radiofree.asia

Category: Analysis

  • School children road block outside BP – demanding it stops playing games with their futures

    Activists linked to campaign group Extinction Rebellion aged four to 83 have occupied the road outside BP St James’s Square London HQ to demand the oil giant reverse their controversial decision to scrap the previous shareholder-backed energy transition strategy.

    BP: ‘don’t play games with our futures’

    Dozens of school children were at the protest with their families, taking part in themed activities and writing letters to BP CEO, Murray Auchincloss in response to his company’s change of tack.

    At the protest the CEO’s face features on signs reading: “WANTED For Destroying Our Future”:

    Over the weekend, Chris Packham “sparked fury” according to the Daily Express when he helped erect similar Wanted posters featuring BP’s CEO on London Underground trains:

    CEO Auchincloss, who took home £5.4m in pay in 2024, announced a ‘fundamental reset’ of BP’s business in February, cutting more than £4bn to BP’s low-carbon investment and increasing oil and gas investment by £7.9bn.

    BP’s U-turn comes after planet-warming gas levels rose more than ever in 2024 and the Earth’s average surface temperature was the warmest on record, resulting in increased global levels of flooding, wildfires, droughts, and crop failures.

    Extinction Rebellion’s road occupation featured an oil-themed snakes-and-ladders called Turbine and Pipeline:

    There were school lollipop ladies carrying lollipops saying “Stop” and “BP no U-Turn”; banners reading “Don’t Play Games With Our Children’s Futures” and “Big Profits Before People”:

    The Oil Slickers were in flowing black robes:

    Extinction Rebellion BP

    Drummers and BP sunflower logos dripping with oil were also present:

    Extinction Rebellion BP

    In an emotive display one activist dressed as a BP executive slowly poured oil over three kneeling rebels, and then onto a long row of empty children’s shoes lined up in front of the building, symbolising what BP’s strategy U-turn means for our children’s futures:

    Lobbying from dark money think tanks

    BP’s board has been criticised for not giving shareholders the opportunity to vote on the strategy U-turn after a majority of shareholders endorsed the previous plan in 2023.

    Activist shareholder group Follow This has been part of the pushback against the U-Turn, warning:

    The board is investing in what could become stranded assets, and even betting against its own analysts’ forecasts. Even shareholders who don’t prioritize climate risk should be concerned about BP’s financial stability.

    Last week the world’s largest insurance company Allianz warned that the climate crisis is on track to destroy capitalism, as the risks become uninsurable.

    In 2018 BP were revealed to be the “dark money” behind the Tufton Street charity the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a secretive right wing think tank paid to influence government ministers. BP had been funding them every year for the last 51 years.

    In return, the IEA lobbied ministers on issues ranging from safety and environmental standards to tax rates, and advocated for increased North Sea drilling and a revival of fracking.

    Monday’s action was a collaboration between XR’s Cut The Ties To Fossil Fuels campaign, XR Families, and XR Grandparents And Elders.

    BP: it must be stopped

    BBC wildlife presenter and campaigner Chris Packham said:

    BP’s U-turn shows oil companies were never serious about the green transition. It’s clear that unless we stop them they will burn every last drop of oil – while their shareholders fill their pockets.

    That means we’ll see more flooding, superstorms, drought and hunger. And no future for our kids. The free market isn’t fixing this – the government needs to regulate these companies or change their legal structure.

    The government is allowing continuing ‘greenwash’ of fossil fuel companies through their advertising and sponsorship. If, like me, you believe there should be a ban on this, please sign my parliamentary petition so we can get a debate in parliament.

    Katherine Hill, 45, a maternity worker present at the action with her three children said:

    We are here because of the U-turn. BP is doubling down on planet-killing fossil fuel extraction and slashing renewable investments. We are here to question and to make these climate criminals think about all the young lives they are condemning to a hothouse planet.

    Caroline Hartnell, 74, grandmother from Wandsworth, London also present said:

    BP has cynically used its immense power and wealth to influence government energy policy to maximise oil and gas extraction, despite the clear scientific consensus that continuing to burn fossil fuels is accelerating climate change and will kill billions of people. They are burning my children and grandchildren’s future and they are clearly not going to stop or even slow down. These people should be in the dock for what they are doing.

    Featured image and additional images via Gareth Morris and Kirk Pritchard 

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • 74 children have died due to living in temporary accommodation – and politicians are to blame

    74 children have died while living in government-assigned temporary accommodation where a lack of permanent housing was listed as a contributing factor in their deaths.

    New insight from Inventory Base estimates that over 80,500 families with children are currently living in temporary accommodation across the UK. Without the protection of robust regulation or enforcement, these families face increased risks from unsafe, overcrowded, or unsanitary conditions

    A housing crisis of politicians making that’s killing children

    Social housing is supposedly regulated to safeguard families from known hazards like damp, mould, and overcrowding – although these regulations are often ignored by housing associations and councils.

    But as the supply of social housing falls far short of demand, thousands of families are being diverted into temporary accommodation where those same protections often don’t apply.

    As of Q3 2024, 126,040 households are living in temporary accommodation – up from 98,840 just two years earlier. This number continues to rise quarter after quarter.

    Yet temporary accommodation remains dangerously under-regulated.

    While technically covered by legal standards, temporary housing is not held to the same safety and suitability benchmarks as social housing. Inspections are often inconsistent, and enforcement is patchy at best. The consequences have been devastating.

    According to research from the Shared Health Foundation, between 2019 and 2024, 74 children died while in temporary accommodation with their environment recorded as a contributing factor.

    78.4% were under the age of one

    21.6% were under 18.

    Without urgent reform, more young lives will be lost.

    Of the 126,040 households living in temporary accommodation, 64% include children. That’s at least 80,530 children living in non-permanent, unsafe environments.

    Temporary accommodation regulation is not fit for purpose

    The law requires temporary accommodation to be ‘suitable’ under Section 206 of the Housing Act 1996; addressing factors like location, health impact, and overcrowding.

    Families with children or pregnant women should not be housed in B&Bs for more than six weeks. But only “where alternatives exist”, a loophole is too often exploited.

    Councils also have duties under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to inspect and act on serious hazards.

    But as Sián Hemming-Metcalfe, operations director at Inventory Base, explains:

    Many families remain in overcrowded or unsafe temporary accommodation due to housing shortages, and some councils simply don’t have the boots on the ground to inspect properties.

    It is unacceptable that temporary accommodation is less regulated than the social housing programmes families are waiting to access. The result has been nothing short of catastrophic.

    74 children have died, at least in part due to the poor living standards they were placed into. Temporary accommodation isn’t a safety net, it’s becoming a silent crisis and regulation only protects people if it is enforced.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Trump’s impending Medicare cuts spell disaster for severely chronically ill people like Emily

    The sweep of impending Medicare and Medicaid cuts in the US under Donald Trump could be about to put a severely chronically ill patient’s life at risk.

    Living with multiple complex and under-recognised conditions including hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS), myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), tethered cord syndrome, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), 34 year-old US resident Emily Johnson has been in palliative care since the age of 28.

    Trump: the thin end of the US healthcare wedge

    Now, the Republicans’ plans under Trump to slash these programmes could mean losing access to the vital care currently keeping her conditions stable.

    What’s more, not only will the cuts sever her financial bridge to her daily treatment, but it could stop her getting the surgeries she sorely needs. These are crucial treatments that could improve her long-standing health issues. These would help her regain a quality of life that enables her to not just survive, but live with fewer life-threatening, debilitating symptoms, and she hopes, even pursue her passions.

    However, none of this was a given from the get-go. This is because, notwithstanding the cuts, these US’s healthcare insurance schemes were already leaving Emily falling through the gaps.

    Of course, Emily won’t be the only US citizen facing a situation like this. Crucially though, her story encapsulates the devastating impact Medicare and Medicaid cuts could unleash on patients, particularly from low income households. There’ll be countless US residents living with a multitude of chronic health conditions, without access to the necessary financial aid for treatment if these cuts go ahead.

    A catastrophic combination of chronic illnesses

    Emily lives with a number of chronic health conditions that severely impact her daily life. These include, but are not limited to:

    • Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS).
    • Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).
    • Tethered cord syndrome.
    • Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS).
    • Mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS).
    • Craniocervical instability (CCI).
    • Dystonia.
    • Scoliosis.
    • Intracranial hypertension.
    • Lumbar herniation (slipped disk in the lower back which causes nerve compression).

    EDS is a group of connective tissue disorders in which collagen doesn’t work. It’s characterised by joint hypermobility, skin hyperelasticity, and tissue fragility.

    Her accompanying POTS is a type of dysautonomia – a dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system. It causes an abnormal increase in heart rate, as well as low blood pressure and volume when a person transitions from laying down, to standing.

    Similarly, tethered cord syndrome is a disorder of the nervous system as well. Essentially, it’s caused by tissue attaching itself to the spinal cord, and restricting its movement. A neurosurgical condition, it’s common in EDS patients. While some may be born with tethered cord syndrome, it’s also possible to develop it. It can get progressively worse over time. Emily has had surgery to fix this – so it isn’t currently a problem. However, it’s possible it could re-tether at any point.

    Meanwhile, ME is a chronic systemic neuroimmune disease which affects nearly every system in the body. It causes debilitating symptoms. These typically include influenza-like symptoms, cognitive impairment, multiple forms of pain, and heart, lung, blood pressure, and digestive dysfunctions. Post-exertional-malaise (PEM) is the hallmark feature of ME. This involves a disproportionate worsening of other symptoms after even minimal physical, social, mental, or emotional exertion.

    Both CCI and MCAS are also common conditions for people living with EDS. The former involves increased mobility at certain junctions in the neck, while the latter is a disorder that manifests in excessive release of chemical mast cells, such as histamine.

    Her dystonia is a neurological movement disorder that can trigger uncontrolled and painful spasms.

    What’s more, a CCI and EDS expert in New York – neurosurgeon Dr Paolo Bolognese – has also identified that Emily has a number of serious spinal problems, and as a result:

    Emily had developed dozens of neuromuscular, seizure, neurological and other diagnoses limiting her ability to work, continue a higher education, drive, exercise, run, walk or sit upright for very long, and even daily activities like eating meals, showering and household chores. Emily has had to rest at home in bed for most of the day, every day for 8 years. She has been in Palliative Care since age 28.

    A perfect Trump storm in a privatised health system

    For many patients, this catastrophic combination of chronic health conditions often co-occur in conjunction with each-other. There are multiple factors, including genetic mutations in EDS and POTS for instance, that link the conditions together. Another is the vagus nerve, which plays a major role in the parasympathetic nervous system. You can read more about some of these connections here.

    Like for others living with a cluster of these, they have compounded Emily’s health and put her in life-threatening circumstances on a number of occasions.

    When she was 22, an Epstein Barr infection worsened her POTS. As part of this, she suffers severe hypovolemia – low blood volume – which impacts her body’s ability to pump blood around the circulatory system as it should. Essentially, it’s a state of abnormally low fluid volume in her body, including with her blood plasma. Meanwhile, her CCI and intracranial hypertension (pressure build-up around the brain), alongside a suite of spinal injuries and conditions from years of all going untreated, has caused her cerebral spinal fluid leaks (CSF). Together, the pair have meant she has needed home IV infusions to replenish her fluid loss.

    Repeated infections have also worsened her MCAS to near fatal consequences. And, as a result, this has exacerbated her EDS connective tissue damage and a number of spinal issues as well. As her GoFundMe describes:

    She was admitted into Palliative Care at age 29, and with appropriate MCAS care she was able to return from near-fatal status by late 2020. However, MCAS going undiagnosed and untreated so long played a pivotal role in corroding tissue and further damaging Emily’s spine and organs.

    If all that weren’t enough, her spinal problems, coupled with MCAS, as well as both Covid-19 infections and vaccines, have caused her to develop serious clotting conditions. Alarmingly, Emily has already had a pulmonary embolism due to these issues.

    Her ME and long Covid have likely additionally contributed to her severe microclotting problems too – which required urgent treatment. Without this, her microclotting would have left her at risk of a second pulmonary embolism, or other life-threatening health emergencies like heart attack, or stroke.

    It’s not just ‘having to lay down’, it’s living with literal brain damage

    Emily expressed to the Canary how important it is that people understand how “devastating” these conditions are to live with:

    Like, it’s not just having to lay down because I sort of don’t feel well.It literally feels like, the benign proximal peripheral vertigo, like I’m falling off the top of a building every time I have these flares. And that feeling persists for like several days, sometimes a couple of weeks for several hours a day.

    Of course, Emily is referring to the tendency for the media, public-facing organisations, and politicians to vastly underplay the impact of many enormously debilitating conditions. What’s more, so often, they misrepresent how dangerous the intersecting of these conditions can be. That is, the impact of the plethora of debilitating symptoms is inordinately more than the majority of people realise.

    Emily gave just one example of the type of life-threatening experience and daily lived reality she contends with that might come as a shock to most. An MRI showed that flares of Emily’s intracranial hypertension has literally been causing her brain damage.

    Emily explained the symptoms and processes causing this:

    When the cerebellar tonsils in the back of my skull are being sucked down into my brainstem, it’s pushing down on the cerebral spinal fluid flow to my brain. So it’s not just the leaks, it’s like the whole pathway for the flow to get to my brain is being suppressed. So a lot of my worst symptoms occur during these flares. The way the flares kind of work is it’s a roller coaster. The pressure surges begin, it starts causing pituitary damage in the front of my brain.

    This pituitary brain damage causes a whole suite of metabolism and hormone issues. More specifically, the pituitary gland regulates many of the body’s functions as it oversees the endocrine system. The severity of her condition has meant Emily has needed specialist tests. This has included one where clinicians at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York “put a bolt” into her brain:

    They drill a hole in my head and they put a probe that goes and touches my brain.

    And then they have me lay down, sit up, stand up, sit back down, lay down over a couple of minutes each. And then they measure how the pressure in my head responds. And I’ve also tilted my head from side to side when laying down and when sitting up.

    Emily approaches her terrifying experience with humour – a coping mechanism so many chronically ill people have to turn to amid a toxic medical environment that dismisses, gaslights, and trivialises their under-recognised conditions. While she is now getting some help from clinicians in the field, it’s almost inconceivably unconscionable she has been left without the investigations and treatment she has desperately needed for decades. Yet, Emily’s experience is characteristic of so many living with chronic illnesses. The paucity of care has consigned her to live in immense pain and with a genuinely life-threatening suite of symptoms on a regular basis:

    I’ve had to have my brain probed twice and I’m may have to have my brain probed a third time. And to the point where I’ve told my friends that for my birthday, I want a t-shirt made that says like, I got my brain probed three times and I didn’t even get to see any aliens. I’m trying to keep humor about it, you know, but it’s really hard.

    Overall then, it has been a perfect storm of health problems feeding into one another. It’s why, under the US’s privatised healthcare system, Medicare and Medicaid have both been essential to Emily.

    Medicare and Medicaid make treatment possible… but for how much longer

    To this point, Emily has only been able to access the care and surgeries she has needed due to Medicare and Medicaid.

    These are the US’s two joint federal and state health insurance programmes. Not everyone is eligible for them – but as a disabled person who also claims Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, Emily qualifies for some of their coverage. Like the name suggests, SSDI is the US’s main social security support for disabled people. As her GoFundMe notes however, the SSDI alone covers only her most basic daily needs, if that:

    The majority of Emily’s SSDI goes to home health and prescription copays, out-of-pocket supplements and care, and medical equipment and garments recommended by doctors. The rest of her SSDI covers her phone, home infusion care, and expensive allergy-free groceries. She lives with family for care assistance, transit, and free housing so she can afford the care she has received so far.

    In other words, her SSDI hasn’t enabled her to seek out the treatments she needs to stop her conditions getting increasingly worse. That’s where both Medicare and Medicaid have come in – but only to a point.

    Currently, her Medicaid helps her to afford the IV fluids she requires daily to keep her conditions as stable as possible.

    What’s more, her Medicare insurance has made it so she could access important surgeries. Right now, she’s recovering from her second intracranial hypertension pressure surgery test, and a right styloidectomy. The latter was a surgical procedure to shorten the styloid bone in her neck. She’s hoping to follow this up with a left styloidectomy in the summer. After that, she might then be able to pursue surgery for her CCI and intracranial hypertension as well.

    Trump cuts incoming…

    Now though, things could be about to get inordinately worse. This is because the Trump administration has pressed forwards with plans to unleash a wave of trillions in public spending cuts. Naturally, in the firing line, will invariably be Medicare and Medicaid.

    On the campaign trail, Trump had promised not to touch these. However, unsurprisingly, Republicans are making a move to slash them anyway. Crucially, commentators and opposition politicians have already pointed out that to meet this $2tn budget-saving agenda, it’s highly likely some of this will come from these.

    For instance, in February, the US Congress House Budget Committee set out that the Energy and Commerce Committee would need to make $880bn in savings over the next decade. This is the body which oversees Medicaid, among other programmes. And Republican representatives have already confirmed that Medicaid will be a target for reform – meaning cuts of course.

    So, Emily is concerned that any forthcoming cuts to these programmes could mean losing access to her care and surgeries altogether. She told the Canary that:

    I also don’t know how much it would cost to try to access IV fluids if I lose home infusion via losing Medicaid — whether I try to get fluids at infusion centers or whether I’d have to go to urgent care or ERs to get them, as many commercial infusion clinics don’t take insurance and I can’t afford to pay hundreds of dollars per IV bag.

    To make matters worse, it could also impact her care prospects in New York and Iowa, where she hopes to get her surgeries.

    Further implications

    Specifically, her Medicare won’t cover her living in a medical facility to get daily IV fluids. Therefore, if she loses the Medicaid, and consequently, her home infusion, she’ll have to rely on doctors sending her to infusion centres. However, Emily detailed the barriers she anticipates with this already.

    For one, Emily isn’t sure that infusion centres wouldn’t just turn her away. Notably, she explained that:

    Due to venous insufficiency and vein fragility from EDS and sodium overload issues from POTS, I can’t run a bag of IV fluids any faster than 3 hours, and that’s only if I haven’t had to skip any days of IV fluids so my veins are hydrated enough to rush a bag.

