailed evidence of war crimes, the Israeli military has faced no media censure, no criticism or scrutiny. Its generals hold war meetings near civilian buildings, and yet, there are no media cries of Israelis being used as “human shields”.

    Israeli army and government officials are regularly caught lying or making genocidal statements, and yet, their words are still reported as “the truth”.

    Bias over Palestinian deaths
    A recent study found that on the BBC, Israeli deaths received 33 times more coverage per fatality than Palestinian deaths, despite Palestinians dying at a rate of 34 to 1 compared with Israelis. Such bias is no exception, it is the rule for Western media.

    Like Palestine, Iran is described in carefully chosen language. Iran is never framed as a nation, only as a regime. Iran is not a government, but a threat — not a people, but a problem.

    The word “Islamic” is affixed to it like a slur in every report. This is instrumental in quietly signalling that Muslim resistance to Western domination must be extinguished.

    Iran does not possess nuclear weapons; Israel and the United States do. And yet only Iran is cast as an existential threat to world order.

    Because the problem is not what Iran holds, but what it refuses to surrender. It has survived coups, sanctions, assassinations, and sabotage. It has outlived every attempt to starve, coerce, or isolate it into submission.

    It is a state that, despite the violence hurled at it, has not yet been broken.

    And so the myth of the threat of weapons of mass destruction becomes indispensable. It is the same myth that was used to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq. For three decades, American headlines have whispered that Iran is just “weeks away” from the bomb, three decades of deadlines that never arrive, of predictions that never materialise.

    Fear over false ‘nuclear threat’
    But fear, even when unfounded, is useful. If you can keep people afraid, you can keep them quiet. Say “nuclear threat” often enough, and no one will think to ask about the children killed in the name of “keeping the world safe”.

    This is the modus operandi of Western media: a media architecture not built to illuminate truth, but to manufacture permission for violence, to dress state aggression in technical language and animated graphics, to anaesthetise the public with euphemisms.

    Time Magazine does not write about the crushed bones of innocents under the rubble in Tehran or Rafah, it writes about “The New Middle East” with a cover strikingly similar to the one it used to propagandise regime change in Iraq 22 years ago.

    But this is not 2003. After decades of war, and livestreamed genocide, most Americans no longer buy into the old slogans and distortions. When Israel attacked Iran, a poll showed that only 16 percent of US respondents supported the US joining the war.

    After Trump ordered the air strikes, another poll confirmed this resistance to manufactured consent: only 36 percent of respondents supported the move, and only 32 percent supported continuing the bombardment

    The failure to manufacture consent for war with Iran reveals a profound shift in the American consciousness. Americans remember the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that left hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis dead and an entire region in flames. They remember the lies about weapons of mass destruction and democracy and the result: the thousands of American soldiers dead and the tens of thousands maimed.

    They remember the humiliating retreat from Afghanistan after 20 years of war and the never-ending bloody entanglement in Iraq.

    Low social justice spending
    At home, Americans are told there is no money for housing, healthcare, or education, but there is always money for bombs, for foreign occupations, for further militarisation. More than 700,000 Americans are homeless, more than 40 million live under the official poverty line and more than 27 million have no health insurance.

    And yet, the US government maintains by far the highest defence budget in the world.

    Americans know the precarity they face at home, but they are also increasingly aware of the impact US imperial adventurism has abroad. For 20 months now, they have watched a US-sponsored genocide broadcast live.

    They have seen countless times on their phones bloodied Palestinian children pulled from rubble while mainstream media insists, this is Israeli “self-defence”.

    The old alchemy of dehumanising victims to excuse their murder has lost its power. The digital age has shattered the monopoly on narrative that once made distant wars feel abstract and necessary. Americans are now increasingly refusing to be moved by the familiar war drumbeat.

    The growing fractures in public consent have not gone unnoticed in Washington. Trump, ever the opportunist, understands that the American public has no appetite for another war.

    ‘Don’t drop bombs’
    And so, on June 24, he took to social media to announce, “the ceasefire is in effect”, telling Israel to “DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS,” after the Israeli army continued to attack Iran.

    Trump, like so many in the US and Israeli political elites, wants to call himself a peacemaker while waging war. To leaders like him, peace has come to mean something altogether different: the unimpeded freedom to commit genocide and other atrocities while the world watches on.

    But they have failed to manufacture our consent. We know what peace is, and it does not come dressed in war. It is not dropped from the sky.

    Peace can only be achieved where there is freedom. And no matter how many times they strike, the people remain, from Palestine to Iran — unbroken, unbought, and unwilling to kneel to terror.

    Ahmad Ibsais is a first-generation Palestinian American and law student who writes the newsletter State of Siege.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Eugene Doyle: Why Asia-Pacific should be cheering for Iran and not US bomb-based statecraft

    ANALYSIS: By Eugene Doyle

    Setting aside any thoughts I may have about theocratic rulers (whether they be in Tel Aviv or Tehran), I am personally glad that Iran was able to hold out against the US-Israeli attacks this month.

    The ceasefire, however, will only be a pause in the long-running campaign to destabilise, weaken and isolate Iran. Regime change or pariah status are both acceptable outcomes for the US-Israeli dyad.

    The good news for my region is that Iran’s resilience pushes back what could be a looming calamity: the US pivot to Asia and a heightened risk of a war on China.

    There are three major pillars to the Eurasian order that is going through a slow, painful and violent birth.  Iran is the weakest.  If Iran falls, war in our region — intended or unintended – becomes vastly more likely.

    Mainstream New Zealanders and Australians suffer from an understandable complacency: war is what happens to other, mainly darker people or Slavs.

    “Tomorrow”, people in this part of the world naively think, “will always be like yesterday”.

    That could change, particularly for the Australians, in the kind of unfamiliar flash-boom Israelis experienced this month following their attack on Iran. And here’s why.

    US chooses war to re-shape Middle East
    Back in 2001, as many will recall, retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, was visiting buddies in the Pentagon. He learnt something he wasn’t supposed to: the Bush administration had made plans in the febrile post 9/11 environment to attack seven Muslim countries.

    In the firing line were: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, Gaddafi’s Libya, Somalia, Sudan and the biggest prize of all — the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    One would have to say that the project, pursued by successive presidents, both Democrat and Republican, has been a great success — if you discount the fact that a couple of million human beings, most of them civilians, many of them women and children, nearly all of them innocents, were slaughtered, starved to death or otherwise disposed of.

    With the exception of Iran, those countries have endured chaos and civil strife for long painful years.  A triumph of American bomb-based statecraft.

    Now — with Muammar Gaddafi raped and murdered (“We came, we saw, he died”, Hillary Clinton chuckled on camera the same day), Saddam Hussein hanged, Hezbollah decapitated, Assad in Moscow, the genocide in full swing in Palestine — the US and Israel were finally able to turn their guns — or, rather, bombs — on the great prize: Iran.

    Iran’s missiles have checked US-Israel for time being
    Things did not go to plan. Former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman pointed out this week that for the first time Israel got a taste of the medicine it likes to dispense to its neighbours.

    Iran’s missiles successfully turned the much-vaunted Iron Dome into an Iron Sieve and, perhaps momentarily, has achieved deterrence. If Iran falls, the US will be able to do what Barack Obama and Joe Biden only salivated over — a serious pivot to Asia.

    Could great power rivalry turn Asia-Pacific into powderkeg?
    For us in Asia-Pacific a major US pivot to Asia will mean soaring defence budgets to support militarisation, aggressive containment of China, provocative naval deployments, more sanctions, muscling smaller states, increased numbers of bases, new missile systems, info wars, threats and the ratcheting up rhetoric — all of which will bring us ever-closer to the powderkeg.

    Sounds utterly mad? Sounds devoid of rationality? Lacking commonsense? Welcome to our world — bellum Americanum — as we gormlessly march flame in hand towards the tinderbox. War is not written in the stars, we can change tack and rediscover diplomacy, restraint, and peaceful coexistence. Or is that too much to ask?

    Back in the days of George W Bush, radical American thinkers like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld created the Project for a New American Century and developed the policy, adopted by succeeding presidents, that promotes “the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of US military forces”.

    It reconfirmed the neoconservative American dogma that no power should be allowed to rise in any region to become a regional hegemon; anything and everything necessary should be done to ensure continued American primacy, including the resort to war.

    What has changed since those days are two crucial, epoch-making events: the re-emergence of Russia as a great power, albeit the weakest of the three, and the emergence of China as a genuine peer competitor to the USA. Professor  John Mearsheimer’s insights are well worth studying on this topic.

    The three pillars of multipolarity
    A new world order really is being born. As geopolitical thinkers like Professor Glenn Diesen point out, it will, if it is not killed in the cradle, replace the US unipolar world order that has existed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

    Many countries are involved in its birthing, including major players like India and Brazil and all the countries that are part of BRICS.  Three countries, however, are central to the project: Iran, Russia and, most importantly, China.  All three are in the crosshairs of the Western empire.

    If Iran, Russia and China survive as independent entities, they will partially fulfill Halford MacKinder’s early 20th century heartland theory that whoever dominates Eurasia will rule the world. I don’t think MacKinder, however, foresaw cooperative multipolarity on the Eurasian landmass — which is one of the goals of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) – as an option.

    That, increasingly, appears to be the most likely trajectory with multiple powerful states that will not accept domination, be that from China or the US.  That alone should give us cause for hope.

    Drunk on power since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has launched war after war and brought us to the current abandonment of economic sanity (the sanctions-and-tariff global pandemic) and diplomatic normalcy (kill any peace negotiators you see) — and an anything-goes foreign policy (including massive crimes against humanity).

    We have also reached — thanks in large part to these same policies — what a former US national security advisor warned must be avoided at all costs. Back in the 1990s, Zbigniew Brzezinski said, “The most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran.”

    Belligerent and devoid of sound strategy, the Biden and Trump administrations have achieved just that.

    Can Asia-Pacific avoid being dragged into an American war on China?
    Turning to our region, New Zealand and Australia’s governments cleave to yesterday: a white-dominated world led by the USA.  We have shown ourselves indifferent to massacres, ethnic cleansing and wars of aggression launched by our team.

    To avoid war — or a permanent fear of looming war — in our own backyards, we need to encourage sanity and diplomacy; we need to stay close to the US but step away from the military alliances they are forming, such as AUKUS which is aimed squarely at China.

    Above all, our defence and foreign affairs elites need to grow new neural pathways and start to think with vision and not place ourselves on the losing side of history. Independent foreign policy settings based around peace, defence not aggression, diplomacy not militarisation, would take us in the right direction.

    Personally I look forward to the day the US and its increasingly belligerent vassals are pushed back into the ranks of ordinary humanity. I fear the US far more than I do China.

    Despite the reflexive adherence to the US that our leaders are stuck on, we should not, if we value our lives and our cultures, allow ourselves to be part of this mad, doomed project.

    The US empire is heading into a blood-drenched sunset; their project will fail and the 500-year empire of the White West will end — starting and finishing with genocide.

    Every day I atheistically pray that leaders or a movement will emerge to guide our antipodean countries out of the clutches of a violent and increasingly incoherent USA.

    America is not our friend. China is not our enemy. Tomorrow gives birth to a world that we should look forward to and do the little we can to help shape.

    Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Keir Starmer pens love letter to business after decimating UK employment

    In his latest attempt to cosy up to non-Labour voters, Keir Starmer has remained firmly attached to business as the saviour of all. He said:

    What works for business, works for Britain. More jobs, opportunities, and money in people’s pockets.