    Generally, she needs IV fluids for four hours at a time, daily. But centres often aren’t equipped for daily patients – or willing to take them at that:

    As you can imagine, even if my doctors order IV fluids to urgent care or emergency rooms, these facilities don’t like being burdened with infusion patients needing to stick around for hours, and they’ve turned me away without IV fluids despite severe symptoms in the past

    On top of this, she worries centres won’t be trained or able to give her the IV fluids correctly anyway. Notably, due to years of peripheral catheters causing EDS connective tissue damage, and MCAS reactions making this worse, she can only have an intravenous catheter direct to her central vein. So the loss of her home infusion could put her more at risk as well.

    And, even supposing she does manage to get the surgeries she needs, she told the Canary that:

    If Medicaid is cut, I can’t get a waiver for a home health aid to help with surgical recovery which would be necessary, so not having this would mean I may not be able to get the cervical fusion and/or decompression even if I’m approved for one or both surgeries.

    Not uncommon conditions, just shamefully ignored and stigmatised

    And Medicare cuts are one thing, but Emily now faces these unaffordable costs for another reason too. That is, the persistent failure of the medical system that put her in this disgraceful health scenario in the first place. Notably, Emily has lived with some of these conditions her whole life, and others, for many years before she could get a diagnosis. All told, it has been an uphill battle for recognition, let alone getting the medical help she has needed.

    So, she hoped to drive home that while there are no curative treatments for many of her conditions, with the right surgeries and therapeutic treatments, at the right time, she might not be so dangerously sick now:

    It’s not at all uncommon for EDS patients to have several conditions from these sectors restricting blood flow and causing regular issues that can be dangerous and even fatal. The goal is try to get as much care as possible in the best order possible that improves quality and functionality of life before patients are in a dangerous or fatal situation.

    Emily expressed to the Canary that medical inattention and inaction has irrevocably damaged her body. But, she wanted her story to raise awareness for others. She hopes it will help them find correct diagnoses, and get treatment before things become more severe as they have for her.

    Clinicians should know – but don’t

    Moreover, she pointed out how her conditions are hardly uncommon:

    even though my type of EDS, hEDS, is common at 1 in 500, and even though the Covid pandemic doubled the POTS population, and even though MCAS was extremely common before Covid at 1 in 6 people, and even though Covid has massively increased the MECFS population (and with all of these, the populations of patients with severe microclots and craniocervical instability and intracranial hypertension and tethered cord syndrome and lumbar herniations and scoliosis all present in the above diagnostic populations have increased and worsened in severity) — despite all of this, most clinicians still mistakenly believe these aren’t common issues or that these aren’t severe issues, and as the patient populations and needs have grown considerably, the number of clinicians trying to learn from existing clinicians who are experts in these conditions hasn’t kept pace.

    And Emily is right. Given the high rates of all these, you’d be forgiven for thinking that clinicians would know how to diagnose and treat them. In reality, this couldn’t be further from the case.

    Notably, as the Canary has consistently reported, ignorance and stigma persists across the medical establishment.

    It’s the very epitome of the metaphorical mascot animal – the zebra – encapsulating the experience of EDS and other patients with ‘rare’ illnesses. That is, medical professionals “hear the sound of hooves, think horses, not zebras” when they look at a person’s symptoms. In short, these conditions, that aren’t rare in reality, get missed, when they really shouldn’t.

    In big part, it’s because doctors have long peddled the biopsychosocial brand of junk psychologising science. This dismisses the biophysiological pathologies of these under-recognised chronic health conditions. With it has come decades of patient gaslighting, neglect, trivialisation, and medical abuse.

    ‘Clinician associated trauma’ and life-threatening complications

    Predictably then, it’s the same old story in Emily’s case too. Her crowdfunder page details this, stating:

    Some doctors have refused care for Emily just because she has EDS, and this diagnostic discrimination interrupted and prevented critical care over the years. Other doctors suggested Emily was faking having these symptoms and conditions, despite specialist diagnoses and even confirming diagnoses from two or three or four other specialists. Also, despite fantastic mental health providers affirming these were biophysical issues and that Emily wasn’t faking seizures, collapses, blackouts, vomiting and other issues. Some doctors forced her to take psych medications that worsened these conditions significantly due to prescription interactions and condition interactions.

    She was even forced into a psych ward when she was unable to walk and experiencing severe symptoms, where she was abused severely and denied medical care.

    Emily told the Canary that ultimately, it was clinician malpractice that had repeatedly put her life at risk:

    Unfortunately I have been in a handful of life-threatening situations before and since being admitted to palliative care when I was 28 years old. All of them were a result of not having access to medical care I knew I needed, and my knowledge of these conditions not being taken seriously by local clinicians who didn’t have the knowledge to help me but also didn’t want to listen to me about how to learn how to help me or transfer my care to someone who was knowledgeable who could help.

    And her story could be a carbon copy of many others living with these and other chronic illnesses. The Canary has reported on numerous patients in the UK, and elsewhere, with strikingly similar experiences.

    Crowdfunding to survive in 2025: nothing new, because nothing changes

    It’s important to note that while Medicare has covered some of Emily’s treatments, it never has met all the expenses for her surgeries.

    Medicare has accounted for 80% of Emily’s health insurance covered costs. The rest would ordinarily be paid for by Medicaid. However, there’s a catch. Medicaid would ONLY cover the remaining 20% for care in the same state that Emily lives in. Unfortunately, as many people living with chronic illnesses like hers will know, specialists are few and far between.

    Unsurprisingly then, Emily has had to travel out of state to get tests and surgeries from experts in her conditions. Consequently, the international community has been stepping up. Together, they have been filling in for the gaping holes in the US’s social safety net. She has managed to fundraise some of these costs on a GoFundMe.

    However, she hasn’t yet met her goal for all the upcoming surgeries she desperately requires. So her crowdfunder still needs all the help it can get.

    It was another severe ME patient that the Canary has previously reported on who brought Emily’s story to our attention. Nevra, based in Pakistan, has been a long-time friend of Emily’s. She relayed to the Canary how Emily had been an unwavering source of support for her over the years, as she has for many other chronically ill patients.

    Nevra shared a video with the Canary that she shared to her followers to amplify Emily’s story. In this, she articulated:

    I think Emily is one of the bravest people that I know, if not the most brave. I think that we absolutely cannot lose somebody like her. It’s not just because she is an amazing person and does so much for the community behind the scenes, uncredited – it’s also that, she deserves to live.

    Nevra therefore urged people to support Emily if they can. You can contribute to her GoFundMe page here.

    Trump: putting chronically ill people’s lives at risk

    The fact that these life-saving treatments could become even more out of reach for Emily is a scandal. Yet, states everywhere devalue disabled people so systematically, that the resources and treatments to even keep chronically ill people alive, is all too often, too much to ask.

    Nobody should have to crowdfund to survive. However, this is still the shameful reality for too many chronically ill patients like Emily the world over – not just under Trump in the US.

    Featured image supplied

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour has already thrown an extra 30,000 children into poverty since July 2024

    The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has raised urgent concerns about the devastating effects of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) two-child limit policy. But crucially, the group has also shown that by not cancelling the policy, the Labour Party government has already thrown a further 30,000 children into poverty since it took power in July 2024

    The two-child limit: a ruinous policy

    The two-child limit, which came into effect on April 6, 2017, restricts households from claiming child tax credits or Universal Credit for more than two children, including those born after the policy’s introduction.

    CPAG’s recent research outlines a disconcerting trend, indicating that 350,000 children could be lifted out of poverty immediately if the limit were to be abolished, at a projected cost of £2 billion. Furthermore, the study highlights that the policy is fostering an increase in family hardship, with an estimated 109 additional children being pulled into poverty daily as a direct consequence.

    Another study put the figure nearer 600,000.

    This policy does not operate in a vacuum; a so-called “rape clause” creates exemptions for children born as a result of non-consensual conception, a feature that has drawn considerable criticism and controversy since it was rolled into the policy. Critics argue that such provisions do little to alleviate the suffering caused by the overarching restrictions of the two-child limit.

    The implications of the two-child limit are far-reaching, affecting families across all regions of the UK. The policy will continue to impact an increasing number of families until 2035 when the first children born under its restrictions will reach adulthood. Yet Labour has maintained it – even expelling MPs who voted against keeping it.

    Meanwhile, the Scottish government has vowed to bring an end to the two-child limit by April 2026, aiming to mitigate its adverse effects on families in Scotland.

    Labour: digging its heels in

    Despite the overwhelming evidence presented by CPAG, the Labour government has opted to retain the controversial policy It was initially introduced by former Tory chancellor George Osborne.

    In 2020, Starmer had previously called for its abolition, labelling it a critical gesture towards combatting child poverty. However, more recently, he has described the scrapping of the two-child cap as insufficient alone to resolve the broader issue of child poverty, suggesting a lack of urgency in addressing the immediate needs of families affected by this policy.

    CPAG’s chief executive Alison Garnham said:

    The government’s child poverty strategy will fall flat on its face unless it scraps the two-child limit. Every day, the policy forces families to go hungry and damages the life chances of children up and down the country.

    She asserts that while reducing child poverty requires multi-faceted strategies, abolishing the two-child limit is a necessary first step.

    As the Labour government gears up to release its long-awaited child poverty strategy this June, pressure from charity groups and families continues to mount.

    It could be scrapped

    The End Child Poverty Coalition has expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the forthcoming plan unless it actively dismantles the two-child limit. Reports indicate potential shifts in the policy, with discussions about a change to a three-child limit appearing on the table, but notably, this has yet to be substantiated with firm commitments or timelines.

    Research conducted by CPAG has revealed the stark financial reality behind potential alternatives to altering the two-child limit, indicating that addressing the same number of children at risk would be considerably more expensive.

    To completely offset the impacts of the policy, the child element of Universal Credit would need to be increased by £17 per week, costing £3 billion. Alternatively, raising the standard allowance by £25 a week would escalate costs to £8 billion.

    The issue remains pressing, as campaigners insist  that the two-child limit must be abolished outright. They caution that allowing exemptions to some families could result in a fragmented approach that would keep vulnerable families trapped in poverty, struggling to find a way out.

    Labour: everything it says rings hollow

    In the government’s response, a spokesperson claimed:

    No-one should be living in poverty, and we know that the best route out of poverty for struggling families is well-paid, secure work.

    This statement, however, rings hollow for many families affected by stringent welfare policies. It underscores the disconnect between Labour rhetoric and the harsh realities faced by the nation’s most vulnerable children.

    As the crisis persists, the two-child limit continues to be a source of pain, hardship, and increasing deprivation.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Billionaires now hold more wealth than 99% of ALL countries

    Forbes has released its annual World Billionaires list and a record 3,028 people control an ungodly amount of wealth. That’s 247 more billionaires than last year. In fact, they are worth £12.4 trillion – more than the GDP of every country in the world, other than the US and China (193 countries). And their net worth is £1.54 trillion more than a year ago.

    That means, according to Oxfam figures, just 3,000 people (the 0.000036%) have more wealth than 99% of the planet – around eight billion people.

    Billionaires: a bit ridiculous, surely

    This set up is entirely undemocratic. One point to note is that most of a billionaires’ wealth is tied up in assets. For Elon Musk, his wealth largely derives from his ownership shares in companies like Tesla and SpaceX. At the same time, Musk can at any point sell such shares and literally have £262 billion in cash.

    One way to address such grotesque inequality is for companies to transition to public-private partnerships. That’s once they reach a certain threshold of revenue and profit. Companies could reach different grades whereby once they become a certain size they have to meet certain social responsibility rules, they must pay all staff relative to profits and they must lower prices for consumers. This could keep a balance between social responsibility and the risk a company is taking. It would also mean that small businesses would still be viable as the scheme would not require them to pay staff as high wages.

    A more radical way to address such inequality would be for much of the economy to be in the commons and to foster a culture where people work towards social good (while still being paid for their efforts). Figuring out what defines ‘social good’ in a world of different tastes might be more difficult to organise.

    Cooperation versus competition

    Still, like the publicly funded Research and Development (R&D) teams of the present, people could still work towards innovation and greater quality, but cooperatively rather than competitively. Or perhaps competitively between nations. An issue with that as an absolute is that some nations are a lot more resource rich than others. For example, while climate change demands we move away from oil, Saudi Arabia is the third richest country when it comes to resources. At the same time, it is the 48th largest country in terms of population.

    Either way, it’s clear essentials like energy and water should be in public ownership. It’s a risk free investment for the government to make, because we know people will always need energy, water and other essentials. This delivers lower bills across the board for people and businesses. On top of that, the UK government in the 1960s and 70s made billions per year through its public utilities, which could then be reinvested.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The graver Israel’s atrocities in Gaza, the quieter the BBC grows

    ANALYSIS: By Jonathan Cook

    The BBC’s news verification service, Verify, digitally reconstructed a residential tower block in Mandalay earlier this week to show how it had collapsed in a huge earthquake on March 28 in Myanmar, a country in Southeast Asia largely cut off from the outside world.

    The broadcaster painstakingly pieced together damage to other parts of the city using a combination of phone videos, satellite imagery and Nasa heat detection images.

    Verify dedicated much time and effort to this task for a simple reason: to expose as patently false the claims made by the ruling military junta that only 2000 people were killed by Myanmar’s 7.7-magnitude earthquake.

    The West sees the country’s generals as an official enemy, and the BBC wanted to show that the junta’s account of events could not be trusted. Myanmar’s rulers have an interest in undercounting the dead to protect the regime’s image.

    The BBC’s determined effort to strip away these lies contrasted strongly with its coverage — or rather, lack of it — of another important story this week.

    Israel has been caught in another horrifying war crime. Late last month, it executed 15 Palestinian first responders and then secretly buried them in a mass grave, along with their crushed vehicles.

    Israel is an official western ally, one that the United States, Britain and the rest of Europe have been arming and assisting in a spate of crimes against humanity being investigated by the world’s highest court. Fourteen months ago, the International Court of Justice ruled it was “plausible” that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, is a fugitive from its sister court, the International Criminal Court. Judges there want to try him for crimes against humanity, including starving the 2.3 million people of Gaza by withholding food, water and aid.

    Israel is known to have killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of them women and children, in its 18-month carpet bombing of the enclave. But there are likely to be far more deaths that have gone unreported.

    This is because Israel has destroyed all of Gaza’s health and administrative bodies that could do the counting, and because it has created unmarked “kill zones” across much of the enclave, making it all but impossible for first responders to reach swathes of territory to locate the dead.

    The latest crime scene in Gaza is shockingly illustrative of how Israel murders civilians, targets medics and covers up its crimes — and of how Western media collude in downplaying such atrocities, helping Israel to ensure that the extent of the death toll in Gaza will never be properly known.

    Struck ‘one by one’
    Last Sunday, United Nations officials were finally allowed by Israel to reach the site in southern Gaza where the Palestinian emergency crews had gone missing a week earlier, on March 23. The bodies of 15 Palestinians were unearthed in a mass grave; another is still missing.

    All were wearing their uniforms, and some had their hands or legs zip-tied, according to eyewitnesses. Some had been shot in the head or chest. Their vehicles had been crushed before they were buried.

    Two of the emergency workers were killed by Israeli fire while trying to aid people injured in an earlier air strike on Rafah. The other 13 were part of a convoy sent to retrieve the bodies of their colleagues, with the UN saying Israel had struck their ambulances “one by one”.

    Even the usual excuses, as preposterous as they are, simply won’t wash in the case of Israel’s latest atrocity — which is why it initially tried to black out the story

    More details emerged during the week, with the doctor who examined five of the bodies reporting that all but one — which had been too badly mutilated by feral animals to assess — were shot from close range with multiple bullets. Ahmad Dhaher, a forensic consultant working at Nasser hospital in Khan Younis, said: “The bullets were aimed at one person’s head, another at their heart, and a third person had been shot with six or seven bullets in the torso.”

    Bashar Murad, the Red Crescent’s director of health programmes, observed that one of the paramedics in the convoy was in contact with the ambulance station when Israeli forces started shooting: “During the call, we heard the sound of Israeli soldiers arriving at the location, speaking in Hebrew.

    “The conversation was about gathering the [Palestinian] team, with statements like: ‘Gather them at the wall and bring some restraints to tie them.’ This indicated that a large number of the medical staff were still alive.”

    Jonathan Whittall, head of the UN office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs in Palestine, reported that, on the journey to recover the bodies, he and his team witnessed Israeli soldiers firing on civilians fleeing the area. He saw a Palestinian woman shot in the back of the head and a young man who tried to retrieve her body shot, too.

    Concealing slaughter
    The difficulty for Israel with the discovery of the mass grave was that it could not easily fall back on any of the usual mendacious rationalisations for war crimes that it has fed the Western media over the past year and a half, and which those outlets have been only too happy to regurgitate.

    Since Israel unilaterally broke a US-backed ceasefire agreement with Hamas last month, its carpet bombing of the enclave has killed more than 1000 Palestinians, taking the official death toll to more than 50,000. But Israel and its apologists, including Western governments and media, always have a ready excuse at hand to mask the slaughter.

    Israel disputes the casualty figures, saying they are inflated by Gaza’s Health Ministry, even though its figures in previous wars have always been highly reliable. It says most of those killed were Hamas “terrorists”, and most of the slain women and children were used by Hamas as “human shields”.

    Israel has also destroyed Gaza’s hospitals, shot up large numbers of ambulances, killed hundreds of medical personnel and disappeared others into torture chambers, while denying the entry of medical supplies.

    Israel implies that all of the 36 hospitals in Gaza it has targeted are Hamas-run “command and control centres”; that many of the doctors and nurses working in them are really covert Hamas operatives; and that Gaza’s ambulances are being used to transport Hamas fighters.

    Even if these claims were vaguely plausible, the Western media seems unwilling to ask the most obvious of questions: why would Hamas continue to use Gaza’s hospitals and ambulances when Israel made clear from the outset of its 18-month genocidal killing rampage that it was going to treat them as targets?

    Even if Hamas fighters did not care about protecting the health sector, which their parents, siblings, children, and relatives desperately need to survive Israel’s carpet bombing, why would they make themselves so easy to locate?

    Hamas has plenty of other places to hide in Gaza. Most of the enclave’s buildings are wrecked concrete structures, ideal for waging guerrilla warfare.

    Israeli cover-up
    Even the usual excuses, as preposterous as they are, simply won’t wash in the case of Israel’s latest atrocity — which is why it initially tried to black out the story.

    Given that it has banned all Western journalists from entering Gaza, killed unprecedented numbers of local journalists, and formally outlawed the UN refugee agency Unrwa, it might have hoped its crime would go undiscovered.

    But as news of the atrocity started to appear on social media last week, and the mass grave was unearthed on Sunday, Israel was forced to concoct a cover story.

    It claimed the convoy of five ambulances, a fire engine, and a UN vehicle were “advancing suspiciously” towards Israeli soldiers. It also insinuated, without a shred of evidence, that the vehicles had been harbouring Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters.

    Once again, we were supposed to accept not only an improbable Israeli claim but an entirely nonsensical one. Why would Hamas fighters choose to become sitting ducks by hiding in the diminishing number of emergency vehicles still operating in Gaza?

    Why would they approach an Israeli military position out in the open, where they were easy prey, rather than fighting their enemy from the shadows, like other guerrilla armies — using Gaza’s extensive concrete ruins and their underground tunnels as cover?

    If the ambulance crews were killed in the middle of a firefight, why were some victims exhumed with their hands tied? How is it possible that they were all killed in a gun battle when the soldiers could be heard calling for the survivors to be zip-tied?

    And if Israel was really the wronged party, why did it seek to hide the bodies and the crushed vehicles under sand?

    ‘Deeply disturbed’
    All available evidence indicates that Israel killed all or most of the emergency crews in cold blood — a grave war crime.

    But as the story broke on Monday, the BBC’s News at Ten gave over its schedule to a bin strike by workers in Birmingham; fears about the influence of social media prompted by a Netflix drama, Adolescence; bad weather on a Greek island; the return to Earth of stranded Nasa astronauts; and Britain’s fourth political party claiming it would do well in next month’s local elections.

    All of that pushed out any mention of Israel’s latest war crime in Gaza.

    Presumably under pressure from its ordinary journalists — who are known to be in near-revolt over the state broadcaster’s persistent failure to cover Israeli atrocities in Gaza — the next day’s half-hour evening news belatedly dedicated 30 seconds to the item, near the end of the running order.

    This was the perfect opportunity for BBC Verify to do a real investigation, piecing together an atrocity Israel was so keen to conceal

    The perfunctory report immediately undercut the UN’s statement that it was “deeply disturbed” by the deaths, with the newsreader announcing that Israel claimed nine “terrorists” were “among those killed”.

    Where was the BBC Verify team in this instance? Too busy scouring Google maps of Myanmar, it would seem.

    If ever there was a region where its forensic, open-source skills could be usefully deployed, it is Gaza. After all, Israel keeps out foreign journalists, and it has killed Palestinian journalists in greater numbers than all of the West’s major wars of the past 150 years combined.

    This was the perfect opportunity for BBC Verify to do a real investigation, piecing together an atrocity Israel was so keen to conceal. It was a chance for the BBC to do actual journalism about Gaza.

    Why was it necessary for the BBC to contest the narrative of an earthquake in a repressive Southeast Asian country whose rulers are opposed by the West but not contest the narrative of a major atrocity committed by a Western ally?

    Missing in action
    This is not the first time that BBC Verify has been missing in action at a crucial moment in Gaza.

    Back in January 2024, Israeli soldiers shot up a car containing a six-year-old girl, Hind Rajab, and her relatives as they tried to flee an Israeli attack on Gaza City. All were killed, but before Hind died, she could be heard desperately pleading with emergency services for help.

    Two paramedics who tried to rescue her were also killed. It took two weeks for other emergency crews to reach the bodies.

    It was certainly possible for BBC Verify to have done a forensic study of the incident — because another group did precisely that. Forensic Architecture, a research team based at the University of London, used available images of the scene to reconstruct the events.

    It found that the Israeli military had fired 335 bullets into the small car carrying Hind and her family. In an audio recording before she was killed, Hind’s cousin could be heard telling emergency services that an Israeli tank was near them.

    The sound of the gunfire, most likely from the tank’s machine gun, indicates it was some 13 metres away — close enough for the crew to have seen the children inside.

    Not only did BBC Verify ignore the story, but the BBC also failed to report it until the bodies were recovered. As has happened so often before, the BBC dared not do any reporting until Israel was forced to confirm the incident because of physical evidence.

    We know from a BBC journalist-turned-whistleblower, Karishma Patel, that she pushed editors to run the story as the recordings of Hind pleading for help first surfaced, but she was overruled.

    When the BBC very belatedly covered Hind’s horrific killing online, in typical fashion, it did so in a way that minimised any pushback from Israel. Its headline, “Hind Rajab, 6, found dead in Gaza days after phone calls for help”, managed to remove Israel from the story.

    Evidence buried
    A clear pattern thus emerges. The BBC also tried to bury the massacre of the 15 Palestinian first responders — keeping it off its website’s main page — just as Israel had tried to bury the evidence of its crime in Gaza’s sand.

    The story’s first headline was: “Red Cross outraged over killing of eight medics in Gaza”. Once again, Israel was removed from the crime scene.

    Only later, amid massive backlash on social media and as the story refused to go away, did the BBC change the headline to attribute the killings to “Israeli forces”.

    But subsequent stories have been keen to highlight the self-serving Israeli claim that its soldiers were entitled to execute the paramedics because the presence of emergency vehicles at the scene of much death and destruction was “suspicious”.

    In one report, a BBC journalist managed to shoe-horn this same, patently ridiculous “defence” twice into her two-minute segment. She reduced the discovery of an Israeli massacre to mere “allegations”, while a clear war crime was soft-soaped as only an “apparent” one.

    Notably, the BBC has on one solitary occasion managed to go beyond other media in reporting an attack on an ambulance crew. The footage incontrovertibly showed a US-supplied Apache helicopter firing on the crew and a young family they were trying to evacuate.

    There was no possibility the ambulance contained “terrorists” because the documentary team were filming inside the vehicle with paramedics they had been following for months. The video was included near the end of a documentary on the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, seen largely through the eyes of children.

    But the BBC quickly pulled that film, titled Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone, after the Israel lobby manufactured a controversy over one of its child narrators being the son of Gaza’s deputy Agriculture Minister, who served in the Hamas-run civilian government.

    Wholesale destruction
    The unmentionable truth, which has been evident since the earliest days of the 18-month genocide, is that Israel is intentionally dismantling and destroying Gaza’s health sector, piece by piece.

    According to the UN, Israel’s war has killed at least 1060 healthcare workers and 399 aid workers — those deaths it has been possible to identify — and wrecked Gaza’s health facilities. Israel has rounded up hundreds of medical staff and disappeared many of them into what Israeli human rights groups call torture chambers.

    One doctor, Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, director of the Kamal Adwan hospital in northern Gaza, has been held by Israel since he was abducted in late December. During brief contacts with lawyers, Dr Safiya revealed that he is being tortured.

    Other doctors have been killed in Israeli detention from their abuse, including one who was allegedly raped to death.

    Israel’s destruction of Gaza’s hospitals and execution of medical personnel is part of the same message: there is nowhere safe, no sanctuary, the laws of war no longer apply

    Why is Israel carrying out this wholesale destruction of Gaza’s health sector? There are two reasons. Firstly, Netanyahu recently reiterated his intent to carry out the complete ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

    He presents this as “voluntary migration”, supposedly in accordance with US President Donald Trump’s plan to relocate the enclave’s population of 2.3 million Palestinians to other countries.

    There can be nothing voluntary about Palestinians leaving Gaza when Israel has refused to allow any food or aid into the enclave for the past month, and is indiscriminately bombing Gaza. Israel’s ultimate intention has always been to terrify the population into flight.

    Israel’s ambassador to Austria, David Roet, was secretly recorded last month stating that “there are no uninvolved in Gaza”— a constant theme from Israeli officials. He also suggested that there should be a “death sentence” for anyone Israel accuses of holding a gun, including children.

    Meanwhile, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has threatened the “total devastation” of Gaza’s civilian population should they fail to “remove Hamas” from the enclave, something they are in no position to do.

    Not surprisingly, faced with the prospect of an intensification of the genocide and the imminent annihilation of themselves and their loved ones, ordinary people in Gaza have started organising protests against Hamas — marches readily reported by the BBC and others.

    Israel’s destruction of Gaza’s hospitals and execution of medical personnel is part of the same message: there is nowhere safe, no sanctuary, the laws of war no longer apply, and no one will come to your aid in your hour of need.

    You are alone against our snipers, drones, tanks and Apache helicopters.

    Too much to bear
    The second reason for Israel’s destruction of Gaza’s health sector is that we in the West, or at least our governments and media, have consented to Israel’s savagery — and actively participated in it — every step of the way. Had there been any meaningful pushback at any stage, Israel would have been forced to take another course.

    When David Lammy, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, let slip in Parliament last month the advice he has been receiving from his officials since he took up the job last summer — that Israel is clearly violating international law by starving the population — he was immediately rebuked by Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office.

    Let us not forget that Starmer, when he was opposition leader, approved Israel’s genocidal blocking of food, water and electricity to Gaza, saying Israel “had that right”.

    In response to Lammy’s comments, Starmer’s spokesperson restated the government’s view that Israel is only “at risk” of breaching international law — a position that allows the UK to continue arming Israel and providing it with intelligence from British spy flights over Gaza from a Royal Air Force base in Cyprus.

    Our politicians have consented to everything Israel has done, and not just in Gaza over the past 18 months. This genocide has been decades in the making.

    Three-quarters of a century ago, the West authorised the ethnic cleansing of most of Palestine to create a self-declared Jewish state there. The West consented, too, to the violent occupation of the last sections of Palestine in 1967, and to Israel’s gradual colonisation of those newly seized territories by armed Jewish extremists.

    The West nodded through waves of house demolitions carried out against Palestinian communities by Israel to “Judaise” the land. It backed the Israeli army creating extensive “firing zones” on Palestinian farmland to starve traditional agricultural communities of any means of subsistence.

    The West ignored Israeli settlers and soldiers destroying Palestinian olive groves, beating up shepherds, torching homes, and murdering families. Even being an Oscar winner offers no immunity from the rampant settler violence.

    The West agreed to Israel creating an apartheid road system and a network of checkpoints that kept Palestinians confined to ever-shrinking ghettoes, and building walls around Palestinian areas to permanently isolate them from the rest of the world.

    It allowed Israel to stop Palestinians from reaching one of their holiest sites, Al-Aqsa Mosque, on land that was supposed to be central to their future state.

    The West kept quiet as Israel besieged the two million people of Gaza for 17 years, putting them on a tightly rationed diet so their children would grow ever-more malnourished. It did nothing — except supply more weapons — when the people of Gaza launched a series of non-violent protests at their prison walls around the enclave, and were greeted with Israeli sniper fire that left thousands dead or crippled.

    The West only found a collective voice of protest on 7 October 2023, when Hamas managed to find a way to break out of Gaza’s choking isolation to wreak havoc in Israel for 24 hours. It has been raising its voice in horror at the events of that single day ever since, drowning out 18 months of screams from the children being starved and exterminated in Gaza.

    The murder of 15 Palestinian medics and aid workers is a tiny drop in an ocean of Israeli criminality — a barbarism rewarded by Western capitals decade after decade.

    This genocide was made in the West. Israel is our progeny, our ugly reflection in the mirror — which is why Western leaders and establishment media are so desperate to make us look the other way. That reflection is too much for anyone with a soul to bear.

    Jonathan Cook is a writer, journalist and media critic, and author of many books about Palestine. He is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. Republished from the Middle East Eye and the author’s blog with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Labour wants to reopen a controversial refugee detention centre – but people are fighting back

    After 25 years of local and national protests, Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) in Kidlington, Oxfordshire, finally closed its doors in December 2018.

    Opposition to it had been strong, and from the day the detention centre opened in 1993, a monthly demo took place outside its main gates, attracting all types of people, including Jeremy Corbyn and Anneliese Dodds.

    Run for the Home Office by a private company called Mitie, Campsfield was mired in controversy and its closure was a huge victory not only for campaigners, but also for human rights.

    Its closure was hastened by the publication of a report into the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons, known as the Shaw Review, which not only exposed the inhumane treatment taking place in the UK’s immigration system, but also found that detention in itself was harmful.

    The review recommended that immigration detention should be used as a last resort, and the government promised to reduce the number of people held in these centres by up to 40% from 2015 numbers.

    Campsfield House: first the Tories, then Labour make plans to re-open it

    So campaigners, who had spent years fighting alongside Campsfield detainees and witnessed the human cost of the place, were understandably heartbroken when Boris Johnson announced plans, less than four years later, to reopen the immigration detention centre.

    At the time, Campsfield House was very much linked to the Rwanda scheme, so when Labour took office and dropped the scheme, it was hoped the plans to reopen Campsfield would be scrapped. But instead, in August last year, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, announced Labour was not only pressing ahead with reopening the centre, but also had plans to expand it.

    In response to this shocking news, the campaign group Oxford Against Immigration Detention, and Asylum Welcome, also based in Oxford, got together and founded the Coalition to Keep Campsfield Closed:

    Campsfield House

    Asylum Welcome’s Emma Jones said:

    We are trying, through a variety of means – Freedom of Information requests and Parliamentary questions, to find out more, because we are very conscious that they’ve gone very quiet. News isn’t being shared, despite the fact that initially they said there’d be public consultations.

    No planning permission has been submitted- as far as we can see, despite the fact that its been said they’d need it for phase 1 (to refurbish and reopen Campsfield) and phase 2 (to expand its capacity to around 400), but a contract has been awarded to Galliford Try, and work is in progress at the site, so we suspect they’ve found a way to get around the planning.

    Although Galliford Try’s website says it “makes a real difference to people’s lives”, this is obviously not in a positive way, as a large part of the company’s money comes from construction in the custodial and defence sector.

    In addition to the £70m contract to carry out both refurbishment and new-build at the Campsfield site, its other contracts include refurbishing Haslar Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) near Portsmouth, which closed in 2015 after reports of mistreatment and inhumane conditions, but is now set to reopen and expand. Galliford Try has also been awarded a contract to expand RAF Wyton – a top-secret base that plays a critical role in intelligence gathering for UK armed forces on global operations.

    Immigration detention centres: a hotbed of harm and abuse

    The Home Office held almost 19,000 people in immigration detention centres across the UK in the year to March 2024, many of whom had experienced torture, oppression, and trauma, and are extremely vulnerable.

    Research has shown asylum seekers and refugees are at particular risk of mental health problems, compared to the general population, and this is not only linked to their pre-migration experiences, but also those during and post-detention.

    Those who are already experiencing problems with their mental health are likely to see a significant deterioration as a result of being detained, but the necessary care provisions in these detention facilities are much less readily available than in the general community.

    For those who have risked everything hoping to find safety and security in our country, their loss of liberty and the threat of forced return to their country of origin make immigration detention a particularly harrowing experience.

    There is no automatic judicial oversight on decisions to detain, while a lack of knowledge about release dates causes huge amounts of depression and anxiety, because of the inability to think of any kind of future.

    Britain is one of only a handful of countries, and the only one in Europe, to have no upper limit on the time a person can be detained. Research has found all detention to be inherently harmful to people’s physical and mental health, but indefinite detention to be even more so, and these problems are compounded if detainees are threatened with deportation at the same time.

    The ‘ideological infrastructure’ that decides people are ‘illegal’

    Centres like Campsfield House operate with a lack of safeguards and accountability, and detainees do not have an automatic entitlement to legal advice or allocation of legal representation.

    It is extremely difficult for these people to access their rights, especially if they are being moved around the detention system, so when Campsfield was open, Asylum Welcome helped detainees access badly needed legal and medical support.

    Jones explained that:

    There’s a mental health crisis inside detention centres, and self-harm is happening on a daily basis. It’s not remotely surprising really, given that people are detained indefinitely- which is such a shocking abuse in itself. But indefinite detention is permitted in this country, for people who have committed no criminal offence but are just there because of their lack of papers.

    If you don’t have status, meaning your immigration status is not resolved, you are liable to detention at any point in the process, which is very scary and open to all sorts of abuses. And that’s how something like the Windrush Scandal was able to happen…

    The physical infrastructure of places like Campsfield, and also the ideological infrastructure, which says some humans are illegal, or these people are immigration ‘offenders’, leads people to believe some offence has been committed rather than an irregularity in someone’s status, or the fact that someone is going through the process of seeking asylum.

    These places are synonymous with cruelty and, over the years, protests and disturbances were not only limited to outside the gates of Campsfield House. Detainees took part in rooftop protests and hunger strikes, demanding better treatment and trying to draw attention to the inhumane conditions and treatment inside the centre. Tragically, there were also two suicides.

    Many of us are left wondering why immigration detention centres are allowed to continue causing so much misery and harm, indefinitely and for administrative purposes when, in response to the Shaw Review, the government at the time agreed detention should be reduced.

    These centres are also extremely expensive to run, with almost £145 of tax-payer money spent daily on detaining each person, and annual costs of running these facilities rising each year, to more than £117m in 2024.

    Immigration detention is little more than ‘performative cruelty’

    Serious questions are also raised, as to the justification of immigrant detention, as statistics over the last decade show there has been a long-term fall in the numbers of people leaving immigration detention to be returned to their country of nationality or habitual residence.

    According to government figures, in the year ending June 2023, of the more than 20,500 individuals who left immigration detention, 75% were granted bail and therefore re-entered the community. This highlights the fact that many people are unnecessarily enduring the distress of being detained.

    Jones said that:

    Often people are released because there is nowhere else to go. People might be from countries where no one is currently able to return. They might be stateless people. These people need support to regularise their status, and to live their lives and contribute like they wish to do.

    Very often there is no realistic prospect of deportation, even though these people are detained and shopped between detention centres and sometimes kept there for years. It seems very illogical, as well as expensive, and therefore you think ‘Oh, OK, it’s the performative cruelty element. They’re doing this to get favour from certain kinds of voters!

    Several community based alternatives to detention have been piloted by the Home Office, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), and independent charities, with caseworkers providing one to one support, including legal counselling.