    Yes, Starmer said “more jobs” after unemployment has risen to 4.6% – the highest level since the coronavirus pandemic. One of the major reasons for the rise is Starmer’s changes to employer National Insurance contributions (NICs). These impacted businesses who have low hours and/ or low income employees through lowering the threshold of which an employer pays secondary class NICs. The Labour government lowered the threshold of company earnings that qualify from £9,100 to when companies earn just £5,000 per year.

    Shambolic approach

    This has not only resulted in low employment but also a lower amount of vacancies. Compared with last year, there are 21.2% less vacancies in accommodation and food service and 17.1% less in manufacturing. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said she wants growth to come from the financial sector, instead of – you know – the actual economy. Meanwhile, finance and insurance vacancies are up 9%. The thing is, economists have long warned that financial sector growth actually crowds out growth in the real economy, stifling research and development while poaching skilled workers from real industries.

    A different approach to the NIC rise would be to categorise businesses based on revenue and profits rather than harbouring a regressive tax system for employers. The most profitable of firms in particular can afford to pay higher taxes (and wages) without raising prices.

    For example, Tesco employs 326,000 people in the UK and makes profit of £6,150 per every employee (including another around 100,000 abroad). That’s a total profit of £2.7bn on everyday food – an essential – meaning Tesco could pay thousands more each year in tax (and wages).

    That’s why it’s laughable that Tesco CEO Ken Murphy is saying that the tax hike is contributing to food inflation. More like greedflation.

    Starmer and Reeves changes have instead also impacted small businesses who have had to lower their employees by 21%, with almost 47% of them also citing tax as a barrier to their growth. If Labour had looked at the reality of the market and a company’s revenues and profits, they could have raised tax for big businesses like Tesco, while ensuring small businesses can remain viable.

    ‘Good for business, good for Britain’ – um what?

    Another ludicrous part of what Starmer said is the mantra that “what works for business, works for Britain”. The privatisation of essential services certainly works for business shareholders while they milk profits, but it means higher bills, lower investment and higher borrowing costs for the public.

    And let’s not forget the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US that contained Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions that allow corporations to sue governments for impacting their profits. But of course, “what works for business, works for Britain” in all circumstances. And indeed, Global Justice Now has warned that an accompanying agreement to Starmer’s recent trade deal with India could contain ISDS, impacting both the UK and Indian governments.

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour-Tory axis rejects divestment call from thousands of Enfield residents opposed to genocide

    Thousands of people in Enfield signed a petition asking their local council to divest from companies complicit in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. But in a 24 June council vote, the Labour-Tory axis in charge rejected their constituents’ request outright.

    This comes as Enfield’s independent left has been stepping up as the main opposition to the establishment parties’ domination in the area. Enfield Community Independents (ECI) responded to the council’s decision by saying:

    We look forward to the May 2026 local elections and removing existing councillors from their position and allowing a proper debate on divestment to be held.

    The Canary previously outlined that at least 81 local government pension funds invest in complicit companies, and that Enfield Council apparently “invests more than £53 million of workers’ pension funds in companies complicit in human rights violations, apartheid and genocide in Palestine”.

    ‘Other councils could. So why couldn’t Enfield?’

    As independent media outlet Enfield Dispatch reported, “campaigner Chris Kaufman addressed a full council meeting at Enfield Civic Centre”, pointing out that other councils (like Waltham Forest and Islington) had “the same constraints” as Enfield Council but had committed to:

    lawfully exit from financial relationships with companies that may facilitate breaches of international law

    Labour council leader Ergin Erbil, however, refused to do this. His justification was that he and others had to “make rational and sensible decisions” regarding pension fund investments. And he claimed the council was acting “responsibly and transparently”.

    Conservative opposition leader Alessandro Georgiou added that:

    It is near impossible even if we wanted to, to disentangle ourselves from every single body, company and organisation that has traded with Israel.

    Responding to the council’s decision, ECI leader Khalid Sadur said that:

    The level of debate at the Divestment meeting on 24 June highlighted the level of partisan politics present on the existing Council and the failure of councillors to address real issues ahead of party interests.

    Sadur previously ran 2024 general and local election campaigns with an anti-war, anti-austerity platform, and has received Jeremy Corbyn’s endorsement. Despite working with a low budget, ECI surprised the local political establishment and now represents the main opposition to Labour-Tory domination in the area.

    “No excuse” for hiding investments

    The ECI statement challenged Erbil’s claim that the council was behaving “responsibly and transparently”. It stressed that:

    Investing in companies which are potentially complicit with human rights violations or human rights abuses places additional risk on the pension fund valuation.

    It also said:

    At present, the Council does not publish details of its fund investments to scheme members or the wider public…

    If councillors are performing their fiduciary duty correctly and there is nothing to hide, there should be no excuse for not publishing quarterly fund holdings and ensure this existing breach is resolved.

    ECI also referred to the council’s “Pension Scheme Advisory Board Guidance”, claiming that the Pensions Committee had a duty to:

    request a specific review of geopolitical risk from fund managers on the ongoing crisis in the Middle East and its impact on the existing fund valuation.

    There could be “significant losses” from investments if Israel faces sanctions for its “human rights abuses and breaches of international law”. And ECI insisted that councillors’ failure to consider this meant that “research and
    analysis” were not informing their decisions.

    The Scheme Guidance it referred to also makes clear that councillors should prioritise beneficiaries’ interests over their own personal views. By rejecting the divestment request “without first consulting and hearing the views of scheme members”, ECI stressed, councillors were in breach of this guidance.

    When councillors deem unethical behaviour “rational and sensible”, something is very wrong

    When Kaufman introduced the petition at the council meeting, he asked councillors to consider the “moral and ethical question”:

    Is it right for Enfield’s pension funds to be used to fund war crimes in any way?

    “Each of you must decide”, he said. “Can you look the other way whilst the planes zoom and dive?” He added:

    Don’t leave your consciences at the door. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu said ‘If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.’

    He finally urged councillors “to listen to the people of Enfield” and take action.

    But they decided to look the other way, leave their consciences at the door, and choose the side of the oppressor. And they chose to ignore the people of Enfield.

    Kaufman told Enfield Dispatch that councillors were:

    washing their hands of their responsibilities. They keep implying this idea that to look after people’s pension funds means maximising returns and forgetting any morality and ethics and they’ve shown themselves in their true colours.

    Indeed, only seriously misanthropic people could argue that it’s “rational and sensible” to sideline human rights. But it seems such people thrive in Britain’s current political system. And that’s why it’s so important for residents to expose their wrongdoing and organise to defeat them.

    In Enfield, people have already begun to stand up as a community against councillors’ unethical behaviour. And if this continues, Sadur promised:

    come May 2026 they’re no longer going to fill that council chamber

     

    We believe the speakers in the video below to be Labour’s Ergin Erbil and Tory David Skelton. 

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Newcastle DWP consultation shows what the government really thinks about disabled people

    Yesterday was the final in-person event for the DWP’s Pathways to Work consultation. The consultation itself has been badly received by disabled people as our thoughts on the excruciating cuts and ‘reforms’ of disability benefits have by and large been ignored.

    However, the north-east consultation was somehow an even bigger mess.

    DWP hastily throw together Newcastle consultation

    Firstly, this was a massively last minute event. Up until last week there was no consultation in the whole of the North East and Cumbria. In fact there was no opportunity for anyone who lived between Glasgow and Leeds to have their say in person. This was something Liz Kendall was seemingly oblivious to until MP for South Shields, Emma Lewell, pulled her up on it in DWP questions.

    Then, the event was hastily thrown together with just a weeks notice. Once again, the government couldn’t make it clearer that they don’t care about the north east. That’s in spit of the fact that we’re the region with the most disabled people and high levels of poverty.

    The next reason it ruffled feathers was the date. The event just so happened (by coincidence I’m sure) to be the launch date of a new disability-led stakeholders network. The network was founded by local deaf and disabled person’s (DDPO) Difference North East after they resigned from the government’s Regional Stakeholders Network.

    The organisation said the government created a regional network to hear from disability charities, organisations and those with skin in the game but refused to listen to them on disability issues in the north east.

    Difference North East are creating their own table

    In their resignation letter the group said:

    Difference North East no longer believe this government is listening or meaningfully consulting with us. If it was, it would not be pushing forward with policy proposals that will be harmful to disabled people

    And, on their social media, the group further explained:

    We weren’t partners. We were decoration.

    So now we’re building something better: run by disabled, d/Deaf and neurodivergent people, and open to everyone who wants to work with us, not just ignore us.

    One of the reasons the group resigned from the regional network has been because the government wasn’t planning on holding an in-person consultation for the north and east. Lo and behold, when they are harried into holding the consultation, they organise it for the same day that Difference North East launch their initiative.

    Christopher Hartworth, director of development at Difference North East, said:

    Last week we resigned from the government’s Regional Stakeholder Network at the lack of meaningful involvement with disabled people. Only then did the government announce that there would actually be a North East Consultation.

    DWP tried to stop disabled people protesting

    Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) and Crips Against Cuts have shared Difference North East’s frustrations. Members from the former two groups have been protesting outside the consultation and even gatecrashing proceedings.

    However, disability groups from the North East had to be much more covert once they heard of the consultation plans. Just a few weeks ago a consultation in Cardiff was cancelled. At the time, Disability Wales said they were “aghast” at the cancellation.

    Perhaps because of the growing anger around the cancellation, details of the venue for yesterday’s consultation were only shared  with registered attendees. Conveniently for the DWP, the venue itself was gated, restricting public access.

    Hartworth said:

    Our members tell us they only got notice of the venue two days ago. They still have no idea if the space is accessible or if BSL will be provided. A person in Teesside reported that it would cost £50 each way for a taxi. This event is not accessible for disabled people living across the North East, who deserve a meaningful consultation that centres their voices. A vote on welfare cuts should not go ahead until this has happened.

    Nevertheless, DPAC North East and Crips Against Cuts North East turned up to send a final urgent message to the government.

    Lee Turner, from Crips Against Cuts North East said:

    These barbaric welfare reforms are an outright assault on the dignity and survival of vulnerable people across the country, particularly here in the North East, where our communities have already been hit hard by years of underinvestment and austerity, and now, instead of offering a hand up, they choose to push us further in to poverty.

    Turner concluded:

    These policies are not just cruel, they’re a betrayal of basic decency. We will not stand by while lives are devastated for the sake of political posturing.

    Campaigner Elspeth, also with Crips Against Cuts North East told the Canary:

    We’re protesting the consultation today because this is how the government is treating us summed up. It’s a consultation that will change nothing, planned last minute, in a deeply inaccessible location.

    An inaccessible nightmare

    So, what of the actual consultation itself? Two of the attendees reached out to me to share their experiences. Both expressed utter dismay at the way they were treated. They described how when attendees arrived at the building they were made to walk for 15 minutes around the building. The group were escorted by security past multiple offices filled with staff watching them. Then, once they arrived at the meeting room there were two disabled parking bays directly outside.

    One attendee, Claire, was not able to complete the consultation. She had to leave two questions in, along with another participant, after she found the event inaccessible and was depleted of her energy before even getting in the room. This is despite her travelling for over an hour to get there.

    Claire told me:

    if this event was an indication of how the DWP plans to “support disabled people to thrive” then I’m afraid the future looks bleak. The event was not planned to be accessible and inclusive.

    Claire was escorted out with a security guard on either side of her roller. Several attendees were wary of the security guards. J, another attendee, told me it was “overkill.” Another three attendees were escorted by three security guards. Claire also told me that the questions the group were asked were badly formed:

    some of their questions were very leading and sounded like a benefit to people, when actually it was about making an already hard system worse for disabled people.

    North east consultation: indicative of how the government treats the most vulnerable

    From start to finish the Pathways to Work consultation has been an utter sham. And, the way disabled people in the north east have been treated by the government shows just how much they care about those who will be hardest hit by these cuts.

    This above all else is why we should – not for one second – believe the government’s concessions. We need to judge them not on their words but their very deliberate actions and attempts to silence those who will suffer the most.

    Featured image via Elspeth, Crips Not Cuts

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Starmer’s sham concessions are a disgusting creation of a two-tier system

    In yet another embarrassing u-turn, Keir Starmer has offered concessions to Labour rebels over disability benefit cuts. More than 120 Labour MPs have mounted a major rebellion against the proposed cuts. And, countless disability organisations and activists have repeatedly warned that the cuts will decimate the lives of disabled people.

    Ahead of a major vote next week, Starmer has reached out to rebels with a desperate attempt to win their support. The government has proposed a major reform to Personal Independence Payment (PIP). As ever, it’s worth nothing that PIP has a 0% fraud rate and is not an out of work benefit. That’s in spite of the fact that this raft of disability cuts are being presented as getting disabled people into work. Now, Starmer has proposed the following ‘concessions’:

    • everyone currently on PIP will use the old points system, whilst new claimants will be subject to the overhauled points system
    • universal credit (UC) health element – the Limited Capability for Work Related Activity (LCWRA) component – will now rise alongside inflation, but again this appears to apply only to existing claimants, and those that meet the DWP’s new ‘severe conditions criteria’ as new claimants
    • increasing spending on employment schemes

    Starmer’s sham concessions

    This is Starmer’s third major u-turn just this month. But, this one really takes the cake. He’s proposed a two-tier benefit system that separates current PIP claimants from new ones. As the Canary has previously reported, the proposed PIP cuts will mean that the following people will no longer be eligible for support:

    (a) assistance to be able to cut up food

    (b) supervision or prompting to be able to wash or bathe

    (c) assistance to be able to wash either their hair or body below the waist

    (d) assistance to be able to get in or out of a bath or shower

    (e) supervision or prompting to be able to manage toilet needs

    (f) assistance to be able to dress or undress their lower body

    (g) supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to manage medication and, or, to be able to monitor a health condition.

    Starmer has some fucking nerve if he thinks that disabled people are going to be in any way convinced by a ‘concession’ that segregates disabled people based on when they applied for an essential benefit. Even before these proposed changes, PIP is a notoriously demeaning and difficult benefit to apply for. How exactly do the needs of PIP applicants change depending on Starmer’s desperate timeline to sway votes? If you can’t fucking feed yourself or clean yourself that shouldn’t be subject to a lottery based on when you apply.

    On top of that, the very idea that the UC health element increasing alongside inflation is somehow a concession is batshit. If the UC health element doesn’t increase alongside inflation, that’s a pay cut for disabled people already living in poverty. However, the government has controversially worded the LCWRA to exclude people living with fluctuating conditions. And, disabled people have been begging the government to understand how expensive it is to be disabled. How will more money for employment help with that? If anything, it further demonises disabled people who cannot work. Starmer’s insistence on helping “working people” is a lazy conservative talking point. Does someone who cannot work deserve to starve to death? Should they live on the streets? For the avoidance of doubt, given the absolute fucking state of corporate capitalism: food and shelter is a basic human right that shouldn’t cost anything.

    Widespread condemnation

    Unfortunately for Starmer, these concessions are being seen for the farce that they are. Canary guest author and disability activist Laura Elliott said:

    Journalist and disability advocate Lucy Webster decried the immoral decision:

    Canary writer Rachel Charlton-Dailey made it clear that Labour rebels shouldn’t be convinced by any of this horse shit:

    And, another person agreed:

    Disability rights activist Abi Broomfield who launched a vital petition against the cuts – which is still running – said the concessions were entirely worthless:

    Erin Ekins took the corporate media to task for parroting the government line without question:

    That disabled people have to hang our hopes on MPs not falling for Starmer’s sham concessions:

    Fix up

    As usual, it was women of colour having a shred of decency. Diane Abbott said:

    Nadia Whittome said MPs had no option but to block the bill:

    Apsana Begum insisted the bill needs to be dropped:

    Block the bill

    Labour rebels face a choice next week: listen to disabled communities, or sell us down the river for party politics. Starmer may well be wobbling on a knife edge as leader of the Labour party with embarrassing climbdown after embarrassing climbdown. However, I couldn’t give less of a fuck if this does end up being a fight over whether Starmer has the support of the Labour party.

    Before Starmer’s proposed cuts and changes over disability welfare, it was hell to be a disabled person in this country. Any welfare is accessed via the DWP who make it their mission to demean and demonise disabled people. We have a broken system that views disabled people as feckless, lazy, and simply requiring a push into work. So many of us live in debilitating pain with complex conditions, all whilst being failed and denied by a crumbling NHS.

    With these proposed cuts and changes? People who are struggling to survive will not survive. Starmer is playing with people’s lives. MPs must continue their rebellion against him to avoid destroying lives. It’s beyond a fucking joke that we have to do this, but we must bombard our MPs over the weekend with the consequences of their decision next week.

    Use this template from Taking the PIP to write to your MP, and urge them to block the bill. You can also join Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) for an in-person protest against the cuts outside Parliament on Monday 30 June:

    Disability Rebellion, Taking the PIP, and Crips Against Cuts are hosting an online protest to coincide with this so chronically ill and disabled people can take action from home:

    Any Labour MP that falls for Starmer’s sham concessions will be betraying their disabled constituents.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The DWP PIP cuts bill is already taking a huge toll on people with spinal injuries

    There is fear and anxiety amongst the spinal cord injury (SCI) community regarding the Labour Party government’s proposed plans for tightening the eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) using the ‘daily living’ section of PIP.

    Many people with SCI, like Julie, Janet, and Dan in this article, are worried they might not fit within the extremely tight parameters set by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

    This mental health toll is something that is of great concern for the Spinal Injuries Association (SIA), the organisation that represents those living with a SCI.

    DWP PIP cuts bill will hit people with spinal injuries hard

    The current government watched as the last administration callously cut the benefits of the most in need, and the impact this then had in terms of mental ill health and suicide.

    Yet, this new Labour government, barely a year old, that witnessed this chaos unfold before it, is now going down the same road, boasting about the amount of welfare reforms it is undertaking.

    These proposed ‘reforms’ include a tightening in eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) – a ‘gateway benefit’ just for disabled people. Even those with high level SCI needs might find it a struggle to get four points or over in each ‘Daily Living’ section. That shows just how tight these parameters are, and just how many people living with substantial needs might lose out.

    With these cuts to PIP likely to affect many people with SCI, it is so important the voices of those potentially impacted are heard. But many fear this government isn’t listening.

    That’s because cutting a benefit like PIP for someone with a SCI, could have a severe impact on their ability to be independent and contribute to the world, including through work. Losing independence will also add to the cost for government rather than reducing them, and the cost to the person with SCI could be their mental health, with increased anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts.

    Loss of independence and a huge mental health toll

    Julie from the East Midlands, who damaged her spinal cord when she fell down the stairs and sustained an injury at T12, said:

    If my PIP was cut then I wouldn’t get my Blue Badge which could leave me housebound. I would need to access more services from the NHS and get more help from them. I wouldn’t be as independent.

    Due to childhood trauma, Julie said:

    I pay privately for trauma therapy that isn’t available on the NHS. My mental health would be affected if these cuts meant I couldn’t pay for my therapy.

    I can be independent at the moment, as I can afford to buy the products and services I need on a daily basis. But without that, my quality of living would drop, and I would become dependent on others.

    Remaining as independent as possible is something that is incredibly important for disabled people such as those with a SCI. The Disability Consortium found that 84% of disabled people it surveyed said that PIP helps them stay independent.

    Many of the expenses disabled people rack up are due to society not being ‘set-up’ and accessible for disabled people.

    This can affect every area of life, such as a higher rent or mortgage for accessible housing, higher transport costs, expenses specific to a disability, and products and services, including care.

    Rather than fixing these societal problems, the government has instead gone down a punitive route, by targeting PIP claimants.

    Not just abandoned by Labour, but cruelly targeted

    Clinical Psychologist Dr Jay Watts put it best when she said:

    Instead of scapegoating the vulnerable, ministers should fix the systems that fail them, not dismantle lifelines.

    Lots of disabled people chose to vote for this government hoping for change. They hoped this new government had a better understanding of the complexity and cost of living with disabilities. But now, disabled people don’t just feel abandoned by this government, but unfairly and cruelly targeted.

    This is how Janet from the East of England feels. She has SCI due to extensive multi-layer degenerative disc disease, and has had to undergo multiple surgeries. She has both bowel and bladder problems, and further issues, including depression due to poor pain management.

    With such extensive disabilities there’s a high financial price-tag. Janet said she uses her PIP to pay for physiotherapy, massages, hydrotherapy, and psychotherapy. Due to incontinence, she must replace ruined clothes and bedding, plus pay for the extra laundry costs and water usage. She pays for help in her garden, and  for items such as grabbers and a massage chair seat.

    She said:

    I worry about the costs I have that are ongoing, I score 10 points but don’t score 4 in one category.

    I asked Janet what she thought of the Labour government trying to push through these reforms. Janet said:

    They just don’t care.

    She added:

    Labour is targeting the disabled because they believe we do not have a voice. They will rue the day they proposed these cuts come the next election.

    PIP: providing a vital safety net and security in work

    Dan from East London has a T3 complete SCI due to a traffic accident. He said losing PIP would be very worrying as it provides a safety net. He explained that:

    It allows me to live in my flat and pays for essentials plus emergency unexpected items.”

    Looking back at the years since his accident, Dan said:

    It’s been a long journey. Without my amazing family and friends, it would impossible. There is always a new challenge and often there is little or no support, so the learning curve can be very punishing along with constant pain and chronic fatigue.

    Dan is one of the many disabled people who works. And although PIP is not an ‘out of work’ payment, ministers often link PIP cuts to getting “more disabled people into work”.

    So, to play their game for a moment: how does PIP keep someone like Dan, with a SCI, stay in work?

    Dan said:

    PIP has been extremely valuable as although I have been able to work, it is not constant due to various health issues. PIP gives me security and has also paid for expensive disability adaptions and mobility aids I’m not able to get funding for.

    As Dan explained, sometimes he has had to take time off due to health issues, and PIP has helped with this, giving him security.

    Julie, who is a teacher, has had to limit her time at work to three days:

    This is due to fatigue and pain, and means my wages are lower than before the accident.

    Due to her double-incontinence, Julie buys discreet pads. She has a fear of an odour due to this, so also uses a lot of perfume and deodorant. She said:

    At work, I need a clean area to use my catheters. I buy disinfectant wipes, bags, extra clothing and there is extra washing for soiled clothes.

    If her PIP was cut, Julie’s main worry is she wouldn’t be able to keep up the level of intimate and personal care to keep her clean, dry, and odour-free to do her work.