    UNHCR lauded the pilots as very successful, saying they enhanced the well-being and self-esteem of the participants, while being cheaper and offering better value for money for the taxpayer compared with the costs of detaining asylum seekers, and showing no evidence of a reduction in compliance with UK Home Office directives.

    Jones argued that:

    Although the studies seemed to conclude these alternatives had been very successful, we were very confused as the Home Office dismissed them in a single sentence, when Yvette Cooper announced, last year, that Campsfield would go ahead. We want to know on what basis these pilots are being dismissed.

    Close Campsfield House, close them all

    Asylum Welcome, along with other charities and campaigners, had hoped the election might herald a change in direction, particularly given that the Rwanda scheme has been scrapped, and the Labour-led Oxford City Council, Oxfordshire County Council, Cherwell District Council, and also local MP Calum Miller are all opposed to Campsfield reopening.

    But Jones says they are not going to give up:

    In 2015, plans to expand Campsfield House were halted, so campaigners feel a win is still possible.

    Jones said:

    We hope democracy counts for something, and we remain committed not only to keep Campsfield closed, but to close them all.

    Actions you can take to make a difference:

    • Sign and share the petition to keep Campsfield Closed here. Started by Allan, who was a former Campsfield detainee, in 2015.
    • Go to keepcampsfieldclosed.uk to find out more information.
    • Sign up and join the mailing list here.
    • The Coalition to Keep Campsfield Closed has a monthly online meeting and is interested in hearing people’s ideas and experiences, particularly people with lived experience of detention, and those involved in other campaigns in other localities to shut these places down.

    Featured image and additional images via Coalition to Keep Campsfield Closed

    By Charlie Jaay

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The BBC’s latest shameful propaganda for Israel plumbs new depths

    On 23 March, Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers gunned down 15 emergency workers. As reported at the time, those killed included “eight Palestinian medics… along with six Civil Defence first responders and a UN staff member“. Israel’s military responded by claiming the vehicle had behaved suspiciously, and that it was driving at night without headlights or emergency signals. Now, uncovered mobile phone footage has debunked these claims, with the IDF admitting inaccuracies. The BBC, meanwhile, has published an article which tacitly accepts the IDF argument – namely that its soldiers simply “made mistakes”, and not that they deliberately massacred a van full of people:

    BBC headline which reads 'Israel admits mistakes over medic killings in Gaza'

    BBC headline propaganda for Israel

    According to the article itself, the IDF is blaming its own soldiers:

    Israel has admitted its earlier account claiming the vehicles approached without lights was inaccurate, attributing the report to the troops involved.

    Media Lens, meanwhile, suggested the following correction to the BBC‘s headline:

    Given what we know so far, it would be probably be too much to expect the BBC to run with a headline like ‘IDF lied’. To satisfy BBC impartiality rules, they’d have to know that IDF commanders knew the truth and chose to obscure it; they can’t simply assume the IDF is lying just because the IDF has a long history of lying (in some instances allegedly; in others provenly). As the Institute for Middle East Understanding has stated:

    Israel’s military and government have a long and well-documented history of lying and falsifying evidence to cover up and deflect responsibility for war crimes they commit against Palestinians.

    The link above gives several well-documented instances of the IDF “lying and falsifying evidence”. The Canary has also published many articles on the topic – as have outlets like Declassified UK, Novara, Byline Times, The Grayzone, and Jacobin.

    So, if we agree that the BBC can’t outright accuse the IDF of lying, how could they have worded this headline?

    Let’s take a look at the headline again:

    Israel admits mistakes over medic killings in Gaza

    As stated, the problem is that the headline presupposes the massacre was a mistake, so how could we fix that?

    Fixing BBC Israel headlines

    Quite simply, actually, by just changing the word ‘admits’ to ‘claims’:

    Israel claims mistakes over medic killings in Gaza

    When we use the word ‘admits’, it suggests we believe a person is guilty, and that they have now confirmed this. When we say ‘claims’, we’re stating that a person has stated they did something, but we’re doing so without the assumption that we agree with their assertion.

    While an admission of guilt is generally an act of taking accountability, in this instance the IDF is taking accountability for a far lesser crime than that which it stands accused of. It didn’t admit to a massacre; it admitted to ‘mistakes’ – mistakes which wash its hands of responsibility for the massacre.

    As the IDF has a documented history of making false statements, it’s not partial to treat it as an impartial source of information. Given that, we’d argue that the BBC could justifiably go harder than simply tweaking one word. Why not run a headline like the following:

    Israel admits sharing falsehoods over medic killings

    Or even:

    Footage shows Israeli soldier claims weren’t true

    Either option would be a bit soft for our liking, but they’d inarguably fall within the realms of BBC impartiality.

    Figures like Owen Jones have provided commentary on how the BBC “covers up Israel’s crimes”:

    The massacre and the aftermath

    Reporting on the story on 1 April, Al Jazeera wrote:

    Nine Palestine Red Crescent (PRCS) medics in ambulances, as well as some Civil Defence workers, went to help people in Rafah, Gaza, and disappeared on March 23 after coming under attack from Israeli forces.

    What followed was a week of Israeli obstruction until international teams were finally able to enter the area where the medics and rescue workers disappeared.

    They found gruesome proof of direct attacks on the humanitarian workers. One medic remains missing.

    It added:

    The bodies of 14 murdered people were found in a shallow mass grave, according to the PRCS.

    Eight were identified as PRCS medics, five were Civil Defense workers, and one was a UN agency employee.

    And also that:

    They were killed “one after another”, then buried in the sand along with their emergency vehicles, the UN said.

    “The available information indicates that the first team was killed by Israeli forces on 23 March, and that other emergency and aid crews were struck one after another over several hours as they searched for their missing colleagues,” a spokesperson for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Palestine said.

    “Their bodies were gathered and buried in this mass grave,” OCHA head Jonathan Whittall said from the scene.

    “We’re digging them out in their uniforms, with their gloves on. They were here to save lives,” he said.

    “These ambulances have been buried in the sand. There’s a UN vehicle here, …[an] Israeli forces bulldozer has buried them.”

    New footage

    On 5 April, new footage drew initial IDF claims into question, as the BBC reported:

    Israel originally claimed troops opened fire because the convoy approached “suspiciously” in darkness without headlights or flashing lights. It said movement of the vehicles had not been previously co-ordinated or agreed with the army.

    Mobile phone footage, filmed by one of the paramedics who was killed, showed the vehicles did have lights on as they answered a call to help wounded people.

    The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) insists at least six of the medics were linked to Hamas – but has so far provided no evidence. It admits they were unarmed when the soldiers opened fire.

    The mobile video, originally shared by the New York Times, shows the vehicles pulling up on the road when, without warning, shooting begins just before dawn.

    The footage continues for more than five minutes, with the paramedic, named as Refat Radwan, heard saying his last prayers before the voices of Israeli soldiers are heard approaching the vehicles.

    It’s okay when our side does it

    Israel has been conducting a genocide for over a year, and it’s being investigated as such at the highest global level. If Israel wasn’t a key ally of the UK and the United States, it’s hard to imagine the BBC would be sparing its blushes like this.

    At some point, they really need to ask themselves if it’s worth tarnishing what remains of their reputation for a rogue state which will go down in history as a purveyor of genocide and lies.

    Featured image via BBC

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Senior Labour minister delivers bare-faced lie over DWP PIP live on the BBC

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is rolling out controversial reforms to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) that could dramatically affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of disabled individuals and their families. Yet a senior Labour Party government minister denied the reality of this live on the BBC – claiming that actually, the number of disabled people the DWP would cut PIP from was tiny.

    Labour: lying to cover their cruel reforms

    Chris Bryant is a government minister. He was on BBC Question Time on Thursday 3 April. During the show, he said:

    Nobody is taking money away from people on PIP… There will be more people on PIP in the next few years, but the number isn’t going to be increasing by a thousand every week… [People on PIP are] not going to lose it till their next reassessment.. 90% of people will not lose anything.

    His claim that 90% of people will not lose anything is a bare-faced lie.

    According to a DWP impact assessment, as many as 370,000 current claimants could lose their PIP entitlement due to changes in eligibility rules set to be implemented in November 2026, pending parliamentary approval.

    Crucially, about 430,000 future applicants are anticipated to be denied the benefit, creating an average annual loss of around £4,500 for those affected. Therefore, Bryant’s 90% figure is not accurate – because people, including children transitioning from Disability Living Allowance to PIP – will lose out. The figure is nearer 20% based on the DWP’s own data – plus 150,000 carers who will also lose their Carer’s Allowance.

    What the department has also failed to even calculate is how many people will lose higher rate Daily Living because of its cuts.

    DWP PIP has been a critical source of support, helping chronically ill and disabled people manage the additional day-to-day costs they face.

    Yet, with these new rules focused on tightening the eligibility criteria for the daily living component, it’s unclear how many will continue to receive the assistance they need.

    As it stands, DWP PIP is calculated through a points system based on the individual’s ability to perform essential tasks related to daily living. However, under the proposed reforms, individuals will now be required to achieve a minimum score of four points in one specified task to even qualify for any level of support.

    DWP PIP: a life line for chronically ill and disabled people

    The methodologies used by the DWP for evaluating disability have long been the subject of scrutiny. DWP boss Liz Kendall recently faced questions regarding the fairness and accuracy of these assessments when she stated:

    We will legislate for a change in PIP so that people will need to score a minimum of four points in at least one activity.

    Critics warn that this change would unjustly penalise individuals who require help across multiple areas but may not achieve the required thresholds in specific questions.

    To put this into perspective, the daily living component, which ranges from £290.60 to £434.20 every four weeks, is geared to assist with crucial areas like food preparation, personal hygiene, and medication management. For people already struggling with conditions that limit their ability to perform these activities, the potential loss of financial support is nothing short of devastating.

    Moreover, the DWP’s focus on increasing in-person PIP assessments contrasts sharply with the ongoing reliance on remote assessments that many say minimise the personal consideration necessary for understanding the unique challenges faced by each claimant.

    Blatant misinformation

    Bryant’s blatant misinformation regarding DWP PIP seems part of a clear agenda from the Labour government. That is, it will steamroll these reforms through at the expense of the reality of the impact they will have.

    Moreover, all this will come at the expense of chronically ill and disabled people’s wellbeing and right to live an independent life – things that have already been severely impacted by previous governments.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Ian Powell: When apartheid met Zionism – the case for NZ recognising Palestine as a state

    COMMENTARY: By Ian Powell

    The 1981 Springbok Tour was one of the most controversial events in Aotearoa New Zealand’s history. For 56 days, between July and September, more than 150,000 people took part in more than 200 demonstrations in 28 centres.

    It was the largest protest in the country’s history.

    It caused social ruptures within communities and families across the country. With the National government backing the tour, protests against apartheid sport turned into confrontations with both police and pro-tour rugby fans — on marches and at matches.

    The success of these mass protests was that this was the last tour in either country between the two teams with the strongest rivalry among rugby playing nations.

    This deeply rooted antipathy towards the racism of apartheid helps provide context to today’s growing opposition by New Zealanders to the horrific actions of another apartheid state.

    A township protest against apartheid in South Africa in 1980
    A township protest against apartheid in South Africa in 1980. Image: politicalbytes.blog

    Understanding apartheid
    Apartheid is a humiliating, repressive and brutal legislated segregation through separation of social groups. In South Africa, this segregation was based on racism (white supremacy over non-whites; predominantly Black Africans but also Asians).

    For nearly three centuries before 1948, Africans had been dispossessed and exploited by Dutch and British colonists. In 1948, this oppression was upgraded to an official legal policy of apartheid.

    Apartheid does not have to be necessarily by race. It could also be religious based. An earlier example was when Christians separated Jews into ghettos on the false claim of inferiority.

    In August 2024, Le Monde Diplomatic published article (paywalled) by German prize-winning journalist and author Charlotte Wiedemann on apartheid in both Israel and South Africa under the heading “When Apartheid met Zionism”:

    She asked the pointed question of what did it mean to be Jewish in a country that saw Israel through the lens of its own experience of apartheid?

    It is a fascinating question making her article an excellent read. Le Monde Diplomatic is a quality progressive magazine, well worth the subscription to read many articles as interesting as this one.

    Relevant Wiedemann observations
    Wiedemann’s scope is wider than that of this blog but many of her observations are still pertinent to my analysis of the relationship between the two apartheid states.

    Most early Jewish immigrants to South Africa fled pogroms and poverty in tsarist Lithuania. This context encouraged many to believe that every human being deserved equal respect, regardless of skin colour or origin.

    Blatant widespread white-supremacist racism had been central to South Africa’s history of earlier Dutch and English colonialism. But this shifted to a further higher level in May 1948 when apartheid formally became central to South Africa’s legal and political system.

    Although many Jews were actively opposed to apartheid it was not until 1985, 37 years later, that Jewish community leaders condemned it outright. In the words of Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris to the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission:

    “The Jewish community benefited from apartheid and an apology must be given … We ask forgiveness.”

    On the one hand, Jewish lawyers defended Black activists, But, on the other hand, it was a Jewish prosecutor who pursued Nelson Mandela with “extraordinary zeal” in the case that led to his long imprisonment.

    Israel became one of apartheid South Africa’s strongest allies, including militarily, even when it had become internationally isolated, including through sporting and economic boycotts. Israel’s support for the increasingly isolated apartheid state was unfailing.

    Jewish immigration to South Africa from the late 19th century brought two powerful competing ideas from Eastern Europe. One was Zionism while the other was the Bundists with a strong radical commitment to justice.

    But it was Zionism that grew stronger under apartheid. Prior to 1948 it was a nationalist movement advocating for a homeland for Jewish people in the “biblical land of Israel”.

    Zionism provided the rationale for the ideas that actively sought and achieved the existence of the Israeli state. This, and consequential forced removal of so many Palestinians from their homeland, made Zionism a “natural fit” in apartheid South Africa.

    Nelson Mandela and post-apartheid South Africa
    Although strongly pro-Palestinian, post-apartheid South Africa has never engaged in Holocaust denial. In fact, Holocaust history is compulsory in its secondary schools.

    Its first president, Nelson Mandela, was very clear about the importance of recognising the reality of the Holocaust. As Charlotte Wiedemann observes:

    “Quite the reverse . . .  In 1994 Mandela symbolically marked the end of apartheid at an exhibition about Anne Frank. ‘By honouring her memory as we do today’ he said at its opening, ‘we are saying with one voice: never and never again!’”

    In a 1997 speech, on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Mandela also reaffirmed his support for Palestinian rights:

    “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

    There is a useful account of Mandela’s relationship with and support for Palestinians published by Middle East Eye.

    Mandela’s identification with Palestine was recognised by Palestinians themselves. This included the construction of an impressive statue of him on what remains of their West Bank homeland.

    Palestinians stand next to a 6 metre high statue of Nelson Mandela following its inauguration ceremony in the West Bank city of Ramallah in 2016
    Palestinians stand next to a 6 metre high statue of Nelson Mandela following its inauguration ceremony in the West Bank city of Ramallah in 2016. It was donated by the South African city of Johannesburg, which is twinned with Ramallah. Image: politicalbytes.blog

    Comparing apartheid in South Africa and Israel
    So how did apartheid in South Africa compare with apartheid in Israel. To begin with, while both coincidentally began in May 1948, in South Africa this horrendous system ended over 30 years ago. But in Israel it not only continues, it intensifies.

    Broadly speaking, this included Israel adapting the infamously cruel “Bantustan system” of South Africa which was designed to maintain white supremacy and strengthen the government’s apartheid policy. It involved an area set aside for Black Africans, purportedly for notional self-government.

    In South Africa, apartheid lasted until the early 1990s culminating in South Africa’s first democratic election in 1994.

    Tragically, for Palestinians in their homeland, apartheid not only continues but is intensified by ethnic cleansing delivered by genocide, both incrementally and in surges.

    Apartheid Plus: ethnic cleansing and genocide
    Israel has gone further than its former southern racist counterpart. Whereas South Africa’s economy depended on the labour exploitation of its much larger African workforce, this was relatively much less so for Israel.

    As much as possible Israel’s focus was, and still is, instead on the forcible removal of Palestinians from their homeland.

    This began in 1948 with what is known by Palestinians as the Nakba (“the catastrophe”) when many were physically displaced by the creation of the Israeli state. Genocide is the increasing means of delivering ethnic cleansing.

    Ethnic cleansing is an attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas by deporting or forcibly displacing people belonging to particular ethnic groups.

    It can also include the removal of all physical vestiges of the victims of this cleansing through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.

    This destructive removal has been the unfortunate Palestinian experience in much of today’s Israel and its occupied or controlled territories. It is continuing in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

    Genocide involves actions intended to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

    In contrast with civil war, genocide usually involves deaths on a much larger scale with civilians invariably and deliberately the targets. Genocide is an international crime, according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948).

    Today the Israeli slaughter and destruction in Gaza is a huge genocidal surge with the objective of being the “final solution” while incremental genocide of Palestinians speeds up in the occupied West Bank.

    Notwithstanding the benefits of the recent ceasefire, it freed up Israel to militarily focus on repressing West Bank Palestinians.

    Meanwhile, Israel’s genocide in Gaza during the current vulnerable hiatus of the ceasefire has shifted from military action to starvation.

    The final word
    One of the encouraging features has been the massive protests against the genocide throughout the world. In a relative context, and while not on the same scale as the mass protests against the racist South African rugby tour in 1981, this includes New Zealand.

    Many Jews, including in New Zealand and in the international protests such as at American universities, have been among the strongest critics of the ethnic cleansing through genocide of the apartheid Israeli state.

    They have much in common with the above-mentioned Bundist focus on social justice in contrast to the dogmatic biblical extremism of Zionism.

    Amos Goldberg, professor of genocidal studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem is one such Jew. Let’s leave the final word to him:

    “It’s so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion. Jewish history will henceforth be stained.”

    This is a compelling case for the New Zealand government to join the many other countries in formally recognising the state of Palestine.

    Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes, where this article was first published. Republished with the author’s permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • With Hasbara failing, Israel placed Hossam Shabat on a kill list

    While public opinion of Israel plummets, each day the genocide continues without significant repercussions only reinforces that they can ignore this opinion, writes Alex Foley.

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Alex Foley

    Israel announced that Hossam Shabat was a “terrorist” alongside six other Palestinian journalists. Hossam predicted they would assassinate him.