    Cuts ‘locking claimants in a vicious cycle’

    So, what would be the mental health impact for people like Julie, Janet, and Dan if their PIP was threatened, and how could that also have an impact on their physical health?

    Dr Jay Watts said:

    This stress amplifies SCI-pain, weakens immunity and invites complications like pressure sores while reduced funds for physio or equipment accelerate physical decline, such as muscle loss, joint issues – the works.

    Worsening physical health then deepens mental health struggles, locking claimants in a vicious cycle where each fuels the other.

    In an open letter to the government, the SIA implored it to tackle the societal problems affecting disabled people like those with a SCI, rather than targeting individual claimants with cuts. It pointed to five key areas:

    • Access to Work: According to Disability Rights UK (March 2024), there are over 37,000 unresolved applications, with some disabled people waiting up to 254 working days for support.
    • Social care: The Health and Social Care Committee (October 2023) reported a £7 billion annual funding gap, leaving around 3.5 million people with inadequate or no care.
    • Continuing Healthcare (CHC): Age UK (2024) found 60% of families face delays or refusals, creating unacceptable regional inequalities.
    • Wheelchair provision: An ITV News investigation (November 2024) reported waiting times of over two years for NHS-provided wheelchairs in some areas.
    • Accessible transport: The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC, 2024) found that 41% of disabled passengers avoid public transport due to accessibility concerns.

    The ‘serious and far-reaching consequences’ of PIP cuts

    The SIA, in its open letter, went on to say:

    Cuts to welfare support will not only reduce the financial independence of people with SCI but will have serious and far-reaching consequences for their mental and physical health. Living with a SCI already places significant daily demands on individuals from managing complex care needs and navigating inaccessible environments to coping with chronic pain and isolation and psychological trauma. Reductions in support will increase stress, anxiety, and depression and heighten the risk of secondary complications such as pressure ulcers and infections.

    ‘Daily living’ for those with a SCI, like Julie, Janet, and Dan, has been fraught with difficulties over the past fifteen years, with many key societal services around them failing. This has vastly increased the cost of living for disabled people, with the financial load impacting on them mentally, and in terms of their physical health. Cutting PIP will make this bad situation even worse.

    Julie said:

    People’s independence and quality of life will be impacted and if they are no longer able to look after themselves, who else is going to do it? This is not a cut in funding it is a potential rise in healthcare costs.

    The SIA agrees, and has said those without the PIP lifeline are under threat of losing:

    • Access to care and equipment
    • Their ability to stay in work or education
    • Their independence, health, and in some cases, their homes

    The SIA said:

    By speaking out together, we can show MPs just how damaging these proposals are and how urgently they need to be opposed.

    There is a big rebellion of Labour MPs against this bill. Can they succeed?

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ruth Hunt

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Met officers who strip searched Child Q found to have committed gross misconduct

    The Metropolitan police officers who strip searched Child Q in 2020 have been found to have committed gross misconduct. The findings come via an investigation from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). The panel found that the treatment of the child was:

    disproportionate, inappropriate and unnecessary, which was humiliating for the child and made her feel degraded.

    At the time, Child Q was strip searched in a school in Hackney without an adult present, nor without informing her parents. In 2022, the City of London & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership reviewed the case and found that:

    had child Q not been Black, then her experiences are unlikely to have been the same

    Now, five years later – far too long an amount of time for an official investigation – the Met are finally being held to task. However, alarmingly, the IOPC concluded that:

    It did not find, based on the evidence, that race was a factor in their decisions or that the child was adultified.

    Child Q failed

    The panel did outline the numerous ways in which the Met police failed Child Q. The two officers in question, Trainee Detective Constable Kristina Linge and Police Constable Rafal Szmydynsk:

    were found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour relating to duties and responsibilities, authority, respect and courtesy; orders and instructions, and discreditable conduct.

    The pair:

    • failed to have an appropriate adult present during the strip search
    • failed to get authorisation from a senior officer prior to the search
    • failed to give Child Q a copy of the search record
    • did not respect Child Q’s rights
    • failed to protect Child Q

    A third officer, PC Victoria Wray was found to have committed misconduct:

    She was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour relating to duties and responsibilities, authority, respect and courtesy; and orders and instructions.

    The search of Child Q was initially carried out because a teacher suspected she could smell weed on the pupil. IOPC director Amanda Rowe acknowledged that:

    Their decision to strip search a 15-year-old at school on suspicion of a small amount of cannabis was completely disproportionate. They failed to follow the policies that exist to ensure that children in these situations have appropriate protective measures in place.

    Anti-Blackness

    The enduring understanding of Child Q since her case came to light has been one of anti-Black racism. In 2022, the Canary’s Sophia Purdy-Moore reported:

    Today, schools systematically push Black pupils out of mainstream education and into pupil referral units, alternative provision, and – ultimately – prisons. Educators enact this through ‘zero tolerance’ policies which punish Black and minoritised pupils for wearing colourful hijabs or natural afro hair.

    Anti-Black racism is built into our education systems. As such, the experiences of Child Q cannot be understood without appreciating the anti-Blackness and racism she suffered at the hands of these cops. In 2022, No More Exclusions founder Zahra Bei told us:

    It’s appalling but it’s not surprising that the school dealt with this child and the situation as a criminal matter as opposed to a safeguarding matter. As it says in the report, she was seen as the risk instead of being at risk. And that is what fundamentally needs to change for Black children. Their childhood, their vulnerability, their needs, their humanity has to be recognised in its fullness.

    Hackney MP Diane Abbott has also called out the broader pattern of misogynoir that led to Child Q’s awful experience:

    Institutional racism

    The findings from the IOPC shouldn’t have taken five years from the incident to be delivered. But, that’s just like the Met Police – to commit horrific racism, deny they did so, and re-traumatise their victims. Child Q has previously spoken of her trauma over the incident. Undoubtedly, this latest finding that race did not play a part will add to her trauma. The IOPC may be shielding the Met Police from further embarrassing accusations of racism, but the rest of us must understand that denials of racism are a painful and retraumatising experience.

    The fact that a 2022 safeguarding report did what the IOPC failed to do in their dismissal of race as a factor is a disgrace. Child Q’s experiences are part of a broader pattern of anti-Black racism that is rampant in our education and police systems.

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Yvette Cooper’s cosiness with Israel lobby helps explain absurd war on Palestine Action

    Home secretary Yvette Cooper has controversially decided to proscribe anti-genocide group Palestine Action. And this is hardly surprising when you look at her cosy relationship with pro-Israel lobbyists.

    Money can be very convincing

    The British government has not only failed to challenge Israel in any meaningful way as it has killed at least one child every hour in Gaza since October 2023. The UK has also participated in that genocide, in part via RAF Akrotiri.

    And that’s because Britain’s influential pro-Israel lobby has a loyal, docile friend in Keir Starmer’s government. Indeed, it has funded half his cabinet. A tax-haven hedge fund ‘standing to profit’ from Israel’s war crimes, meanwhile, sent the Labour Party £4m before the 2024 election, and pro-Israel millionaire Gary Lubner gave it £4.5m in 2023 alone.

    Yvette Cooper is very much part of this sickeningly cosy relationship. Because she registered in June 2023 that Lubner had given Labour £210,000 “to pay for three additional members of staff for my office over the next eighteen months”.

    She also received tens of thousands of pounds from Labour Together, the shady think tank linked with millionaire pro-Israel lobbyist Trevor Chinn, who has donated around £200,000 to Starmer and his cronies in recent years. Labour Together played a prominent role in undermining the left during and following the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. It aimed “to defeat Corbynism” by using “soft branding that made them seem warm and cuddly”. And it once rallied supporters to “destroy the Canary or the Canary destroys us”.

    In short, Cooper seems thoroughly comfortable with lobbyists who approve of genocide and oppose the struggle for peace. So comfortable, in fact, she even takes selfies with genocide-apologists:

    Cooper’s connection with the Israel lobby isn’t new

    Cooper was one of many “parliamentary supporters” of the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) lobby group, before it hid its list during the ongoing genocide in Gaza. LFI has refused to disclose where it gets its money from, but claims it “does not receive any money from the Israeli government or the Israeli Embassy”. Undercover reporting previously showed former LFI chair Joan Ryan, however, talking about a £1m payment with an Israeli diplomat. The investigative work from Al Jazeera also exposed another LFI figure admitting they’d been working a lot “behind the scenes” with the same diplomat, who had been plotting against British MPs.

    Back in 2015, meanwhile, Cooper got another donation. This came from Red Capital Private, a company of former LFI chair Jonathan Mendelsohn. It gave Cooper £5,000 “to support my campaign for leadership of the Labour Party”. She lost that election miserably. But during her campaign, she had argued it was “hugely important that Labour continues to be a friend of Israel”, despite the apartheid state’s massacre of 1,492 civilians in Gaza (including 551 children) the previous year. She had also criticised boycott efforts against Israel and praised Britain’s disastrous Balfour Declaration, which boosted settler-colonial efforts in Palestine in the early 20th century.

    Cooper also received donations from numerous figures who opposed Corbyn or would go on to join the smear campaign against him. And she has attended several events of business tycoon Gerald Ronson‘s Community Security Trust, a group which has consistently sought to smear critics of Israel.

    “Disgraceful” defence of genocide

    Cooper was previously very coy about whether she would arrest war criminal Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he came to the UK. But at the same time, she has clearly promised to use the “full force of the law” against supporters of groups resisting the Israeli settler-colonial project. And she’s no newcomer to demanding the proscription of organisations that could threaten Israel’s ongoing impunity.

    Meanwhile, it seems Cooper has little or nothing to say about Israel killing or injuring at least 50,000 children since 2023. But she has spoken repeatedly about Ukraine, where Russia’s assault has killed or injured 2,733 children since 2022. And she can also find the words to condemn Palestine Action as “disgraceful” for trying to stop the machinery of war that contributes to Israel’s mass murder of children.

    Countless human rights and other high-profile groups have condemned her efforts to proscribe Palestine Action. And Amnesty International’s Agnes Callamard is one figure who has rightly called out her disgusting double standards:

    A lot of lobbying has been going on behind the scenes against Palestine Action, especially since Israel’s genocide in Gaza intensified in 2023. Some of that has come from We Believe in Israel. This is “a side-project” of BICOM – “Britain’s most active pro-Israeli lobbying organisation”. And its longstanding director was awful Labour right-winger and self-proclaimed “Zionist shitlord” Luke Akehurst (who isn’t Jewish, by the way).

    Ahead of its recent push for Palestine Action’s proscription, We Believe in Israel apparently received “access to classified documents“. And Cooper’s words, the Guardian noted, were “similar” to those the lobby group had used.

    We are all Palestine Action!

    Palestine Action itself has called the government’s efforts “unhinged”, saying:

    The real crime here is not red paint being sprayed on these war planes, but the war crimes that have been enabled with those planes because of the UK Government’s complicity in Israel’s genocide.

    The government has clarified that the protest “did not affect RAF operational output”. It additionally said the target, RAF Brize Norton, already required more funding for security. This is possibly a partial result of the RAF wasting money renting planes from a hedge fund.

    In its defence, Palestine Action also highlighted that Keir Starmer himself once:

    rightly defended protesters who broke into an RAF base in 2003 to stop US bombers heading to Iraq, with Starmer asserting that this protest was lawful because their intention was to prevent war crimes.

    But it lamented that:

    He is now bowing down to the pro-Israel groups and the private arms companies who have been lobbying government to stop Palestine Action because we have successfully hit the profits of these blood-soaked companies and disrupted Israel’s war machine.

    It added that the proscription attempt:

    is a shocking and unacceptable escalation of the Government’s crackdown on the right to protest in our country. Future generations will look at the people who stood up [to] the UK Government’s complicity in this genocide as being on the right side history. We have a long, proud history of direct action, from the suffragettes to Nelson Mandela and others, who were called ‘terrorists’ at the time.

    Finally, it called on all people who oppose Israel’s genocide to show their solidarity:

    to show how unworkable this absurd, unacceptable attack on free speech is.

    People showing support for the group in the streets have already faced police violence. But there is also online solidarity. And a crowdfunder has already raised enough funds for the group’s legal challenge:

    It also seems likely that the government’s absurd crackdown, and the mass publicity it is creating, will only add to Palestine Action’s popularity.

    To find out more about the group’s efforts to end British complicity in Israel’s crimes, see the film To Kill A War Machine, which is now available online.

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The ticking time bomb of Conservative austerity is going off and Labour are nowhere to be seen

    Conservative austerity cuts (initially propped up by the Lib Dems) planted a ticking time bomb for UK children. Now research from children’s charity Barnardo’s has found that since 2010 spending on early intervention services for families and children has reduced by almost half, at 42%.

    As early as 2016, the Early Intervention Foundation (EIF) reported that we therefore waste £17 billion every year on late intervention services such as foster and residential care for children. And now 81% of all council spending on children’s services goes to late intervention.

    Barnardo’s CEO, Lynn Perry, said:

    while the government’s recent spending review recognized the importance of these services it did not pledge any additional funds for their development.

    Profiting from austerity

    Here, the toxic combination of austerity and privatisation rears its unsightly head. The top three firms providing foster care – all private equity owned – made combined profits of £40m in 2023. Where government spending is reduced, profiteering private services fill the space. And, children fall by the wayside.

    It’s common sense that early intervention through children’s centres and family hubs, like Barnardo’s advocates for, is better than letting issues spiral out of control. That’s unless you want to make a buck out of those issues.

    This can also be seen in Barnardo’s analysis. It found a high return on investment (ROI) for public spending on early intervention, at £3.82 for every £1 spent for the Cygnet parenting programme.

    “Vital support”

    Perry said:

    Family hubs offer a safe, welcoming space where parents and children can access vital support. At their best, these centres are a local ‘nerve centre’ – where parents can come for a ‘stay and play’ session, and in the same familiar and welcoming environment, receive help with breastfeeding, talk to a health visitor, receive support with speech and language, attend a parenting course, and even access highly specialist help with issues such as domestic abuse and substance abuse, for those who need it.

    Evidence also shows that family hubs, by getting to families with support before they reach crisis point, also have a long-term financial benefit to the country.

    Barnardo’s further notes that the number of children in poverty has risen to 4.5 million, or 31% of the total number of children.

    The charity points to a ‘postcode lottery’ of support with the number of family hubs greatly varying p29 depending on where a person lives. The Tory cuts meant p28 that there was a 37% drop in the number of family hubs and children centres as of 2024.

    Meanwhile, Labour has kicked its child poverty strategy into the long grass, rather than providing the issue with immediate attention. The austerity-era lives on.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour rebellion over welfare cuts soars as one DWP minister just WELCOMED the Tories’ support

    Amid the growing Labour MP rebellion, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) minister Stephen Timms has welcomed support from the Conservative Party to ram the callous welfare cuts bill through its imminent second reading.

    DWP welfare cuts bill: minister for disabled people doubling down

    On the morning of Wednesday 25 June, the Work and Pensions committee grilled the Minister of State for Social Security and Disability over the cruel benefit cuts bill. The government is due to bring the bill before parliament on Tuesday 1 July.

    Timms was talking out of his arse with all the usual myths on Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Universal Credit’s Limited Capability for Work Related Activity (LCWRA).

    Chair Debbie Abrahams quickly pressed Timms on why the government hadn’t consulted disabled people over the bill.

    Naturally, he doubled down with the department’s drivel on the unsustainable trajectory of benefits.

    However, Abrahams immediately debunked this, noting that:

    In terms of working age support, spending has remained at 5% GDP for the past ten plus years.

    Abrahams explained that while spending for disability benefits has increased, overall, the cost of working age benefits had stayed broadly the same for over a decade. Moreover, she pointed out there were clear and valid reasons for the increase in disability benefit spending too: 

    The DWP’s own papers have shown the increase for example PIP cases, has been as a result of demographic changes, or poor health, also the increase in state pension age.

    Additionally, she highlighted that more are likely claiming PIP because they’re “financially constrained” due to the soaring cost of living.  She rightly linked how PIP is also meant to be there to help disabled people meet the extra costs of living they incur. As the Canary has repeatedly underscored, chronically ill and disabled people experience higher costs – more than £1,000 – across multiple layers of their daily lives.

    Myths on mental health from DWP – again

    Unsurprisingly, Timms also peddled the preposterous, and entirely unsupported notion that work is good for people’s mental health.

    Mercifully, Abrahams called him out on this too. She pointed to similar previous reforms-come-real-terms-cuts the Tories had implemented in the 2010s. Notably, she highlighted soaring welfare-cut-related-suicides and the climb in mental health cases as the Tories stripped claimants of their Employment Support Allowance. Specifically, she underscored that with the disability employment gap “flatlining”, the cuts simply led to deepening poverty with devastatingly fatal consequences:

    as I say 600 additional suicides during the reforms for 2010, 130,000 additional new onset mental health cases, without that [available jobs] for the 2017 changes to work-related activity component

    So predictably, far from helping chronically ill and disabled people’s mental health, the cuts will only entrench and exacerbate them. The government has been equating people’s self-worth with work. Through a ‘productive’ capitalist lens, it has sought to carve up claimants demographics as ‘deserving’ or ‘undeserving’. If anything, it’s this very othering and scapegoating by the DWP of the many disabled people who can’t work that has been damaging their mental health.

    Hell-bent on the brutal benefits cut bill

    Eventually, it was Conservative MP Peter Bedford that pressed him on “the elephant in the room”. That is, the growing Labour rebellion that could halt the government’s bill in its tracks.

    On Tuesday, Labour MPs launched a major rebellion against the government’s plans. Five Labour MPs who chair various committees, tabled an amendment that would kill the welfare bill. This included:

    • Treasury Committee chair Dame Meg Hillier.
    • Work and Pensions Committee Chair Debbie Abrahams.
    • Education Committee chair Helen Hayes.
    • Women and Equalities Committee chair Sarah Owen.
    • Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee chair Florence Eshalomi.

    Signees also included Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft, who last week resigned as a government whip over the disability welfare plans. Labour’s mayor of London Sadiq Khan has also thrown his support behind efforts to stop the bill.

    The amendment points out that the government hasn’t held a formal consultation with disabled people or their carers. It also highlights that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has yet to publish its analysis on the “employment impact” of its other reforms. This isn’t due until the autumn of 2025. On top of this, it underscored how:

    the majority of the additional employment support funding will not be in place until the end of the decade.

    Moreover, it noted that:

    the Government is still awaiting the findings of the Minister for Social Security and Disability’s review into the assessment for Personal Independence Payment and Sir Charlie Mayfield’s independent review into the role of employers and government in boosting the employment of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions.

    Growing in number despite Starmer’s threats

    108 Labour MPs had signed the amendment by the time the group tabled it. However, the number continued to climb.

    Currently, the figure is 162 MPs, including more than 120 Labour backbenchers:

    Keir Starmer had deployed Cabinet members to ring round MPs to stem the growing rebellion. The government had purportedly threatened to blacklist MPs for ministerial roles if they fail to support the bill. And of course, behind the scenes architect of the cuts, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has been all over it. He has been in “one-on-one talks” with senior rebels.

    However, the bullying tactic has ultimately backfired – as MPs have so far stood their ground, while new names continue to join the list.

    Turning to the Tories says it all

    On Tuesday, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch stepped in to salvage Starmer’s bill. As the Independent reported:

    Capitalising on the political chaos for the government, Ms Badenoch has appeared to have calculated that it would be more humiliating for the prime minister to need her to pass an essential bill.

    Now, Timms has all but confirmed that this is precisely what the government will likely now do.

    Tory MP Danny Kruger put to Timms at the committee session:

    At the moment, you don’t have a majority to get it through the House of Commons unless the Conservatives support the Bill. Would you like us to, and will you press ahead if you can only do it with Conservatives?

    Barely skipping a beat, Timms replied:

    I’d be delighted to have support from across the entire House for the excellent proposals that we’re bringing forward, and I’m looking forward to the debate on Tuesday.

    So, there you have it. Starmer’s government is willing to get into bed with the the Tories over its benefit cuts bill. Not only that, they’re “delighted’ about it(!)

    PMQs: when wet wipe Mel Stride makes sense, you know it has all gone to shit

    And if you needed any further proof of the depths of red Tory Labour is willing to plumb, eat your heart over this shit-flinging parliamentary exchange between previous DWP boss Mel Stride and deputy PM Angela Rayner at PMQs:

    Notably though, Stride asked why Rayner felt she was right, and more than 120 Labour MPs were wrong. That the former DWP wet wipe had a point should be a major source of embarrassment for the government. Of course, Rayner and the front bench showed no shame over its increasingly untenable position on the bill.

    She once more confirmed that the government will be ploughing ahead with it on Tuesday. Starmer then echoed this from a press conference at the NATO summit, with more galling bullshit about the benefits “trap”:

    On the question of welfare reform, we’re committed to reforming our welfare system. It doesn’t work. It traps people, and it has to be reformed, and it also has to ensure that we’ve got a welfare system that is fit for the future. And that is why there will be a vote.

    But when his government can’t even rally enough support from its own MPs – with a stonking 156-seat majority – that’s telling.

    Concessions? More sleights of hand to drive the bill through

    Starmer is now said to be considering ‘concessions’ in a bid to win over the rebel MPs. This purportedly includes the possibility of watering down the PIP eligibility element. There are suggestions this could involve dropping down the new four-point eligibility requirement, to three points. However, as many have already started pointing out, this is a deceptive and pitiful change. Huge numbers of PIP claimants will still lose out:

    Notably, there’s currently only one PIP descriptor – washing and bathing – in which applicants can score three points:

    Of course, even if the government drop the four-point policy for PIP entirely – which is unlikely – many of the dangerous aspects of the bill, in particular around LCWRA, would still remain.

    Nonetheless, DWP minister Timm’s comment at the committee session show how Starmer’s sycophantic cabinet is perfectly happy to shamelessly suck up to the Tories to get this disgusting bill through parliament.

    It has been clear for a long time now that there isn’t a fag paper between this sham Labour government and the Conservatives. Now, the Labour right and the Tories’ vitriolic fervour for killing poor, chronically ill, and disabled people has brought this hellish austerity death-cult in step. Next week, that can mean nothing good for 16.1 million chronically ill and disabled people across the UK.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Over 100 human rights organisations call on the EU to suspend partnership with Israel

    114 international civil and human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have called on the European Union (EU) to suspend its partnership agreement with Israel. The open letter from group accuses Israel of committing genocide in Palestine, along with widespread violations of international law and human rights.

    The joint statement came ahead of a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, which was partly devoted to reviewing relations with Israel in light of developments in the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023. The group referred to Israel’s violation of Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. That particular clause requires respect for human rights and democratic principles.