    He survived several attempts on his life. He wrote a brief obituary for himself at the age of 23, carried on reporting, and then on March 24, 2025, Israel killed him.

    For those of us outside of Gaza, helpless to stop the carnage but unable to look away, a begrudging numbness has set in, a psychic lidocaine to cope with the daily images of the shattered bodies of dead children.

    The other pro-Palestinian advocates and activists I speak with all mention familiar brain fogs and free-floating agitations.

    By this point, I am accustomed to opening my phone and steeling myself for the horrors. But learning of Hossam’s death cut through me like a warm knife.

    Through whatever fluke of the internet, many of the friends I have made over the course of the genocide are from the city of Beit Hanoun, like Hossam Shabat.

    One was his classmate. Another walked with him through the bombed-out ruins of the North. Looking upon his upturned face, splattered with three stripes of crimson blood, I could not help but imagine each of them lying there in his place.

    To quote my dear friend Ibrahim Al-Masri:

    “Hossam Shabat wasn’t alone. He carried the grief of Beit Hanoun, the cries of children trapped under rubble, the aching voices of mothers queuing for bread, and the gasps of the wounded in hospitals that no longer functioned as hospitals.”

    Many will remember the video of 14-year-old aspiring journalist Maisam Al-Masri greeting Hossam Shabat in his car, elated that he had not been killed when the occupation first took the North.

    Separated from family
    Hossam remained in Northern Gaza throughout the genocide, separated from his family, in full knowledge that staying and working was a death sentence. His reports were an invaluable insight into the occupation’s crimes, and for that they killed him.

    In death, his eyes remained open, bearing witness one last time.

    The Israeli account is, of course, very different. The Israeli army has claimed that Hossam Shabat was a “Hamas sniper” with the Beit Hanoun Battalion.

    It is the kind of paper-thin lie we have grown accustomed to, dutifully repeated by the Western press. I am no military tactician, but I find it hard to believe that a young man with a high profile who reported his location frequently, including in live broadcasts, would be an effective sniper.

    In the weeks before he was assassinated, Hossam Shabat was tweeting up to a dozen times a day.

    Hasbara killed Hossam Shabat because it’s losing the PR war
    A qualitative shift has occurred over the course of the genocide; Israel no longer seems interested in or capable of convincing the rest of the world that its actions are just. Rather, they are preoccupied with producing increasingly flimsy justifications with the sole aim of quelling internal dissent.

    The Hasbara machine is foundering.

    How could it not? For 17 months we have experienced a daily split screen between the endless stream of atrocities committed against the Palestinians and the screeching histrionics of Zionist influencers. While the people of Gaza endure blockade and bombing, Noa Tishby and Michael Rapaport moan about campus demonstrations.

    The campus encampments are also the subject of a new documentary, October 8, currently in theatres throughout the US. Originally titled October H8te, the film claims to be a “searing look at the eruption of antisemitism in America that started the day after Hamas’ attack on Israel”.

    The trailer is a series of to-camera interviews of the usual suspects, all decrying the lack of support Zionists discovered in the wake of Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza. They cite social media censorship and foreign interference as reasons for Zionism’s wild unpopularity among college students.

    It never seems to occur to them that it might be Israel’s actions doing the damage.

    In a recently shared clip, former Facebook COO, Sheryl Sandberg, leans into the victim role, fighting through tears that do not come while relaying a story of asking a close friend if she would hide her while the pair were on a walk. Sandberg attributes her friend’s confusion at the question to the woman not being Jewish and not to the fact that it is a frankly absurd thing for a woman worth over $2 billion to ask.

    ‘Disappearing’ student protesters
    The reality is, while Sandberg talks about how unsafe she feels in the US because of the university encampments, the government itself has begun “disappearing” student protesters on her behalf.

    Plainclothes ICE agents are continuing to abduct student activists like Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk at the behest of Betar USA, a far-right militant movement founded by Jabotinsky that has been providing the Trump administration with deportation lists.

    The violent fantasies that Sandberg argues warrant a global outpouring of sympathy for Zionists are being enacted on an almost daily basis against the very students she claims are a threat.

    The hysteria around the encampments has reached a new ludicrous pitch with a lawsuit filed by a group including the families of hostages taken on October 7 against students at Columbia, among them Khalil, whom they allege have been coordinating with Hamas.

    The “bombshell” filing includes such evidence as an Instagram post by Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine published three minutes before Hamas’ attack that stated, “We are back!!” after the account was dormant for several months.

    The reasonable person might note that the inactivity on the account coincided with the Summer holidays. They might point out that it seems unlikely Hamas was coordinating with student groups in the US about an operation that required the element of surprise.

    They might even question what the American students could provide that would make such a risk worth it.

    Securing flow of weapons
    But Hasbara is no longer concerned with the reasonable person; its sole purpose is securing the flow of weapons. Despite the government announcing earlier this year that they are spending an additional $150 million on “international PR,” Israel seems increasingly uninterested in convincing anyone other than the Western governments that still back them.

    While public opinion of Israel plummets, each day the genocide continues without significant repercussions only reinforces that they can ignore this opinion.

    This is reflected in the degree to which the goalposts have shifted. First, we were told Israel would never bomb a hospital, then we were shown elaborate schematics of nonexistent subterranean command centres, and now they execute and bury first responders without so much as a shrug.

    The perverse result of Hasbara falling apart is more brazen, ruthless killing.

    While legacy media may still run interference for Israel and universities continue to roll over for the Trump administration, Israel is facing a real threat. It can kill and kill — the number of journalists they have slain far outstrips other major conflicts — but for every Hossam Shabat they kill, there is a Maisam waiting in the wings, ready to shed light on their crimes.

    Alex Foley is a researcher and painter living in Brighton, UK. They have a background in molecular biology of health and disease. They are the co-founder of the Accountability Archive, a web tool preserving fragile digital evidence of pro-genocidal rhetoric from power holders. Follow them on X:@foleywoley Republished from The New Arab under Creative Commons.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Insurance companies’ investment in arms industry soars with Gaza genocide and Trump election

    Major insurance companies have piled investments into the arms industry over recent months, new research reveals.

    Boycott Bloody Insurance – and quickly

    The research, looking at how insurance companies active in the UK are investing their money, shows that they pumped millions more into firms involved in nuclear weapons, depleted uranium and white phosphorus immediately after Donald Trump was elected.

    Earlier this month, the same researchers showed that companies active in the British insurance market actively increased their investments in firms involved in supplying Israel with military equipment over the last year.

    Insurance firms are major investors across the economy. The new report from the campaign group Boycott Bloody Insurance, entitled Ensuring Destruction – the Insurance Industry and Controversial Weapons – looks at how much of that money is invested in firms which are involved in or associated with various ‘controversial weapons’ – a category which includes white phosphorous, depleted uranium and nuclear weapons.

    They found that major insurance companies channelled $260m more towards companies involved in the production of these weapons in December 2024 than they did in September 2024. Among the group of companies assessed by the researchers – all major providers active in the UK market – investment in manufacturers of controversial weapons grew by 13% over the three month period.

    Not just a UK problem

    The British company, Aviva, increased their investment into companies which are involved in or associated with controversial weapons to £1.36bn, making it by far the biggest investor in these sorts of firms among the assessed insurers.

    However, it’s not just Aviva which bet on growing global violence. Allianz, AXA, and Zurich, also grew their investments in these firms. In many cases, the insurers are investing in these companies in direct contradiction to their own responsible investment policies.

    The researchers also looked at which companies were providing Employers’ Liability insurance for firms involved in or associated with controversial weapons, finding that all of the major insurers were doing so.

    Andrew Taylor from the campaign said:

    Insurance companies are a vital part of the global financial system. Their investments help drive the economy. Without the insurance they provide, other companies can’t operate. And yet these major household brands are providing money and underwriting services to companies whose core business is mass slaughter, mutilation of children, and machines of devastation. Often, these companies claim to have socially responsible investment policies, and yet they are using their customers’ money to prop up some of the least responsible firms on the planet, directly contradicting their own policies.

    As global conflict and uncertainty escalate, these titans of the financial services sector are rushing money behind firms who will benefit from more conflict, more war and more chaos. We urgently need de-escalation of global violence, and are calling on businesses and organisations to boycott all insurance companies which invest in, and underwrite, firms involved in or associated with these controversial weapons.

    The insurance industry is destroying the planet

    This research comes on the back of another report, released earlier this year, which looked at the insurance industry’s involvement in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

    Entitled Ensuring Genocide – the Insurance Industry and Israel’s War Machine, the report found that major insurance companies active in the UK market have increased their investment in companies involved in Israel’s genocide of Gaza over the last year. Insurers including Allianz, Aviva, AXA, Zurich, and RSA collectively invested over $1.7 billion in companies supplying military equipment used by Israel since 7 October 2023.

    The report also showed how these major insurance brands are profiting from the genocide themselves by underwriting the arms manufacturers who are supplying weapons to Israel.

    Monika Nielsen the researcher for the campaign added:

    Millions of people in the UK have been profoundly shocked by Israel’s genocide in Gaza. And they will be horrified to discover that the firms insuring their local councils, workplaces, places of worship or universities are the same companies funding and underwriting the production of the weapons Israel is using to blow up Palestinians’ homes, hospitals, schools and families. These firms don’t need to insure arms companies. We are calling on people to boycott them until they stop.

    Featured image via Boycott Bloody Insurance/Comrade D

    By The Canary

  • Rolls-Royce wants £3bn in public money for a new plane engine. Austerity for us, corporate welfare for them.

    Rolls-Royce is discussing corporate subsidies with Keir Starmer’s Labour Party government to fund a £3bn engine to power commercial aircraft. The company already has £210 million in public funding from the people. Yet the business had underlying operating profits of £2.5 billion in 2024 at 14% margins. Why is the UK public topping up Rolls-Royce profits while chancellor Rachel Reeves announces billions in cuts to disabled people’s support?

    Labour corporate welfare for Rolls-Royce

    In the 2023/24 year, government subsidies to corporations totaled £32 billion. The year before, they were £53 billion because gas inflation not only increased bills but also the government increased corporate handouts to profiteering fossil fuel companies. And now Starmer has announced a further £22 billion bung to the fossil fuel sector for carbon capture projects that don’t work.

    Add in Rolls-Royce and its potential subsidy, and the situation is ridiculous.

    Energy isn’t the only privatised sector where we’re paying twice. 2023/24 government subsidies to the railway industry totaled £23 billion. When you take a train, remember you already paid for some of the ticket. Labour is bringing the operating network for rail into public ownership, but it is leaving the trains themselves privatised. That means we will still be renting the actual trains from the private sector as it milks us dry.

    The ‘rolling stock’ companies that hoard the trains have paid dividends to shareholders at £3.6 billion since 2014/2015, according to research from We Own It.

    Sustainability and aircraft

    One positive thing is that Rolls-Royce is committed to making its engines compatible with Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), which can reduce carbon emissions by up to 80%. SAF production needs to dramatically increase to address climate change.

    The fuel could become cheaper than fossil fuels if production increases, but companies and the aviation industry are currently sleeping at the wheel. At present, one flight can emit as much Co2 as some people do in a whole year.

    Another facet to Rolls-Royce is that it makes engines for military aircraft, suppling 160 customers in 103 countries. Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) reports that arms total 32% of its sales.

    If Rolls-Royce wants people to publicly fund it, then it should operate as a not-for-profit. Meanwhile, it’s a no brainer than energy and rail should be fully publicly owned.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

  • Andrew Feinstein says ‘organising in our communities’ is vital to challenge UK’s money-driven politics

    Speaking in Southport recently, anti-racist and anti-militarist campaigner Andrew Feinstein insisted that “organising in our communities” is vital in order to challenge the fact that “there is just too much money in our politics”.

    Recently, Feinstein spoke at the launch event of Southport Community Independents, one of numerous locally-rooted and locally-focused groups that could eventually become the constituent parts of a new national party of the left. Standing in solidarity with other independent left-wingers in the 2024 election, he had challenged Labour Party leader Keir Starmer in his constituency, reducing Starmer’s majority significantly.

    Feinstein: how to challenge the corrupt “reality of how our politics now works”

    In his speech, Feinstein said:

    my MP [Starmer] is increasing defence spending by 13 and a half billion pounds a year from 2027 (and that’ll increase even further from 2030) while everything else is getting cut – our benefits, our public transport, our health service, our education. Why is he doing that? Well, I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the biggest donor to the Labour Party at this last election was an investment firm that gave them £4.4m and that is invested primarily in defence companies, whose shares have skyrocketed the moment that announcement was made, because that is the reality of how our politics now works.

    And he added:

    the way we are going to change it together is by doing exactly what you are doing, by organising in our communities

    That’s why, he explained, he is helping to build the Camden Community Independents and the Camden Community Alliance:

    We are going to ensure, as a community, that we make life easier day-to-day for ourselves. And when it comes to elections, we are going to stand against the Labour Party, the Tory party, and whatever Nigel Farage is calling his party next week. And why are we standing against them? Because they are all a part of the problem and in no way a part of the solution. Because the solutions lie with us in our communities. And in that way, we are going to make our communities better, we are going to make our country better, and we’re going to make the world better.

    Community organising in the fight against apartheid in South Africa

    Feinstein also linked the struggle now to his “own political history in South Africa” with the African National Congress (ANC), saying:

    how we eventually succeeded, at least partially, in that struggle was by organising locally. Across South Africa, in every township and squatter settlement, we had street committees. Every single street was organised. And in communities that didn’t lend themselves to that sort of organisation, we had what we described as rolling house meetings. So I would get a friend to invite 12 other friends to come round for a meal. And one of us from the ANC would be there to talk to them. And then the people around the table who liked what they heard would go and do the same thing, and so we created wave after wave.

    What were we doing? We were talking to each other. We were talking to each other about the issues that faced us as communities and what we as communities were going to do about it. For many of us in South Africa, we landed up in parliament as a surprise. None of us ever expected to be formal politicians.

    And he shared an anecdote about Nelson Mandela, who told his fellow MPs:

    The moment you think you are more important than the people who sent you, than the people who pay your salary, than the people you are here to represent, is the moment that you are of no value to your community.

    That’s why, Feinstein insisted, political representatives should be:

    people from our communities who are amongst us representing us not because they’re better than us or smarter than us, but because they are of us

    We need dozens and hundreds of Southports

    Feinstein praised Southport Community Independents for organising to build a new way of doing politics, and he stressed:

    You are going to shine a light for the rest of the country

    The reason, he said, is:

    It really is so vital for communities all over the country to see this sort of organisation taking place. Because, frankly, and I’ll ask you to excuse my language, this country and the people who run it are a shitshow.

    Apart from organising locally and supporting others around the country who are organising, Feinstein is currently raising funds to publish a book that exposes and challenges the:

    unholy alliance of money, power, and violence [that] has been trying to convince the world that every war is the last war for peace, every civilian death is necessary collateral in the pursuit of human rights, and every weapon sold is bought to make us safe.

    Bribery and impunity, he has insisted, allow the war machine to keep on raking in money at the expense of humanity, systemically undermining so-called democracies like the UK in the process. And that’s why basing the resistance in community organising, with ordinary people living locally at the forefront, is so essential.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The UK government is repeating its colonial crimes in Yemen – as ongoing evidence shows

    Britain’s crony government may only be a junior partner to US imperialism nowadays, but its participation in mass murder and destruction in Gaza and Yemen show once and for all that British imperial crimes didn’t stop in the 20th century. And it’s not about ‘keeping people safe’ in the UK. In fact, there are many reasons to believe Britain’s out-of-control military-government love-in actually makes us less safe.

    Much of our focus is rightly on the UK government’s complicity in Israel’s genocidal assault on occupied Gaza since 2023, but there is also a long history of British tyranny in Yemen. And this has come into focus yet again with Britain’s involvement in the escalating bombing of anti-genocide forces there in recent weeks.

    There are a number of important groups and individuals that are fighting to expose the immense, corrupting power that the arms trade has over Britain’s political system, and how people around the world – including in the UK – suffer as a result. Below is some vital context – both new and old – to inform us as we fight back.

    UK was key in Yemen’s humanitarian catastrophe

    Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has just released its “Trends in UK arms exports in 2023” report. And it reminded us that, “despite overwhelming evidence of war crimes”, the British government allowed the UK arms industry to remain “central to the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen” that devastated the country from 2015 to 2022 (when a truce took hold). Britain ignored “the clear risks to civilian life and international law” in Yemen, paving the way for it to do the same with Israel’s extermination campaign in Gaza from 2023 onwards. But perhaps even more than with the Gaza genocide, “the UK bears significant responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen”.

    The Saudi war on Yemen had killed around 377,000 people directly or indirectly by late 2021. And following the 2022 truce, 21.6 million people (about half of them children) still needed aid. (The cessation of hostilities, meanwhile, helped to significantly reduce tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023, which was not a pleasing development for Israeli-US-UK interests in the Middle East.)

    The revolving door between arms companies and government enabled Yemen’s decimation

    BAE Systems – the “biggest UK arms company” – has no interest in human rights, as we can see from its heavy involvement with authoritarian regimes. It’s been very close to Saudi Arabia since the 1980s, for example, and it enabled the Saudi decimation of Yemen from 2015 onwards. Its “close ties with the UK government” helped to ensure there was no accountability, though. As CAAT pointed out, many BAE exports “take place under open licences, making them nearly impossible to scrutinise”. This is the case with “as much as half of the UK’s arms exports” (including those of key parts for Israel’s F-35 jets of destruction).

    BAE, in short, “profits from war and repression, often with the tacit or explicit support of UK government policy”. And that’s no wonder, considering:

    BAE personnel have been seconded into government departments, while former officials move easily into BAE and other defence firms — blurring the lines between public interest and corporate profit.

    CAAT insisted that:

    The revolving door between government and arms companies undermines efforts to apply ethical standards in arms exports.

    It’s perhaps no surprise to hear, then, that:

    The UK signed £14.5 billion of arms export contracts in 2023 alone — the second-highest annual total on record.

    The increasing militarisation of Europe amid the artificial extension of the Ukraine proxy war, meanwhile, also served the arms profiteers well – but “with long-term implications for peace and security”.