    Instead, the group made the case that:

    Amid overwhelming evidence of Israel’s atrocity crimes and other egregious human rights abuses against Palestinians throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), a credible review can only reach one conclusion: that Israel is in severe non-compliance with article 2.

    In light of this, we call on the European Commission and all EU Member States to support meaningful and concrete measures, including the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, at least in part.

    EU’s failed dialogue… and mounting public pressure

    In a statement to Anadolu Agency, Claudio Francavilla, deputy director of Human Rights Watch, said that attempts at dialogue with the Israeli government have failed:

    It is clear that every attempt at dialogue has massively failed. And this is also where the frustration and the need for the member states to act is.

    Francavilla also acknowledged the mounting anger in European streets via countless protests against the massacres being committed in Gaza. Such feeling was reflected in the tone of the statement, which took the EU to task:

    We are appalled that it took the EU so long to launch this review, despite a request by Spain and Ireland already in February 2024, international court rulings, arrest warrants issued by International Criminal Court, and numerous reports by UN bodies, independent experts, prominent NGOs and scholars exposing Israel’s very serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law throughout the OPT, including war crimes, crimes against humanity – including forced displacement, apartheid and extermination – and genocide.

    Francavilla added that double standards have become apparent in the positions of European countries, explaining that the Union acted quickly and harshly towards Russia because of the war in Ukraine, but did not take any decisive position or issue any official condemnation of the Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip.

    He pointed out that some member states are actively working to prevent the use of legal terms such as “war crimes” or “genocide” in official European statements, which empties the review of the agreement of any substance unless it is followed by practical measures, foremost among which is the suspension of the economic partnership.

    Background to EU partnership

    The partnership agreement between the EU and Israel dates back to 2000 and provides a framework for political and trade cooperation, explicitly linking it to respect for human rights. Under the agreement, Israel benefits from extensive economic privileges within the European market.

    Since the outbreak of war in Gaza last October, Israeli military operations have left more than 187,000 dead. According to Palestinian data, most of these dead are women and children. On top of that, there are more than 14,000 missing and thousands more displaced, amid an unprecedented humanitarian crisis.

    The signatories of the open letter say that Israel, with unconditional US support, is pursuing a systematic policy of collective punishment and destruction of civilian infrastructure. They describe Israel’s actions as in what these organisations describe as a clear case of “genocide.”

    Absent justice and no accountability

    Francavilla also warned that the Israeli military isn’t holding soldiers or settlers remotely to account for their violations against Palestinians. Anadolu Agency reported that Francavilla:

    referred to findings by Israeli NGOs showing that the conviction rate for crimes committed by settlers in the West Bank is only 3%.

    This report comes at a time of increasing pressure on European institutions to take a tougher stance, not only to stop ongoing violations, but also to ensure Israel’s compliance with international law as a condition for continued cooperation. In a blistering conclusion, the statement concluded:

    In this context, a weak or inconclusive review of Israel’s compliance with article 2, and/or failure by the Commission and Council to suspend at least part of the Association Agreement, would ultimately destroy what’s left of the EU’s credibility – and, most importantly, it would further embolden Israeli authorities to continue their atrocity crimes and other egregious violations against the Palestinians in total impunity.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Alaa Shamali

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Another piece of research – from the DWP itself – throws cold water on Labour’s case for benefit cuts

    A new piece of research has demolished the Labour government’s basis for their callous benefit cuts bill from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). And crucially, it comes directly from none other than the DWP itself.

    Specifically, the DWP has published the official statistics on the employment of disabled people.

    Overall, the analysis is another damning indictment of the glaring inequalities in the UK for chronically ill and disabled people. The data paints a shameful picture of the low pay, limited progression opportunities, and lack of disabled people in leadership positions that persists in the UK labour market for chronically ill and disabled employees.

    Labour’s cuts rest on the idea that pushing chronically ill and disabled people into work will lift them out of poverty. Yet, its own data shows that the very benefits it’s cutting have plugged the gaps of these disgraceful workplace disparities. In short, they’ve been subsidising the ableist job market and employers this entire time.

    Disability benefits have been a lifeline for chronically ill and disabled people both in and out of work. So now, stripping them back is a sure-fire recipe for propelling hundreds of thousands more into poverty.

    DWP benefit cuts bill: new research does away with Labour’s disability employment argument – again

    The DWP snuck out the new data on Friday 20 June. Of course, this was while chronically ill and disabled communities’, and the corporate media’s focus was on the newly published welfare cuts bill, and the passing of the assisted suicide bill through the House of Commons. As such, the release drew no coverage – and has so far gone unnoticed.

    However, it contained a number of facts that massively challenge the government’s main narrative for the cuts.

    The statistical release brings disability employment data up to June 2024. The data showed that since 2013/2014, the number of disabled people in employment has increased by 2.3 million.

    However, what was immediately notable is that a decrease in the disability employment gap wasn’t the leading reason for this. Instead, it was an increase in disabled employees. That is, because more people are openly disabled, it means more are now in employment. According to the research, this was the cause of the increase 60% of the time – three times more than reductions to the disability employment gap.

    In other words, more than a decade of successive Conservative government’s callous welfare cuts and punitive conditionality regime work programmes have in no way helped disabled people into employment. Which means that Labour aren’t going to increase disability employment by using the same rebranded model.

    Multiply-marginalised disabled people excluded from job market

    The data shows that the disability employment gap is wider for certain disabled demographics, especially for some multiply-marginalised groups. For instance, non-disabled people in social housing were 42.3% more likely to be in work compared to disabled people living in social housing.

    The data also shows that less than a third of disabled people in social rented accommodation are in employment. Meanwhile, for non-disabled people, this is more than three-quarters. Notably, this means that non-disabled people are more than twice as likely to be in employment.

    Crucially however, disabled people are more than three times as likely to live in social housing. Nearly a quarter of disabled people live in social rented properties. Comparatively, social housing tenancies make up just 7.1% of the non-disabled population’s living circumstances. As a result, disabled people not working and living in social housing made up 16.5% of the disabled population. This compared to 1.7% non-working non-disabled people as a proportion of non-disabled population.

    What’s key here is that many disabled people in social housing will be hit the hardest by the departments cruel benefit cuts. That is, people already on low incomes, or living below the poverty line. As the data shows, a disproportionate number of them won’t have a source of income from employment to fall back on.

    Where ableism, racism, and classism intersect

    While the disability employment gap appeared lower for various racially minoritised demographics, this was misleading. This is because the employment rate for non-disabled people of colour was also lower than the rate for non-disabled white people.

    Disabled Bangladeshis had the lowest rate of employment (44.2%). Disabled Pakistanis and ‘Black/African/Caribbean/Black British’ followed closely at 44.9% and 45.3% respectively. By comparison, for white disabled people, it was 55.1. However, it was disabled Indian people that had the highest employment rate at 68.5%, with people of ‘Any other Asian background’ close behind at 63.4%.

    Overall, the data highlighted how multiple layers of oppressions – ableism, classism, and racism – intersect to exclude disabled demographics from the workplace.

    Disgraceful inequalities for disabled employees

    On top of this, disabled people who are in employment, are more likely to be working in what the DWP calls ‘lower-skilled occupations’. However, the Canary would argue that this is a classist framing. It’s ascribing lesser value to a wide range of what is in reality, not lower-skilled, but rather, lower paid – namely, what you might typically consider contemporary working-class professions.

    The data showed that disabled workers are found most often in health, retail, and education sectors compared to their non-disabled peers. This was also reflected in the fact disabled people were also more likely than non-disabled people to be working in the public sector as well.

    This is an especially grossly unfair idiosyncrasy of our late-stage capitalist meritocracy embedded in power and privilege. Profiteers destroying the planet and doing non-essential work in the interests of capital make more money than professions in the service of the common public good.

    Disabled people are also more likely to be:

    • Working in the gig economy. 4% of Disabled people are on zero-hour contracts compared to non-disabled people’s 3%.
    • Working part-time – and ergo, fewer hours. Nearly one in three disabled people were in part-time roles. This compared to just over one in five for non-disabled people.
    • Have less career progression opportunities – 47% compared to non-disabled employees’ 57%.

    Unsurprisingly then, disabled people are also more likely to be in low pay.

    Cuts will entrench poverty, not alleviate it

    In other words, this research shows that there is one common factor acting as a barrier to employment: poverty.

    Moreover, the data demonstrates that forcing disabled people into work isn’t the poverty alleviation solution the government is claiming it to be.

    And, significantly, this ignores that many chronically ill and disabled people can’t – or shouldn’t work – because of risks to their health.

    Consequently, the DWP stripping disabled people of social security will likely only compound these glaring disparities further. This is because, ultimately, its sweep of new cuts will deepen poverty for many chronically ill and disabled people.

    One fact in the DWP’s new release perhaps drives this home in particular.

    According to the DWP’s analysis, in the decade between 2013/14 and 2023/24, the number of people reporting that their disability or health condition limited them “a lot”, shot up by 1.3 million to 4.14 million.

    Yet, the DWP’s bill proposes to protect just 202,000 “severe claimants” from deep cuts to the health part of UC. To claim LCWRA UC, applicants go through a gruelling Work Capability Assessment (WCA). In this, they have to demonstrate how their health affects their ability to carry out various daily living tasks. This includes descriptors around mobility, communication, hazard perception, social engagement, bowel continence, and eating.

    Now, the new bill stipulates that the descriptor must apply at “all times” or every time a claimant undertakes the activity. However, this will undoubtedly exclude many with fluctuating conditions. It will therefore significantly impact chronically ill, neurodivergent, and people living with mental health disorders.

    And while not every single one of the 4.4 million chronically ill and disabled “limited a lot” individuals will claim LCWRA, it’s likely that many do.

    A welfare system failing in its most basic remit – and that’s before the cuts

    Similarly, the DWP impact assessment stated that 3.6 million people will be claiming PIP by the time it implements the bill. It also revealed that 1.6 million people don’t score more than 4 points in any criteria.

    However, it’s likely that many of the disabled people whose disabilities limit them a lot, most of whom as the data shows, aren’t working, will also be claiming PIP. If they aren’t already, arguably, they should be eligible. After all, PIP assessments revolve around how health conditions and disabilities affect people’s daily lives – and score applicants on this basis.

    Obviously, PIP isn’t an out of work benefit – even though ministers have opportunistically attempted to blur this line. However, losing PIP – which helps disabled people meet the extra more than £1,000 monthly costs of living they face – will likely extend the disability employment gap further. This is because PIP actually helps many chronically ill and disabled people access work. It also enables them to maintain their health while doing so.

    And once more, it’s likely many of the people identifying as limited “a lot” will be PIP claimants. These will be particularly those who can’t work.

    If anything, the data points to a welfare system failing in its most basic equity remit. Already, this is because it’s not reaching people who need it most. This includes many who should be entitled to it by the DWP’s own currently limited criteria.

    Weaponising knee-jerk reactions to unemployment rates

    Of course, the government isn’t really interested in dismantling the barriers to employment, as its own statistics plainly show. Instead, its cuts will invariably only exacerbate them. But the state-sanctioned-and-induced poverty of chronically ill and disabled people should be understood in this context.

    If Labour was really serious about “supporting” disabled people, it might turn its attention to the inequalities employers, and more broadly, an ableist society, has embedded in UK workplaces for disabled employees. Specifically, it would tackle the low pay and precarious work, limited progression opportunities, and employers failing to hire disabled people for higher-paying occupations.

    However, it’s more convenient for the government to exploit knee-jerk reactions to unemployment rates and cut chronically ill and disabled people’s benefits. Starmer’s Labour wouldn’t let the facts get in the way of a good punch down on the most marginalised communities.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Big capital is demanding the government place Thames Water above the law

    Big capital investment funds are asking the Keir Starmer-led government to place Thames Water above the law as part of a take-over deal.

    The group of about 100 creditors, including BlackRock, Invesco and M&G, have asked the government to block legal action from campaigners:

    There is high risk of campaigners/environmental interest groups bringing judicial review proceedings against any decision by the EA to relax or defer compliance obligations or agree not to prosecute the company for breaches of law,” states the creditors’ plan.

    There is also a strong possibility of those groups supporting individuals with bringing private prosecutions against the company and/or its directors and senior officers. The risk of such action and its outcomes, which are evidently highly prejudicial to the sustainable recovery of turnaround water companies, can be significantly mitigated by clear government direction to the EA and the EA setting out a clear framework for prioritising environmental betterment over punitive enforcement (the latter having little or no positive environmental benefit).

    These investment funds have loaned £13bn to Thames Water and now want to take control of the company. They are concerned the government may place it under temporary ‘special administration’, while potentially writing off a substantial amount of its debts.

    Thames Water above all?

    The Labour government is refusing to consider longterm public ownership of the industry. It even went as far as blocking the recent Cunliffe review of water from opting for public ownership as a solution. That’s despite the legal terms of ‘special administration’ meaning the government can bring the water industry into public ownership at zero cost. At the same time, we would save over £5 billion per year through removing profit from the utility.

    On top of that, if the water industry was publicly owned, it would not need to rely on usury (expensive loans) from the private sector. Government borrowing has a lot lower rates of interest, while quantitative easing is another option.

    ‘How about the water industry is above the law?’

    Big capital also pursued emergency legislation from the government to further protect their moneyed interest from public accountability. They want Ofwat fines for sewage dumping and illegal dividends to be cancelled.

    In other words, they want Thames Water to face no repercussions for destroying the environment or for illegal profiteering. And they want to continue asset stripping while turning a public utility into a cash cow.

    Cat Hobbs, founder of We Own it, said:

    Brazen and outrageous demand from Thames Water’s creditors. They want protection from ever being taken to court by environmental campaigners. Steve Reed must say no and protect the public interest.

    River Action UK said:

    This is a direct attack on democracy. A brazen attempt to rewrite the rules, silence the public and protect polluters from accountability

    Singer and prominent water campaigner Feargal Sharkey said:

    Not only has Thames polluted our rivers, ram-raided bill payers’ bank accounts for cash, it is now attempting to undermine the very fundamentals of democracy: the right of free speech, to ask questions, to oppose and to demand justice. The government must stand up and oppose any attempt by Thames Water to railroad the British people. Being able to apply for a judicial review is one of the fundamental cornerstones of democracy. As a democracy, we are totally dependent on the ability of people to take the government and quangos to the high court to have that level of scrutiny from the judiciary. It’s a balance and check against abuse of power.

    The very existence of private ownership of water is a scam. But this just takes the biscuit.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Toxic dependency: fossil fuels undermine global food security, experts warn

    Despite consuming 40% of all petrochemicals and 15% of the world’s fossil fuel, global food systems remain largely absent from global climate discussions. This oversight obscures a critical reality: without rethinking how we produce, process, and consume food, meaningful progress on climate goals will remain out of reach.

    As oil prices increase in the wake of escalating global conflicts, a new report from the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) delivers a stark warning: the world’s food systems are dangerously dependent on fossil fuels, and this addiction is driving both climate chaos and food insecurity.

    Fossil fuels in our food systems

    The report, Fuel to Fork: What will it take to get fossil fuels out of our food systems?, reveals that food systems have become Big Oil’s next big target. A staggering 40% of global petrochemicals and 15% of all fossil fuels are now funnelled into agriculture and food supply chains through synthetic fertilisers, pesticides, plastic packaging, ultra-processed foods, cold storage, and transport.

    IPES-Food expert Errol Schweizer said:

    Fossil fuels are, disturbingly, the lifeblood of the food industry.

    From chemical fertilisers to ultra-processed junk food, to plastic packaging, every step is fossil-fuel based. The industrial food system consumes 40% of petrochemicals – it is now Big Oil’s key growth frontier. Yet somehow it stays off the climate radar.

    For years, the climate impact of our food systems has been clear, and today, it can no longer be overlooked. Food production now contributes nearly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, with agriculture and land-use change driving much of the damage. Forests are cleared for cattle, and vast areas are transformed into chemically intensive, resource-heavy crop systems.

    Global conflicts driving food prices up

    With Israel-Iran tensions pushing oil prices higher, the knock-on effects on food are becoming more acute. Food and energy markets are deeply linked, the report emphasises, and when oil prices spike, food prices quickly follow, worsening hunger and economic instability worldwide.

    IPES-Food expert Raj Patel warned that:

    Tethering food to fossil fuels means tying dinner plates to oil rigs and conflict zones. When oil prices rise, so does hunger – that’s the peril of a food system addicted to fossil fuels. Delinking food from fossil fuels has never been more critical to stabilise food prices and ensure people can access food.

    The invisible engine of Big Oil’s expansion

    Global subsidies for coal, oil, and gas, both direct and hidden, have surged to a staggering $7tn, equivalent to 7.1% of the world’s GDP. This massive sum surpasses total annual government spending on education and amounts to nearly two-thirds of global healthcare expenditures.

    In 2024 alone, $2tn was funnelled directly into fossil fuel industries, while an additional $5tn demonstrates the devastating societal costs, from toxic air pollution, to oil spills, and widespread environmental destruction.

    At the same time, nearly 90% of the $540bn in annual agriculture subsidies is driving harm, to both people and the planet. These funds overwhelmingly support chemical-intensive commodity crop production, entrenching destructive practices. Most of this money flow through price protections and input-linked payments. In turn, that locks farmers into unsustainable systems that degrade ecosystems, threaten health, and undermine long-term food security.

    Fossil fuels in every bite: how pesticides and plastics feed Big Oil

    As industries around the world start the slow shift toward decarbonisation, the global food system is quietly doing the opposite, pushing fossil fuel demand even higher. Major food corporations routinely deploy aggressive tactics to undermine or obstruct public health and environmental policies, replicating the same playbook fossil fuel giants have used for decades to stall climate progress.

    According to the report an astonishing 99% of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides are made from fossil fuels. Fertiliser production alone eats up a third of the world’s petrochemicals, making agriculture a major profit driver for oil and gas companies.

    Global pesticide use continues to grow, having risen by 13% over the past decade, and doubling since 1990, particularly in countries like China, the United States, Brazil, Thailand, and Argentina. China stands out as the world’s largest pesticide producer, responsible for one-third of global output.

    Pesticides have emerged as one of the leading global drivers of biodiversity loss. Their toll on human health is just as alarming. Every year, over 385 million people suffer from unintentional pesticide poisonings, resulting in 11,000 deaths and impacting nearly 44% of the world’s farming population.

    Moreover, the extensive use of plastics, over 10% of global plastic production for food and beverage packaging, and an additional 3.5% for agriculture, reveals a stark reality: the food system is a powerful but overlooked driver of Big Oil’s continued growth.

    Yet, despite this heavy footprint, food systems are still largely ignored in national climate strategies and global negotiations, a dangerous blind spot that experts warn can no longer be overlooked.

    Tech fixes are a false solution

    The report is highly critical of so-called ‘climate-smart’ innovations such as ‘blue ammonia‘ fertilisers, synthetic biology, and high-tech digital agriculture. These approaches, the authors argue, are energy-intensive, costly, and risk locking in fossil fuel use and agrochemicals under the guise of climate progress.

    IPES-Food expert Molly Anderson argued:

    From farm to fork, we need bold action to redesign food and farming, and sever the ties to oil, gas, and coal. As COP30 approaches, the world must finally face up to this fossil fuel blind spot.

    Food systems are the major driver of oil expansion – but also a major opportunity for climate action. That starts by phasing out harmful chemicals in agriculture and investing in agroecological farming and local food supply chains – not doubling down on corporate-led tech fixes that delay real change.

    A clear path forward

    However, there is hope, and there are already alternatives. Agroecology, Indigenous foodways, regenerative farming, and local supply chains offer viable, fossil-free models for nourishing people and the planet.

    IPES-Food expert Georgina Catacora-Vargas said:

    Fossil fuel-free food systems are not only possible – they already exist, as the world’s Indigenous people teach us. By shifting from ultra-processed diets to locally sourced, diverse foods; by helping farmers step off the chemical treadmill and rebuild biological relationships; by redignifying peasant farming and care work – we can feed the world without fossil fuels.

    With COP30 in Brazil on the horizon, IPES-Food is calling on governments to phase out fossil fuel and agrochemical subsidies, cut fossil fuels from food systems, and prioritise agroecological, healthy, and resilient food systems.

    The takeaway is clear: continuing to power our food system with fossil fuels is driving us toward climate chaos, economic upheaval, and deepening world hunger. We must break free from this destructive cycle. The future of our planet depends on the choices we make now.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Monica Piccinini

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Board of Deputies tries to silence Jewish critics of genocide, suspending members who spoke out

    In April, 36 of the over 300 members of the Board of Deputies (BoD) of British Jews wrote a damning open letter criticising Israel’s genocidal crimes in Gaza. And the right-wing pro-Israel group has now responded by officially suspending five elected representatives who signed the letter.

    BoD in “disrepute”

    A two-month investigation determined that all 36 signatories had “breached the Board of Deputies’ code of conduct”. 31 received a “notice of criticism” from the BoD’s executive body, while the other five received a two-year suspension.

    The letter’s signatories spoke out after Israel unilaterally decided to “break the ceasefire” in March rather than seeking a lasting peace deal. It was a final straw that meant they could no longer ignore or “remain silent” about the “loss of life and livelihoods” in occupied Gaza. They added that “Israel’s soul is being ripped out and we… fear for the future of the Israel we love and have such close ties to”.

    Responding to the BoD’s decision to crack down on those who spoke out, hundreds of British Jews from over 65 synagogues wrote:

    it is not their courageous letter in the Financial Times that poses a threat to the good name of the Board or to Jewish communal unity; rather, it is the Board’s disproportionate reaction that is likely to undermine freedom of speech and to bring the Board’s name into disrepute.

    A poll previously showed that over half of British Jews “felt ashamed of Israel to some extent” and “nearly half felt that the IDF had not done enough to protect Gazan civilians”.

    Gaza genocide has exposed the BoD once and for all

    Jewish group Just Jews has previously criticised the BoD for “legitimising War Crimes“, calling it:

    a principal player in the UK Israel Lobby

    In 2013, then BoD president Jonathan Arkush wrote that the community around him “lobby unashamedly for Israel”. And that has long been entirely visible in the official stances and comments of the organisation, even during Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. This adds to its reputation from the time of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party leadership, when it played a key role in smearing the veteran peace activist.

    In the 2020 Labour Party leadership race, meanwhile, the BoD pushed candidates to back a highly controversial list of demands. Many Jewish left-wingers firmly opposed this divisive list – which, as a Jewish Canary editor at the time wrote, essentially asked Labour to “ignore socialist Jews” and “Jews who don’t support the actions of the Israeli state”.