    Documenting Britain’s role in Yemen’s bloodshed

    Unredacted has added to the focus on Yemen recently with the release of a project that:

    brings together a large collection of documents relating to US-UK military and political involvement in the Yemen war, primarily through its support for the Saudi-led coalition.

    It explains that:

    Many of these documents shed light on the impact of the war on Yemeni civilians, UK military training of the Royal Saudi Air Force, the history of UK military relations with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, the legal challenge by Campaign Against Arms Trade in relation to UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia, and decision-making within government about the implementation of UK arms export rules.

    To accompany this, Middle East Eye published an article highlighting Britain’s response to the ‘Great Hall Massacre’ in Yemen, which caused the US to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia. UK officials ignored the warnings and kept arms flowing – as a foreign office whistleblower had previously exposed. The UK government then tried to prevent journalists and academics from getting their hands on information about what happened. The understaffing and ineffectiveness of the parliamentary committee responsible for arms export oversight (CAEC), meanwhile, didn’t help matters.

    Politicians’ behaviour regarding the Saudi destruction of Yemen, and their ability to get away with it, then paved the way for the same to happen with Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Again, the government officials ignored warnings and kept arms flowing, with the help of political pressure, bureaucratic evasion, and legal manipulation. They did this in full disrespect of arms export laws and human rights, and in full submission to corporate and imperial interests.

    The current bombing of Yemen on behalf of Israel’s genocide

    These efforts to highlight the destructive impact of the toxic alliance of arms companies and corrupt politicians are all the more important considering Britain’s ongoing support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and for US attacks on Yemen to try and stop its solidarity with Gaza. They also remind us of the long history of British crimes in Yemen.

    Britain occupied part of Yemen in 1839, using it as a colonial stopover on the way to and from India. The port city of Aden even “became the main British base for her Far and Middle East interests… after the loss of the Suez Canal” In 1956. But as the struggle for freedom advanced in the 1960s, Britain used “increasingly ruthless repressive measures” to try and suppress local resistance. The “harsh and often indiscriminate” repression failed, though, and British forces left in 1967.

    In the 60s, Britain backed “shifty, unreliable and treacherous” forces in Yemen and used violent, covert tactics to impede development and protect its colonial occupation. “As many as 200,000” people may have died during this period.

    Then, a turbulent post-colonial period of dictatorships kept many Yemeni people in poverty. A useless, corrupt dictator who opportunistically served US interests faced a revolution in 2011, and then Saudi Arabia’s brutal and pointless bombing campaign only worsened the situation for ordinary people.

    Britain is “well aware of the complexities of Yemeni resistance”, as Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) has pointed out. Yet it “now risks repeating the mistakes of the past”.

    IT’S. ALL. ABOUT. THE. MONEY.

    Why would Britain increase its involvement in what the mainstream media once called “the next Afghanistan”? Why would it enter a quagmire that does not serve the interests of ordinary people in the UK? As AOAV said:

    Britain’s deep entanglement in the security industry… reflects a dangerous fusion of state interests with private defence profits.

    The country’s “deep economic and strategic ties with the Gulf“ dictatorships, meanwhile, also play a key role. British corporations want profit – and oil and arms are great ways to make money for unscrupulous, unethical actors.

    However, AOAV insisted:

    by launching airstrikes and closely aligning itself with the US and Israel, the UK risks reinforcing the very instability it claims to oppose.

    Why? Because involvement in Yemen:

    entrenches [Britain] deeper in a widening regional conflict—one that strengthens narratives of Western aggression and increases the likelihood of further retaliation.

    If the money keeps flowing, though, the corporate-government alliance is happy.

    The fightback against politicians’ destructive lies

    Death and destruction are not necessary. And one voice consistently challenging the war machine is Andrew Feinstein. Standing in solidarity with other independent left-wingers in the 2024 election, the anti-racist and anti-militarist campaigner challenged Labour Party leader Keir Starmer in his constituency, reducing Starmer’s majority significantly.

    Feinstein and his colleagues have been raising funds to publish a book that opposes the:

    unholy alliance of money, power, and violence [that] has been trying to convince the world that every war is the last war for peace, every civilian death is necessary collateral in the pursuit of human rights, and every weapon sold is bought to make us safe.

    They seek to show how:

    the ongoing slaughter in Gaza and Yemen have exposed this rhetoric as lies.

    Feinstein has previously called the arms racket “the world’s most corrupt trade”, saying “it accounts for around 40% of all corruption in all global trade”. And this is because of “a veil of national-security-imposed secrecy” which allows:

    politicians, corporate executives, military leaders, intelligence leaders [to] do things on arms deals that they wouldn’t do in any other sector because they just wouldn’t get away with it.

    As a result of bribery and impunity, the war machine keeps on raking in money at the expense of humanity, systemically undermining so-called democracies like the UK in the process.

    Fortunately, groups and individuals like CAAT, Unredacted, AOAV, and Feinstein are helping to expose the war machine’s powerful grip on British politics, and the way people in Yemen, Gaza, Britain, and elsewhere suffer as a result. Because by truly understanding this situation, we can unite to fight back.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Donald Trump just shot HIMSELF in the foot with his ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs

    US president Donald Trump has imposed sweeping tariffs on countries around the world. But in doing this, Trump is raising the import prices for some of the largest US companies. Predictably, they’ve dropped in the market. What’s more, the US president himself owns shares in some of the companies.

    While we have the world’s smallest violin for these huge companies, is this what Trump wants?

    Trump tariffs backfiring – majorly

    Take Apple. The trillion pound company has supply and manufacturing chains all around the world, including in China, India, Vietnam and Taiwan. And Trump hit all these countries with tariffs: China at 54%, India at 27%, Vietnam at 46% and Taiwan at 32%. Import tariffs such as these have resulted in Apple’s share prices dropping 9%, wiping £191 billion from its value. The US president owns shares in Apple worth £382,000.

    Analysts at Rosenblatt Securities said Apple could raise iPhone prices by 43% because of the tariffs. That’s if they pass the costs on to consumers, despite Apple making net profit of £72 billion in 2024.

    The tariffs have also impacted retail giants such as Amazon, Walmart and Target. All of these companies saw a share drop of more than 10% in March.

    Trump is going further than his trade wars in his last administration. Everyone knows how damaging it is to American companies themselves (and say US farmers who are then hit with retaliatory tariffs). So the policies may not result in good faith favourable trade deals for the US. This is not a surprise from Trump who has bankrupted six of his own businesses.

    Indeed, China responded:

    There is no winner in a trade war, and there is no way out for protectionism

    As the second largest economy, the country has promised countermeasures.

    In response to all this, the UK could look to forge new relationships with other nations in order to provide an effective response to Trump’s tariffs. The US president imposed tariffs of 10% on UK imports. And business secretary Jonathan Reynolds told MPs that the Britain could retaliate with its own tariffs.

    But with Keir Starmer acting as a midwife to the far right through ushering in Nigel Farage and Reform in the UK, it’s unlikely they will properly stand up to Trump.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • DWP will NOT scrap the two-child benefit cap – and Kendall goes behind a PAYWALL to reveal it

    In a recent interview with iNews, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) boss Liz Kendall doubled down on the Labour Party’s refusal to commit to scrapping the controversial two-child benefit cap—despite conceding the dire toll it has taken on children and families.

    Her statements, cloaked in promises of future action, reveal a troubling unwillingness to address one of the UK’s most harmful DWP policies. Moreover, it comes just as the government is set to throw even more children into poverty with its cuts to welfare.

    The DWP two-child benefit cap: the most cruel of policies

    Kendall declared “child poverty will be going down,” and admitted it would be a “personal failure” if poverty levels rise under her tenure.

    Yet these assertions ring hollow when set against her refusal to abolish a DWP policy directly linked to rising deprivation. The two-child benefit limit, introduced under David Cameron’s coalition government, prevents families on DWP Universal Credit or Tax Credits from claiming additional support for a third or subsequent child. It disproportionately penalises larger families, often already living in hardship, and drives many deeper into poverty.

    Kendall insisted:

    Our whole approach is to say we will only make promises if we show we can afford it and how we’re going to commit to them. I’m not into a wing and a prayer, I’m into solid action. People deserve that and you’ll just have to wait until we publish our child poverty strategy.

    However, this financial caution fails to grapple with the ethical and economic cost of child poverty. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), lifting the cap would raise 540,000 children above the absolute poverty line at a cost to the DWP of £2.5 billion annually.

    That cost pales in comparison to the long-term societal and fiscal costs of poverty-related outcomes: poor health, lower educational attainment, and reduced lifetime earnings.

    An admission of guilt

    Kendall’s defensive stance is all the more galling given her own acknowledgment of the cap’s devastating consequences.

    She told iNews:

    I’ve seen the impact in Leicester that it’s had – that and a whole series of things – on child poverty. I’ve got one in three kids in my constituency growing up poor, and the lifelong consequences of that are unacceptable. It is one of the reasons I came into politics.

    Yet even this deeply personal framing did not translate into policy commitment.

    Her additional assertion—“I campaigned my whole life to give children an equal start, and that is what I’m determined to deliver on”—feels disingenuous when weighed against the current DWP trajectory.

    Recent welfare cuts, also spearheaded by Kendall, are expected to push an additional 50,000 children into poverty. However, even this figure is not accurate, as it’s from the DWP itself – and it likely to be far higher.

    Blah, blah, blah

    Her defence that a £1bn employment support package “is absolutely designed to give people an opportunity and a pathway out of poverty” does little to allay concerns, especially when the direct benefits of removing the DWP two-child limit are so clearly measurable.

    Moreover, the decision to grant iNews an exclusive interview—on a site that places content behind a paywall—raises questions about transparency and accessibility.

    Low-income families most affected by these DWP policies are the least likely to have access to such subscription-based media. If Kendall is sincere in her claim that “people deserve” solid action, the messaging—and more importantly, the decision—should be available to all.

    The DWP’s vague line that the cap will be lifted “when the economic situation allows” is equally unconvincing. After nearly a decade of economic damage inflicted on families through austerity, this indefinite postponement seems less like fiscal responsibility and more like political cowardice.

    The DWP two-child benefit cap: regressive and cruel in the extreme

    The two-child limit is not only cruel, it is inefficient and self-defeating. It punishes children for the size of their families, undermines efforts to reduce child poverty, and exacerbates inequality. That Labour refuses to commit to reversing it, despite prior opposition and overwhelming evidence of harm, is a betrayal of its own values.

    Liz Kendall may talk about “solid action” and “equal starts,” but until she commits to lifting this regressive DWP cap, her words are just that: talk.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • NZ’s refreshingly candid ex-envoy Phil Goff – why I spoke out on Trump

    Now that Phil Goff has ended his term as New Zealand’s High Commissioner to the UK, he is officially free to speak his mind on the damage he believes the Trump Administration is doing to the world. He has started with these comments he made on the betrayal of Ukraine by the new Administration.

    By Phil Goff

    Like many others, I was appalled and astounded by the dishonest comments made about the situation in Ukraine by the Trump Administration.

    As one untruthful statement followed another like something out of a George Orwell novel, I increasingly felt that the lies needed to be called out.

    I found it bizarre to hear President Trump publicly label Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator. Everyone knew that Zelenskyy had been democratically elected and while Trump claimed his support in the polls had fallen to 4 percent it was pointed out that his actual support was around 57 percent.

    Phil Goff speaking as Auckland's mayor in 2017 on the nuclear world 30 years on
    Phil Goff speaking as Auckland’s mayor in 2017 on the nuclear world 30 years on . . . on the right side of history. Image: Pacific Media Centre

    Trump made no similar remarks or criticism of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and never does. Yet Putin’s regime imprisons and murders his opponents and suppresses democratic rights in Russia.

    Then Trump made the patently false accusation that Ukraine started the war with Russia. How could he make such a claim when the world had witnessed Russia as the aggressor which invaded its smaller neighbour, killing thousands of civilians, committing war crimes and destroying cities and infrastructure?

    That President Trump could lie so blatantly is perhaps explained by his taking offence at Zelenskyy’s refusal to comply with unreasonable and self-serving demands such as ceding control of Ukraine’s mineral wealth to the US. What was also clear was that Trump was intent on pressuring Ukraine to capitulate to Russian demands for a one sided “peace settlement” which would result in neither a fair nor sustainable peace.

    It is astonishing that the US voted with Russia and North Korea in the United Nations against Ukraine and in opposition to the views of democratic countries the US is normally aligned with, including New Zealand.

    Withdrew satellite imaging
    It then withdrew satellite imaging services Ukraine needed for its self defence in an attempt to further pressure Zelenskyy to agree to a ceasefire. No equivalent pressure has yet been placed on Russia even while it has continued its illegal attacks on Ukraine.

    Trump and Vance’s disgraceful bullying of Zelenskyy in the White House as he struggled in his third language to explain the plight of his nation was as remarkable as it was appalling.
    What Trump was doing and saying was wrong and a betrayal of Ukraine’s struggle to defend its freedom and nationhood.

    Democratic leaders around the world knew his comments to be unfair and untrue, yet few countries have dared to criticise Trump for making them.

    Like the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, everyone knew that the emperor had no clothes but were fearful of the consequences of speaking out to tell the truth.

    As New Zealand’s High Commissioner to the UK, I had on a number of occasions met and talked with Ukrainian soldiers being trained by New Zealanders in Britain. It was an emotionally intense experience knowing that many of the men I met with would soon face death on the front line defending their country’s freedom and nationhood.

    They were extremely grateful of New Zealand’s unwavering support. Yet the Trump Administration seemed to care little for that country’s cause and sacrifice in defending the values that a few months earlier had seemed so important to the United States.

    The diplomatic community in London privately shared their dismay at Trump’s treatment of Ukraine. The spouse of one of my High Commissioner colleagues who had been a teacher drew a parallel with what she had witnessed in the playground. The bully would abuse a victim while all the other kids looked on and were too intimidated to intervene. The majority thus became the enablers of the bully’s actions.

    Silence condoning Trump
    By saying nothing, New Zealand — and many other countries — was effectively condoning and being complicit in what Trump was doing.

    It was in this context, at the Chatham House meeting, that I asked a serious and important question about whether President Trump understood the lessons of history. It was a question on the minds of many. I framed it using language that was reasonable.

    The lesson of history, going back to the Munich Conference in 1938, when British Prime Minister Chamberlain and his French counterpart Daladier ceded the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, was clear.

    Far from satisfying or placating an aggressor, appeasement only increases their demands. That’s always the case with bullies. They respect strength, not weakness.

    Czechoslovakia could have been part of the Allied defence against Hitler’s expansionism but instead it and the Czech armaments industry was passed over to Hitler. He went on to take over the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland.

    As Churchill told Chamberlain, “You had the choice between dishonour and war. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”

    The question needed to be asked because Trump was using talking points which followed closely those used by the Kremlin itself and was clearly setting out to appease and favour Russia.

    A career diplomat, trained as a public servant to be cautious, might have not have asked it. I was appointed, with bipartisan support, not as a career diplomat but on the basis of political experience including nine years as Foreign, Trade and Defence Minister.

    Question central to validity, ethics
    “The question is central to the validity as well as the ethics of the United States’ approach to Ukraine. It is also a question that trusted allies, who have made sacrifices for and with each other over the past century, have a right and duty to ask.

    The New Zealand Foreign Minister’s response was that the question did not reflect the view of New Zealand’s Government and that asking it made my position as High Commissioner untenable.

    The minister had the prerogative to take the action he did and I am not complaining about that for one moment. For my part, I do not regret asking the question which thanks to the minister’s response subsequently received international attention.

    Over the decades New Zealand has earned the respect of the world, from allies and opponents alike, for honestly standing up for the values our country holds dear. The things we are proudest of as a nation in the positions we have taken internationally include our role as one of the founding states of the United Nations in promoting a rules-based international system including our opposition to powerful states exercising a veto.

    They include opposing apartheid in South Africa and French nuclear testing in the Pacific. We did not abandon our nuclear free policy to US pressure.

    In wars and in peacekeeping we have been there when it counted and have made sacrifices disproportionate to our size.

    We have never been afraid to challenge aggressors or to ask questions of our allies. In asking a question about President Trump’s position on Ukraine I am content that my actions will be on the right side of history.

    Phil Goff, CNZM, is a New Zealand retired politician and former diplomat. He served as leader of the Labour Party and leader of the Opposition between 11 November 2008 and 13 December 2011. Goff was elected mayor of Auckland in 2016, and served two terms, before retiring in 2022. In 2023, he took up a diplomatic post as High Commissioner of New Zealand to the United Kingdom, which he held until last month when he was sacked by Foreign Minister Winston Peters over his “untenable” comments.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Labour is still spending 20% of the foreign aid budget in the UK – despite all its ‘pledges’

    On Thursday 3 April the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) published its provisional statistics on how UK aid was spent in 2024. It shows that the UK continues to spend 20% of the foreign aid budget on asylum seeker costs in this country – despite the Labour Party government’s planned cuts to the budget.

    Foreign aid budget: still being spent domestically

    This annual publication provides an overview of the provisional UK aid spend in the calendar year 2024 and has revealed that the UK spent £2.8 billion Official Development Assistance (ODA) on costs associated with asylum seekers in the UK in 2024 (20.1% of total ODA), compared with £4.3 billion (27.9% of total ODA) in 2023 and £3.7 billion in 2022.

    The UK’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) dropped from £15.34bn (0.58% of GNI) in 2023 to £14.07bn (0.5% of GNI) in 2024.

    The statistics also reveal that the Home Office spent £2,384million of the UK aid budget in 2024 (17%), £2,954million in 2023 (19.3%), while in 2022 this was at £2,397million (18.7%). This is a decrease of 19.3%. While this is a decrease from the all-time high of 2023, Home Office spending for 2024 is barely a change compared to 2022.

    Bilateral spending saw an increase of 12.6% from £10bn in 2023 to £11.3bn in 2024 – making up 80.1% of total ODA in 2024. Region-specific spending saw a 35% increase from £2.1bn in 2023 to £2.87bn in 2024. This included:

    • Regional-specific bilateral ODA to Africa in 2024 was at £1.48bn, an increase of 41% from £1.05bn in 2023
    • Regional specific bilateral ODA to Americas was £85million – a 14% decrease from £100million in 2023
    • Regional specific bilateral ODA to Asia was £1.04bn in 2024, a 48% increase from £705million in 2023.
    • Regional-specific bilateral ODA to Europe was £217million in 2024, a 15% decrease from £257million in 2023.
    • Regional-specific bilateral ODA to Pacific was £45million, a 844% increase from £5million in 2023.