    The BoD has reportedly spoken to government officials about protecting Israeli military-industrial interests by suppressing the anti-genocide campaigners at Palestine Action. And it seems very happy about government attempts to silence the activists and their supporters:

    Jewish diversity and resistance

    The BoD leadership has long been openly hostile to left-wing Jewish voices. As UK Jewish movement Na’amod lamented earlier this month:

    The Board of Deputies and Chief Rabbi once again offer uncritical support to a rogue state currently committing a genocide. In aligning with Israel’s far-right government, they enable apartheid, military aggression and mass civilian death.

    It had previously insisted that:

    The Board of Deputies leadership has engendered a reckless tolerance for Israel’s fanatical, genocidal politics – born from a support for occupation and apartheid that has created a moral crisis in our community.

    It also offered its solidarity to the 36 letter signatories:

    And referring to BoD president Phil Rosenberg’s critique of the signatories as “moral collapse”, it stressed:

    The Board of Deputies cannot be reformed.

    We must leave it behind.

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • When it comes to WMDs, Israel’s are very much part of the problem

    Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran doesn’t. But genocidal war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu (without a hint of irony) claimed his recent unprovoked attack on Iran was to stop it getting “the world’s most dangerous weapons”.

    As an expert working to prevent nuclear war told us, when it comes to nuclear weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), Israel is very much ‘part of the problem’.

    Not a victim. Not ‘self-defence’.

    Israel has now bombed Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. And it has “worked as a team” with Donald Trump, who just carried out his own unprovoked attack on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    But as always, Israel is still portraying itself as a victim, to deflect accountability. Netanyahu has declared Israel’s actions ‘self-defence’ and claims the targeting of Iranian nuclear sites, and the country’s top nuclear scientists and military commanders, is necessary for:

    rolling back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival.

    Nuclear weapons: none in Iran, but Israel has them

    Israel and its allies have been claiming Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons since the 1980s. Iran, meanwhile, has always said its nuclear programme is for peaceful civilian purposes only – a claim backed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is constantly inspecting all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. According to leading legal scholars, Israel’s actions are therefore illegal, as there is no justification for its attack.

    The settler-colonial state, meanwhile, has made a mockery of international legal systems, and has operated with complete impunity since its creation in 1948. Realising its allies will even let it get away with committing a genocide, it now sees this as the ideal time to strike its long-time foe, Iran, and weaken the ‘axis of resistance’ and support for Palestine.

    Israel’s attacks on Iran conveniently come not only at a time when it is stepping up its campaign of annihilation in Gaza – providing a welcome distraction while the slaughter of innocent civilians continues – but also in the midst of US-Iran nuclear talks (to prevent the development of a weapons programme) which, as a result, have now collapsed.

    Israel is the only country in the Middle East which has nuclear weapons. But it has not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and refuses to place its nuclear facilities under the watch of UN inspectors. This is unlike Iran, whose facilities are monitored constantly and which, as a non nuclear-weapon state which is a signatory to the NPT, has also agreed not to seek or acquire these weapons.

    Dishonesty surrounds Israel’s nuclear programme

    Susi Snyder is programme coordinator for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). She told the Canary that:

    Everybody knows Israel has nuclear weapons, but the country will not confirm or deny it, and that is their policy of strategic ambiguity. As long as they don’t admit they have nuclear weapons, they don’t admit they are part of a problem of weapons of mass destruction, particularly in the region. It’s terribly dishonest and means we can’t negotiate about their nuclear arsenal, and we can’t put their nuclear programme under international inspection. They have taken themselves out of the international community by doing this.

    Israel’s nuclear programme began in the late 1950s but was under the radar for several years. Initially, US officials were deceived into thinking the nuclear site at Dimona, in the Negev Desert, was a textile factory. Then, as construction was completed, Israel changed its story and said the nuclear reactor was purely for civilian purposes, and did not contain the chemical reprocessing plant needed to produce nuclear weapons.

    Although much is unknown about Israel’s nuclear arsenal, declassified documents, whistleblower testimony and satellite imagery have provided useful information. We have learnt that Israel did not develop its nuclear programme alone. Instead, there was direct involvement and complicity from several countries, during its early development. France provided Israel with the technology and expertise not only to build the reactor, but also to construct a reprocessing plant at Dimona for the extraction of Plutonium, an essential component of nuclear weapons, while Norway supplied heavy water (a vital ingredient for the production of plutonium), which was sold to Britain and then secretly transferred to Israel.

    Nuclear whistleblower helped us learn more about Israel’s nuclear secrets

    In an attempt to keep details quiet, Israel has dealt harshly with nuclear whistleblowers, such as Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli former nuclear technician and peace activist who, in 1986, confirmed Israel had nuclear weapons, and revealed details about its programme to the British press, showing Israel’s nuclear arsenal was larger and more advanced than people previously believed.

    Israeli intelligence agency Mossad soon lured Vanunu to Italy. There, it drugged and abducted him, secretly transporting him to Israel and convicting him in a closed trial. He spent 18 years in prison for speaking out about Israel’s nuclear weapons, including 11 years in solitary confinement. He is still banned from leaving the country and speaking to journalists.

    The complete absence of oversight, combined with the lack of international pressure and public statements from global powers, reflect a broader pattern of diplomatic silence that started in the early days of Israel’s nuclear programme and continues today. Its allies, including the UK government, protect Israel by refusing to acknowledge the open secret that it has nuclear weapons, shielding it from the international criticism it deserves.

    In addition, the US has adopted a policy not to pressure Israel to join the NPT. And US presidents since Bill Clinton have promised Israel, by signing a secret letter, that any arms control efforts will not affect Israel.

    Israel’s nuclear arsenal is unregulated and ambiguous, but supported by the West

    Hypocrisy and double standards are plain to see. Israel gets Western support even though its nuclear arsenal remains unacknowledged and unregulated. Iran, meanwhile, faces crippling sanctions and military pressure over its civilian nuclear programme, despite allowing thousands of inspections under the NPT and the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal.

    Israel is not only believed to possess 90 nuclear warheads, but also to have produced enough plutonium to produce 100 to 200 more nuclear weapons. And according to new research from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), it is actively modernising its nuclear arsenal.

    Snyder said that:

    Based on an assessment of their own military spending, leaked information and satellite images, we have seen that in the last five years Israel has spent about $5.5bn on its arsenal. It has 90 warheads, about half of which can be delivered by Jericho ballistic missiles, that have a range of about 4000km. We know from satellite imagery that they are stored in caves near the Judean Hills, and are on mobile launchers so they can be driven wherever they need to go, throughout the country.

    Britain’s complicity: we supply war criminals with components for their nuclear submarines

    These caves are visible on commercial satellite images of the Sdot Micha facility near the town of Zakharia in the Judean Hills, approximately 30km East of Jerusalem.

    Israel not only has land-based delivery systems for its nuclear weapons, but air and sea-based ones too. According to Snyder, Israel’s F15 and F16 aircraft, and its Dolphin-class submarines – which are built in Germany – also house nuclear weapons. Although their missiles have a shorter range, the submarines are able to stay underwater for 18 days, can move long distances during this time period, and are well hidden.

    SIPRI estimates that Israel has 10 cruise missile warheads for its submarine fleet, which the UK has long provided components for. Research carried out earlier this year by Declassified UK found British ministers have authorised 77 export licences since 2010, to supply Israel with components for these submarines, to a value of almost £9m.

    Snyder explained that:

    The use of these weapons violates the principles of International Humanitarian Law, as you cannot use them without causing massive indiscriminate harm, that lasts for generations. It’s a huge risk, which is not limited just to the region, but to the world. So it’s really important that the world is addressing this and talking about this. There’s no evidence that exists that says these weapons have deterred war in the past. We have seen throughout history that when a country has nuclear weapons it is more likely to attack others, and act with impunity, because it feels it can operate without consequence.

    $100bn spent on nuclear weapons by 9 countries in 2024

    According to a report by ICAN, the nine nuclear-armed countries spent more than $100bn on their nuclear weapons last year. That’s an increase of almost $10bn from 2023, while companies working on nuclear weapons development and maintenance earned more than $40bn from their contracts in 2024 alone.

    98 countries have rejected nuclear weapons and joined the NPT. They are not only talking about Israel’s nuclear arsenal but the arsenals of all the nine nuclear-armed states,. Because if any of these countries use their nuclear weapons, it would pose a direct risk to these non-nuclear countries, wherever they are.

    Israel is a significant threat to Middle East security

    Israel’s unchecked militarisation and nuclear arsenal, undeclared and outside the framework of the NPT, is a significant threat to (at the very least) Middle Eastern security and stability.

    Calls for a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East have been ongoing since 1974, when Iran and Egypt submitted a resolution to the UN General Assembly calling for such a zone, because they were concerned about Israel’s nuclear programme. But although the idea has broad support from most countries in the region, Israel’s undeclared nuclear capability and its position outside the NPT are major obstacles to its progress. Discussions and conferences have taken place but no binding agreement has been reached.

    Israel always has the full support of the majority of the genocide-enabling Western countries, which have doubled down on this support since Israel has been attacking Iran.

    Just last week, G7 leaders issued a statement which read:

    We affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself. We reiterate our support for the security of Israel. Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror.

    Keir Starmer, although calling for “restraint”, sent more aircraft to the Middle East, and on 22 June, endorsed Trump’s illegal bombing of three nuclear facilities in Iran, saying:

    Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

    Although Trump described the attacks as a “spectacular military success”, nothing is further from the truth.

    Risk of escalation amid the 80th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    While the IAEA has said no increase in radiation levels have been detected in Iran at the targeted nuclear sites, there could still be serious consequences because of our unconditional support for Israel: a pariah state which, according to the UN, has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, and is led by a war criminal wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

    These are very dangerous times, and there is a high probability the conflict could escalate further and lead to widespread instability. In addition, Iran has, yet again, been misled by Trump and now, understandably, totally distrusts the US. The attacks on Iran (a country which has no nuclear weapons) by Israel and the US (both nuclear states) have already led Iran to consider withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and could even drive it to develop a nuclear weapons programme – one which is unregulated and unaccounted for, exactly like Israel’s.

    This year marks the 80th anniversary of the invention of nuclear weapons and their first use in New Mexico, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Since then, more than 2,000 nuclear test detonations have been carried out, and the risk of nuclear weapon use is higher than at any time since the Cold War. A dramatic expansion of nuclear power in the Middle East is also expected over the next decade, which will create many security problems.

    Hope for the future if countries are held to account

    Israel’s unchecked militarisation, fueled by a blatant disregard for international law and oversight, has created a dangerous precedent not only for the Middle East, but for the global community, which continues to look away. But although the situation is dire, it is not irreversible.

    We know it is possible for countries to change course as, back in 1989, South Africa went through a process, with the IAEA, to dismantle its nuclear programme, completely eliminating not just the weapons it had, but also the infrastructure it had to build those weapons. There was a willingness to do this, and every material has been accounted for. Libya has also done the same.

    Similar efforts must be made to create not just a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, but a world free of nuclear weapons. Diplomacy, transparency, and a willingness to hold all parties (including Israel) accountable are the only means by which we can achieve peace and security.

    The world’s nine nuclear-armed countries are Israel, the US, the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.

    By Charlie Jaay

    This post was originally published on Canary.