    “Unsustainable”

    Meanwhile, Humanitarian Assistance was £1.4bn in 2024, a 60.5% increase from £882million in 2023.

    However, multilateral spending has seen a sharp decrease by 47.5%, from £5.3bn in 2023 to £2.8bn in 2024 – its share of total ODA is only 19.9%. The only time since SID data from 2009 that the UK multilateral spending was less than 30% of total ODA was in 2022 (24.6%).

    Gideon Rabinowitz, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Bond, the UK network for organisations working in international development and humanitarian assistance, said:

    We welcome the reduction in the amount of UK aid spent domestically on asylum costs, but this figure remains far too high.

    As the government slashes the UK aid budget, continuing to spend £2.8 billion of UK aid in the UK on escalating asylum accommodation costs is unsustainable, poor value for money and comes at the expense of essential development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of insecurity and displacement. It is vital that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but this requires its own budget and the ending the use of expensive and inappropriate hotels as accommodation.

    At a time when the world is increasingly unstable, the government is abandoning marginalised communities and damaging its credibility as a reliable global partner. We urge them to rethink the cuts or at the very least ensure that the remaining limited budget is used for its intended purpose, to support communities in lower-income countries who face conflict, climate change, and poverty.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Hungary is STILL obliged to arrest Netanyahu – even if it withdraws from the ICC

    The International Centre for Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) has today written to the Hungarian minister of justice, Dr Bence Tuzson, regarding the protection of Israeli war crimes suspect Benjamin Netanyahu by Hungarian politicians, flouting their obligations as a State Party to the Rome Statute. ICJP is committed to challenging any actions by the Hungarian government that violate Hungary’s international legal obligations.

    Hungary harbouring a wanted war criminal

    Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán invited Netanyahu to visit Hungary only one day after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Israel’s defence minister Yoav Gallant, wanted for war crimes. The warrants, issued on 21 November 2024, include charges of Crimes Against Humanity of Murder, the War Crime of Starvation, and Persecution of Palestinian populations, citing Israel’s targeting of the civilian population of Gaza as part of a widespread and systematic government policy.

    As a State Party to the Rome Statute, Hungary is obliged to cooperate fully with the ICC. This includes enforcement of arrest warrants for individuals suspected of crimes under international law, including Netanyahu and Gallant.

    Under Article 86 of the Statute, Hungary is required to cooperate in good faith with the Court’s requests. Refusal to do so by Hungary would not only be a failure to uphold their obligations, but it would also undermine the very fabric of international justice.

    Hungary has now announced that it will withdraw from the ICC, but under Article 127 of the Statute, Hungary’s withdrawal will take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification.

    In the meantime, Hungary is still bound by its Third State obligations, and it is obligated to enforce the ICC’s arrest warrant.

    Netanyahu’s charges based on ‘credible’ evidence

    The ICC’s arrest warrants are based on credible investigations and legal findings, and are not subject to political discretion by State Parties. The principle of equality before the law is fundamental to both international law and the Hungarian constitutional order.

    The ICJP has called on all relevant Hungarian institutions—including the police, prosecution service, and judiciary—to fulfil their duties with independence and integrity, and to resist any political pressure that would undermine the fundamental principles of justice and accountability.

    It has also reiterated its commitment to challenging any actions by the Hungarian government that violate Hungary’s international or domestic legal obligations. The ICJP said it “remains committed to advocating for justice for the victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity and ensuring accountability for those responsible”.

    ICJP legal officer Zaki Sarraf said:

    Orbán’s decision to withdraw from the ICC on the same day as he rolls out the red carpet for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, a wanted war criminal by the ICC, is shameful.

    Netanyahu has led a ruthless genocidal campaign in Gaza, which continues to brutalise Palestinians today. Orbán’s decision to circumvent international law for the benefit of his relationship with Israel, a rogue, pariah state, sets a dangerous precedent.

    War criminals should not be provided with carte blanche and welcomed into states – accountability is necessary.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Asda is stooping to new lows to try and stop shoplifters – putting us all at risk

    In a move that epitomises corporate overreach and a blatant disregard for civil liberties, Asda has initiated a trial of live facial recognition technology in five of its Greater Manchester stores. This intrusive surveillance tactic not only infringes upon customer privacy but also sets a dangerous precedent for the normalisation of Orwellian monitoring in everyday life.

    Asda: intruding on all our privacy with its facial recognition

    Asda justifies this invasive measure by citing a rise in retail crime, reporting approximately 1,400 assaults on staff in the past year. While the safety of employees is undeniably important, resorting to mass surveillance is a disproportionate and ethically questionable response. Moreover, none of this addresses the root causes of shoplifting: poverty and capitalism.

    The approach by Asda punishes the vast majority of innocent shoppers for the actions of a few, treating every customer as a potential criminal under the unproven guise of deterrence.

    The implementation of facial recognition technology in public spaces raises profound ethical and legal concerns. The indiscriminate scanning of individuals’ faces without explicit consent is a gross violation of privacy rights.

    Moreover, the accuracy of such technology is highly questionable, with numerous studies highlighting significant biases and error rates, particularly affecting minority communities. Misidentifications can lead to unwarranted confrontations, humiliation, and potential legal consequences for innocent individuals.

    Blatant civil liberties violations

    Asda’s decision to integrate this technology into its existing CCTV network lacks transparency and public consultation.

    There is minimal information on how data will be stored, who will have access, and what measures are in place to prevent misuse. This opacity fuels concerns about data security and the potential for function creep, where surveillance tools are repurposed beyond their original intent without public knowledge or consent.

    Civil rights organisations and privacy advocates have rightly condemned Asda’s actions. Campaign group Big Brother Watch noted that:

    We are being regularly contacted by people who have been wrongly accused of being a shoplifter after facial recognition in a shop has got it wrong. We’ve supported dozens of people already – but this expansion will mean many more people will be impacted.

    It is running a campaign to stop Asda from rolling out facial recognition permanently. It wants people to:

    1. Copy and paste the text below onto your social media post.

    2. Save the image below to include in your post.

    3. Post the message.

    🚨 Will you STOP spying on customers with live facial recognition cameras @asda?

    I will no longer shop at #Asda supermarkets if you continue to use this rights-abusive surveillance tech.

    #StopAsdaSpying | @BigBrotherWatch

    Big Brother Watch noted the story of:

    Sara, a teenager who was falsely flagged by a facial recognition camera in Home Bargains.

    She was wrongly called a criminal whilst doing her shopping, searched, forced to leave the store and told she was banned from shops and supermarkets using this technology up and down the country.

    The shop admitted they got it wrong – but took no action to stop shoppers being scanned and falsely accused in future. They’re still using the live facial recognition cameras.

    Asda facial recognition must not be normalised

    The normalisation of facial recognition in retail settings paves the way for a surveillance state where individuals are constantly monitored and analysed. This not only erodes public trust but also chills free expression and movement, as people alter their behavior due to the omnipresence of surveillance.

    Asda’s trial of facial recognition technology is a reckless and unjustifiable assault on personal freedoms. The purported benefits do not outweigh the significant risks and ethical dilemmas posed by such invasive surveillance.

    It is imperative for consumers to voice their opposition to these measures and for regulatory bodies to scrutinise and restrict the use of facial recognition in public and commercial spaces. Privacy is a fundamental right, not a commodity to be sacrificed at the altar of corporate interests.

    Featured image and additional images via Big Brother Watch

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • EXCLUSIVE: Glasgow students ‘will not rest’ until university divests from Israel’s genocide

    Following an encampment and hunger strike, Glasgow University students “will continue to exhaust every form of protest until divestment is achieved”, according to one student who spoke to the Canary. This is despite University of Glasgow (UoG) management preferring to call the police and threaten students with suspension rather than end the institution’s complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

    For months, students have been protesting against the university’s £6.8m worth of shareholdings in arms companies complicit in Israeli war crimes, a situation that flies in the face of overwhelming opposition from students and staff. And one UoG student told us how resistance to the institution’s position will only continue to grow.

    Massive support for divestment at Glasgow University

    The student, whose name we will not reveal due to UoG attempts to punish students actively opposing genocide, said:

    Divestment has overwhelming support from Glasgow staff and students, including from the student-elected Palestinian Rector Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah, the staff unions (the University and College Union, and Unison), the QMU student union and the student representative council.

    UoG students overwhelmingly voted outspoken medical expert Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah rector of the university in 2024. He had made it clear that a vote for him would represent “opposition to Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza”, “pressure on the university to officially and unequivocally condemn” it, and a call for the institution to ‘cease its complicity’ in the genocide by divesting from the arms trade.

    Two decades earlier, UoG students had voted whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu as rector. Vanunu had spent 18 years in prison, and 11 of those in solitary confinement, “for revealing Israel’s nuclear weapons programme”.

    Another significant show of support for divestment also happened last week. As the student explained:

    A high point of the encampment came when the result of the SRC referendum, which took place during the week of camp, was announced. The referendum asked whether the university should cease investments in companies that derive more than 10% of their revenue from arms. The referendum received a record high turnout – a massive 8,668 students voted ‘Yes’ which amounted to 89.3% of students who voted.

    Senior management’s continued refusal to end its complicity is in clear opposition to its students and staff. Yet, management continues to ignore the voices of their students and staff who have time and time again spoken up for the past 15 months in favour of divestment. Divestment is inevitable. And when Glasgow university does divest it will be over 500 days too late.

    UoG’s stubborn support for genocide is making student escalation necessary

    The student added that the week-long encampment was “a part of our continued escalation on campus, in the face of increased repression from management”, saying:

    UoG management have called police to campus 4 times in the past 2 weeks. Police have repeatedly threatened to arrest peaceful student protesters

    The hunger strike, meanwhile, “lasted for 10 days” and “was an extreme and vital escalation which was taken to highlight the urgency of divestment”. With 15 students taking part, it:

    was necessary in order to show management the commitment of their students to divestment and the fight for Palestinian liberation- the students literally put their lives on the line.

    The university didn’t blink. But as the student told us:

    the students will never be deterred, we will continue to exhaust every form of protest until divestment is achieved.

    And with the encampment, they said, anti-genocide protesters were able to “engage with the wider student and staff body and grow our movement”. They added:

    Through political education and community events we are walking out stronger, ready to continue escalation until victory is written.

    They also stressed that:

    The solidarity and support shown to the camp has been overwhelming – HUNDREDS of people came to donate food, camping gear and supplies, came to play instruments and give talks, and offer their help and support. We are so grateful to the community.

    The struggle continues at Glasgow University

    The student explained that, following on from last week’s camp:

    We’ve started this week by making sure those attending the university’s offer holders open day are fully informed about this university’s complicity in genocide, by disrupting welcome talks and marching through campus. Once again police were called.

    They also told us that management banned another student from campus on 2 April “on a precautionary basis with immediate effect, pending further investigation of the matter” following disruption of the 1 April open day. This student faces accusations of “chanting and speaking at open day engineering and physics talks”.

    The recent escalation in police involvement, meanwhile, follows on from previous threats from the powers that be:

    The university has threatened student protesters with disciplinary action, but we will not stop. We will not rest. On the 23rd of October 2024 students received an email threatening disciplinary action after holding banners and chanting at a STEM careers fair, where BAE systems and other complicit companies had been invited to recruit graduates.

    A month later, on the 27th of November, students held a hard picket of the Rankine engineering building to draw attention to the research partnerships between our engineering department and arms companies. Shortly after, deputy vice chancellor, David Duncan, targeted 2 students, privately sending them threatening emails alleging they were present at the picket – with zero evidence – and stating that participation in further student action will lead to “sanction, up to and including suspension of studies.”

    UoG threats and fines will not deter students

    The student also pointed out that:

    Less than a week ago, a student was fined £2800 for spraying red paint over a university building using fire extinguishers to demand the university divests from arms companies and UK government impose a complete trade embargo on Israel, including arms sales.

    Hannah Taylor, the person facing a fine for spraying paint, had taken action because the institution had “blatantly ignored the will of the majority of its students and staff”. She told the Canary previously that UoG management’s harsh treatment of her was an attempt “to deter further protest”. As she later explained in a crowdfunder, however, “Student Conduct team have since agreed to allow me back on campus to complete my degree if I pay half the damages of the cleaning”. And thanks to a large number of small donations, she very quickly reached her target.

    The UoG student involved in the encampment also insisted that the power of solidarity will not fade, telling us:

    We will not be deterred by management’s repression. We do not get to choose whether to act when every single university in Gaza has been bombed and over 12,000 students have been killed and will never graduate. We do not get to choose whether to act when Gaza is home to the largest number of amputee children in modern history, when more than 10 children a day have lost one or both of their legs, many without anaesthetic and some as young a one-year-old babies. It is an obligation to act during Genocide.

    They added:

    If people want to support us, they can send emails to UoG management in support of divestment and in opposition to police on campus and threats to students and follow us on insta at GU_JPS to keep up to date with latest actions.

    Featured image supplied

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with US hit hardest

    ANALYSIS: By Niven Winchester, Auckland University of Technology

    We now have a clearer picture of Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and how they will affect other trading nations, including the United States itself.

    The US administration claims these tariffs on imports will reduce the US trade deficit and address what it views as unfair and non-reciprocal trade practices. Trump said this would

    forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed.

    The “reciprocal” tariffs are designed to impose charges on other countries equivalent to half the costs they supposedly inflict on US exporters through tariffs, currency manipulation and non-tariff barriers levied on US goods.

    Each nation received a tariff number that will apply to most goods. Notable sectors exempt include steel, aluminium and motor vehicles, which are already subject to new tariffs.

    The minimum baseline tariff for each country is 10 percent. But many countries received higher numbers, including Vietnam (46 percent), Thailand (36 percent), China (34 percent), Indonesia (32 percent), Taiwan (32 percent) and Switzerland (31 percent).

    The tariff number for China is in addition to an existing 20 percent tariff, so the total tariff applied to Chinese imports is 54 percent. Countries assigned 10 percent tariffs include Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

    Canada and Mexico are exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, for now, but goods from those nations are subject to a 25 percent tariff under a separate executive order.

    Although some countries do charge higher tariffs on US goods than the US imposes on their exports, and the “Liberation Day” tariffs are allegedly only half the full reciprocal rate, the calculations behind them are open to challenge.

    For example, non-tariff measures are notoriously difficult to estimate and “subject to much uncertainty”, according to one recent study.

    GDP impacts with retaliation
    Other countries are now likely to respond with retaliatory tariffs on US imports. Canada (the largest destination for US exports), the EU and China have all said they will respond in kind.

    To estimate the impacts of this tit-for-tat trade standoff, I use a global model of the production, trade and consumption of goods and services. Similar simulation tools — known as “computable general equilibrium models” — are widely used by governments, academics and consultancies to evaluate policy changes.

    The first model simulates a scenario in which the US imposes reciprocal and other new tariffs, and other countries respond with equivalent tariffs on US goods. Estimated changes in GDP due to US reciprocal tariffs and retaliatory tariffs by other nations are shown in the table below.

    The tariffs decrease US GDP by US$438.4 billion (1.45 percent). Divided among the nation’s 126 million households, GDP per household decreases by $3,487 per year. That is larger than the corresponding decreases in any other country. (All figures are in US dollars.)

    Proportional GDP decreases are largest in Mexico (2.24 percent) and Canada (1.65 percent) as these nations ship more than 75 percent of their exports to the US. Mexican households are worse off by $1,192 per year and Canadian households by $2,467.

    Other nations that experience relatively large decreases in GDP include Vietnam (0.99 percent) and Switzerland (0.32 percent).

    Some nations gain from the trade war. Typically, these face relatively low US tariffs (and consequently also impose relatively low tariffs on US goods). New Zealand (0.29 percent) and Brazil (0.28 percent) experience the largest increases in GDP. New Zealand households are better off by $397 per year.

    Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world (all nations except the US) decreases by $62 billion.

    At the global level, GDP decreases by $500 billion (0.43 percent). This result confirms the well-known rule that trade wars shrink the global economy.

    GDP impacts without retaliation
    In the second scenario, the modelling depicts what happens if other nations do not react to the US tariffs. The changes in the GDP of selected countries are presented in the table below.

    Countries that face relatively high US tariffs and ship a large proportion of their exports to the US experience the largest proportional decreases in GDP. These include Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, Switzerland, South Korea and China.

    Countries that face relatively low new tariffs gain, with the UK experiencing the largest GDP increase.

    The tariffs decrease US GDP by $149 billion (0.49 percent) because the tariffs increase production costs and consumer prices in the US.

    Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world decreases by $155 billion, more than twice the corresponding decrease when there was retaliation. This indicates that the rest of the world can reduce losses by retaliating. At the same time, retaliation leads to a worse outcome for the US.

    Previous tariff announcements by the Trump administration dropped sand into the cogs of international trade. The reciprocal tariffs throw a spanner into the works. Ultimately, the US may face the largest damages.The Conversation

    Dr Niven Winchester is professor of economics, Auckland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The DWP has been caught lying about how many people claim sickness on Universal Credit

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has once again been caught red-handed, disseminating grossly misleading information to the public. In a damning rebuke, the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) compelled the DWP to retract its inflated claim of a 383% surge in Universal Credit claimants deemed too ill to work—a figure that, in reality, stands at a mere 50% increase.

    This blatant manipulation of statistics is not just a minor oversight; it is emblematic of a department that consistently prioritises political agendas over the well-being of the very people it purports to serve – as the DWP’s actions have repeatedly shown.

    The DWP: lying about Universal Credit

    As the Big Issue reported, the DWP and Labour Party government have been manipulating the public, and the media, over how many people claim Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity (LCWRA) under Universal Credit. It noted that:

    The statistics regulator said the DWP had inflated the rise in the number of people considered too sick to look for work when it said there had been a 383% increase in less than five years.

    OSR said the government department had counted people who had migrated from legacy benefits. The true figure is in fact a 50% increase.

    This staggering lie from the DWP has been used as propaganda by the government to justify its cruel cuts to Universal Credit.

    As the Canary previously reported, the DWP under Labour is changing the eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payment (PIP). It is also freezing chronically ill and disabled people’s Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity (LCWRA) elements of Universal Credit, at £97 a week – and reduced them to £47 a week for new claimants – with only people with the most severe conditions able to apply for LCWRA. People under the age of 22 will no longer be able to claim these top-ups under Universal Credit at all.

    Initially, the government had claimed that Reeves’ proposed DWP cuts would save them £5 billion. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has had to clarify that the savings will actually be £3.4 billion – hence the freeze in LCWRA rates.

    The OSR was stark in its verdict on the DWP. It noted that:

    The figure does not recognise that the majority of this increase is due to the process of migrating people from legacy benefits, such as employment and support allowance (ESA), to universal credit over the last few years. When these people are accounted for, the actual increase in the number of people claiming disability elements of universal credit is 50%.

    Rotten to the core

    Despite this, the DWP still showed contempt. As Big Issue reported:

    After initially being called out by the OSR, which is the UK’s independent monitor of official statistics, the DWP updated its press notice to reference people moving from other benefits. However, the reference to a 383% increase remained and the OSR has asked for it be removed by 4 April – almost a full month after the claim was first made.

    That is, the DWP dragged its heels to continue to manipulate the public in order to prop-up the government’s cuts.

    Of course, the corporate media cannot be trusted to call the DWP’s lying and manipulation out for what it is: lying and manipulation. This is how the story has been reported – with all the MSM focusing on what the OSR said:

    DWP Universal Credit LCWRA

    The DWP’s litany of failures – including this latest piece of statistical deceit – paints a grim picture of an institution that has lost its moral compass.

    The human cost of these systemic issues is immeasurable, with countless lives plunged into hardship and despair. It is imperative that the DWP undergoes a radical transformation, prioritsing transparency, compassion, and genuine support for the most vulnerable members of society.

    Anything less would be a continued betrayal of public trust and a perpetuation of unnecessary suffering.​

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The DWP forced a deaf claimant to have a PHONE interview for his PIP

    In a distressing turn of events, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has come under fire for its handling of benefit claim processes, particularly concerning deaf and disabled people. A profoundly deaf man seeking benefits found himself in a frustrating and discriminatory situation when the DWP scheduled a phone interview for his Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claim, despite his inability to engage in audio-only conversations.

    DWP phoning deaf claimants over their PIP???

    The man, who wishes to remain anonymous, suffers from Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and is nearly entirely deaf.

    His representative, James Merrell, who is a qualified nurse with a decade of experience and previously worked as a PIP assessor, shared the details of this case with the Daily Star. Merrell has been assisting the unnamed claimant with his application and is frustrated that the DWP has failed to accommodate his client’s needs.

    In a conversation with the Daily Star, Merrell detailed the significant barriers that deaf people like his client face when dealing with the DWP:

    The DWP’s decision to schedule a phone interview for them when they are profoundly deaf and registered deaf has put them at a significant disadvantage.

    Under the Equality Act 2010, it is paramount for government bodies to make reasonable adjustments for deaf and disabled people to avoid discrimination.

    Merrell continued:

    Being deaf, they rely heavily on lip-reading to communicate, and they face considerable barriers when it comes to telephone conversations.

    His assertion highlights a systemic oversight by the DWP that results in unnecessary hardship for claimants who rely on accessible communication methods. “It’s deeply concerning that this type of oversight continues to happen, especially when alternative methods such as video calls or face-to-face interviews are readily available,” he added.

    Not an isolated case

    This incident is not an isolated case. The boss of CWS Limited, a company that assists PIP claimants throughout the application process, echoed Merrell’s concerns:

    Unfortunately, this type of situation is not uncommon. Many individuals with various disabilities, whether physical, mental, or sensory, are regularly forced to navigate the system without the necessary adjustments.

    In other words, the DWP is systematically breaching its obligations under the Equality Act. Ask any claimant, and they’ll probably have a story of such an incident.

    One such example was documented by Disability Rights UK. It wrote:

    For more than two years, George and his carers begged DWP staff to communicate with him by phone, rather than through his online UC journal.

    Because of a neurological impairment, George experiences regular seizures, memory problems and “brain fog”, and has significant care needs, needing assistance with washing, dressing, eating, reading, writing, and completing paperwork.

    But DWP staff failed to put markers on his UC account to alert colleagues that he was a “vulnerable claimant” and that he needed reasonable adjustments to be made for him, after he registered a new claim in February 2020.

    When he lodged his claim, he was told – wrongly – that he could only make a claim digitally, rather than by telephone.

    He was only able to submit the online claim with the help of a Citizens Advice Bureau.

    On numerous occasions over the following months, his requests for support were ignored or refused.

    He made repeated attempts to complain about the discriminatory way he was being treated, but many of these complaints were never investigated.

    Claimants like the anonymous deaf man and George highlight the daily challenges faced by many in the crooked DWP system.

    The requirement for a phone interview in the deaf man’s case is seen as not just an inconvenience but indicative of a broader issue where the DWP ignores the needs of disabled people during critical processes.

    The comments from Merrell and CWS Limited’s representative bring to light the urgent need for the DWP to reassess and improve its protocols to ensure that disabled people can access services equitably.

    DWP: not fit for pur… oh, we’ve said it so many times

    The DWP has not provided comment or clarification regarding this situation and the apparent failings in accommodating the diverse needs of claimants. This silence raises questions about the accountability and responsiveness of the DWP in dealing with issues that significantly affect vulnerable people.

    The ongoing struggles of disabled people navigating the PIP application process seem to underscore a larger narrative of systemic shortcomings within the DWP. With claimants often left to fend for themselves amidst bureaucratic hurdles, the need for change is more pressing than ever. Yet Labour is not recognising this – instead putting cruel, callous, and potentially deadly cuts in place to disabled people’s support.

    It appears that until the DWP takes the necessary steps to implement truly inclusive practices, many will continue to suffer from the repercussions of a system designed in ignorance of their needs.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Keir Starmer wanting ‘Adolescence’ shown in schools is a disaster waiting to happen

    An open letter is warning the government of the dangers of screening Adolescence in UK schools and has amassed over 1000 signatures.

    Adolescence 

    Adolescence is a Netflix drama which Labour Party PM Keir Starmer has mischaracterised as a ‘documentary’ on multiple occasions.

    The open letter – penned by Jaimi Shrive and Dr Jessica Taylor of VictimFocus has so far gathered the support of a wide range of professionals across a multitude of sectors. It expresses:

    serious concern regarding the proposal to roll out Netflix’s Adolescence as an educational resource in secondary schools across the UK.

    The authors point out that whilst the drama may be a hard-hitting one, the creators did not design it as an educational resource. Using at is such, would create a whole host of ethical concerns.

    They highlight the potential for harm and re-traumatisation. They saw this previously when schools showed similar films about child exploitation.

    A previous VictimFocus campaign #NoMoreCSEFilms highlighted the increase in traumatic responses in students who “struggled to process the distressing and disturbing storylines and imagery”. They also found that showing the films did not increase the number of disclosures about abuse or exploitation, or improve the responses to that exploitation. Fortunately, their campaign from 2017-2019 led to the nationwide withdrawal of these films.

    Adolescence: re-traumatisation

    One in three children experience at least one traumatic event before the age of 18. This means that there is a huge number of children sitting in UK schools which could potentially be retraumatised by watching Adolescence. Should a child choose to watch it in their own time, that is one thing. However, schools forcing a whole class of kids to watch it – with zero control over the environment or being able to leave could have devastating consequences.

    As the letter states:

    Victims and survivors could be retraumatised, silenced, targeted, or alienated if the content is delivered without trauma-informed support and skilled facilitation.

    UK schools are already struggling. Clearly, Keir Starmer sees this as a quick fix to a huge, systemic problem. But schools do not have the funding or support to offer this ‘trauma-informed support’ or ‘skilled facilitation’.

    Additionally, Starmer seems to have made this announcement over Adolescence without any evidence suggesting it will work:

    There is no framework, no evidence-base, no guidance pack, no expert-led materials, and no structured approach to delivering this series in schools. It has not been trialled in educational settings, nor has it been evaluated for safety, impact, or effectiveness.

    There is no evidence that this approach will work, and teachers have not been supported or trained to undertake this complex intervention with millions of students. No consultation has taken place with teachers, schools, parents, psychologists, or safeguarding professionals. Its rollout appears to be based on public sentiment rather than sound educational policy.

    Centring the perpetrator

    I have seen Adolescence, and what struck me throughout was the lack of focus on the victim. This is common in media narratives of male violence. Male achievements are glorified and little attention is given to the women and girls who have suffered at the hands of violent men.

    Adolescence may be hard hitting for the parents of young boys or teachers. However, for someone who has experienced trauma it is actually not that hard to believe.

    What started out at the start of the show as ‘I didn’t do it’, quickly turned into ‘I haven’t done anything wrong’. This is a common tactic abusers use to pin the blame on the victim. Whilst it’s important that such a popular Netflix show highlights that, it could have done far more in centring the victim instead of highlighting the fact she was a bully. This plays into the narrative that she somehow deserved it.

    The open letter highlights this:

    Katie, the murdered girl in the drama, is repeatedly framed as a bully and is denied any real voice. Her family are absent. Her suffering is largely excluded. Meanwhile, the boy who kills her is portrayed with emotional depth, vulnerability, and complexity.

    This imbalance risks reinforcing harmful narratives about victim blaming and male suffering. It sends a dangerous message that violence is understandable or excusable if a perpetrator feels bullied, isolated, or misunderstood. Many conversations, narratives, and blogs online have already argued that Katie deserved to be harmed, brought the violence upon herself, or that Jamie was justified in his anger due to her comments.

    Plenty of alternatives

    As the letter states, the government should instead be encouraging schools to show all children how to live ‘non-violent, compassionate, supportive, positive lives’ instead of using ‘graphic depictions of murder, violence, abuse, and trauma as a deterrent’ – via Adolescence.

    Additionally, they should be collaborating with professionals to develop alternative resources which do not cause further harm. Meanwhile, the government need to equip schools so they can take action against children who are violent or abusive.

    The letter acknowledges the significance of the documentary in sparking important conversations. However, the government treating it as an educational resource proves how little they understand what a trauma-informed school system should look like.

    It’s also characteristic of this government’s quick-fix approach to issues with systemic causes. And clearly, the drama fails to truly challenge entrenched misogyny and toxic masculinity. If anything, it has only fuelled them – so it’s neither appropriate, nor enough. The government can’t tackle male violence against women and girls with half-baked, ill-thought out, and reactionary ideas like this.

    Let’s face it – schools are not even equipped to deal with bullying. Ask anyone who has ever been bullied – no amount of ‘anti-bullying weeks’ ever make an ounce of difference. The fact that he thinks he can throw Netflix drama Adolescence at schools and they’re equipped to tackle an issue as huge and as widespread as violence against women and girls, is quite frankly hilarious.

    You can sign the open letter, here.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By HG

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • DWP cuts will compound the ongoing pension crisis for many WASPI women

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is under mounting fire as it faces widespread condemnation for its treatment of older women and disabled people. Amid two deeply controversial issues – the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) pensions scandal and proposed £6.7 billion cuts to disability benefits like DWP PIP – critics warn the government is enacting a cruel and dangerous agenda, one that disproportionately targets society’s most vulnerable.

    The DWP is “picking on the most vulnerable” via WASPI pensions and PIP cuts

    Maria Fuccio, a 68-year-old from Gosport, Hampshire, embodies the real-world consequences of DWP policy. A former social worker, Fuccio is not only a WASPI woman – part of the cohort born in the 1950s who were blindsided by a sudden rise in the state pension age – but also a recipient of DWP Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a benefit she says is vital to her survival.

    “I have good days, bad days and bloody awful days,” she told the iPaper, describing life with joint hypermobility syndrome, chronic fatigue, and hereditary liver disease​.

    Fuccio uses her DWP PIP to cover the basics of independent living: a walking aid, taxis to medical appointments, home adaptations, and a cleaner. “PIP is helping keep people like me at home,” she said:

    It would cost a lot more to put me in a care home – thousands of pounds a month.

    Her warning is stark: without DWP PIP, thousands of older disabled people could be pushed into residential care – not due to medical need, but because they can’t afford to live independently.

    “They’re picking on the most vulnerable in society,” she said. “The mindset seems to be about saving money. But it’s short-term thinking.”

    £6bn-odd in cuts and catastrophic consequences

    The government’s proposed changes to DWP PIP are part of sweeping welfare reforms expected to cut  billions. Critics argue the costs will be passed on to local councils and the NHS in the form of increased demand for care services.

    According to Ayla Ozmen, director of policy at anti-poverty charity Z2K, “short-sighted” DWP PIP cuts will ripple across the entire system:

    There will be people in their sixties, and younger adults of working age, who will find themselves unable to pay for things to live independently if they lose PIP awards.

    David Sinclair of the International Longevity Centre echoed this, saying the reforms would strip away the last safety net for many:

    A squeeze on ill-health benefits could mean increased numbers of people in their sixties are left with no access to a safety net – just when they need it most.

    Despite these warnings, the DWP insists its reforms are designed to “unlock work for sick and disabled people” and claims those past state pension age will be unaffected. But these statements ring hollow for campaigners, especially in light of the department’s own data, which shows adults aged 60–70 stand to lose an average of £2,020 from these changes – the highest of any age group​.

    The ongoing injustice of the WASPI scandal

    The anger surrounding DWP PIP reforms is compounded by unresolved grievances over the WASPI scandal. Millions of women born in the 1950s were not properly informed that their state pension age would rise – some only discovering the change when they applied to retire at 60, as they had always expected. Many, like Fuccio, were forced to work longer while struggling with poor health, or fell into poverty.

    The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has found that the DWP failed in its duty to adequately communicate these changes, and yet no compensation has been paid. For Fuccio and other WASPI women, this amounts to state betrayal.

    “It’s abominable what women of our generation have suffered,” Fuccio said. “We have to keep fighting. If the government think they can bully older women, they’re mistaken.”

    Adding insult to injury, Labour – despite benefiting electorally from WASPI support – has so far declined to commit to compensation or reverse other cuts such as the removal of universal winter fuel payments. Fuccio is “furious” at the party for turning its back on older women. Currently, the WASPI campaign is taking legal action against the government.

    DWP PIP broken, WASPI shameful

    The cumulative effect of these policies – delayed pensions, axed winter fuel payments, and now slashed disability benefits like DWP PIP – signals a broader breakdown of the social contract for older citizens.

    The government claims these moves are about “supporting people to live with dignity and independence.” Yet the reality described by Maria Fuccio and echoed by policy experts is far bleaker: a system in which independence is contingent on ability to fight through bureaucratic hurdles, where dignity is undermined by endless reassessments, and where those who cannot keep up are left behind.

    The DWP’s pattern of decisions suggests a department more focused on cost-cutting than care. Its treatment of older, disabled, and disadvantaged people reveals an institution that has not just lost public trust – but abandoned its moral compass altogether.

    As Fuccio said:

    It would be so difficult to get by without DWP PIP. I’m finding it difficult to pay the bills as it is.

    Her words serve as a chilling warning of the future many could face if current policies continue unchecked.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • 12 years on, the Bedroom Tax is still inflicting misery on families – particularly in the North East

    The policy known widely as the bedroom tax, officially termed the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy, marks twelve years since its implementation. Introduced through the Welfare Reform Act in 2013, this policy impacts social renters by reducing their vital financial support on Universal Credit by 14% for having one extra bedroom and by a staggering 25% if they are deemed to have two or more ‘spare’ rooms.

    While intended as a tool for reform, its effects have disproportionately impacted communities across the UK, especially those in the North.

    The North East: hit hardest by the bedroom tax

    Research indicates that about 20% of social rental households in the North are affected by the bedroom tax, surpassing the English-wide average of 16%.

    The North East stands out as the most affected region, where one in four social renters may be financially penalised for possessing an extra bedroom—a drastic measure that many see as punitive rather than helpful.

    Structures in place do not facilitate adequate housing solutions; the North East has the highest proportion of social housing tenure at 21.7%, but a critical mismatch exists between household sizes and available properties.

    One of the fundamental issues here is the lack of affordable one-bedroom properties, leading many families to remain in larger homes. For those already facing challenges such as job insecurity and low disposable incomes, this policy exacerbates their financial struggles, forcing many into extreme hardship.

    Recent reports reveal that the North East has the highest percentage of individuals struggling to pay social rent outside of London, with 29.4% of renters finding it difficult to cover their costs.

    Causing families misery

    This financial strain leads to wider societal issues; the bedroom tax has been linked to increased levels of anxiety, social isolation, and even worse health outcomes. Residents report experiencing significant hardship, relying on loans just to meet rent demands while cutting back on essential items such as food.

    The loss of a portion of their income creates an overwhelming sense of fear and hopelessness, compelling some parents to skip meals just to keep the rent paid. As highlighted by the negative mental and physical health impacts connected to financial insecurity, it becomes clear that the policy is a risk to the well-being of everyday people.

    The bedroom tax does not just impact those renting; it also reverberates into the homelessness crisis.

    With the North East witnessing the highest rates of homelessness outside London, many families are adversely affected by a contracted social housing system— one that offers them little hope of secure housing. Local authorities, often facing stringent budget constraints, can struggle to provide adequate housing options, which can lead to lengthening wait times for permanent homes. Discretionary Housing Payments exist for some, but they are not a reliable long-term solution for families facing homelessness.

    The issue at hand extends beyond just housing; it reflects a broader narrative of regional inequality that entrenches poverty. Individuals in the North are grappling with multiple layers of disadvantage, with the bedroom tax being but one of many factors in a complex web of regional disparity.

    For many, this relentless cycle of disadvantage feeds into a broader economic malaise which, according to experts, could be mitigated through systemic changes to policy.

    Labour should scrap the bedroom tax – but won’t

    IPPR previously underscored how the interlinked issues of housing affordability and poverty directly affect the way people spend, shaping local economies. The resulting economic constriction restricts growth potentials within communities, perpetuating a system that keeps many residents on the margins.

    Health inequities—exacerbated by poverty and a lack of accessible housing—further isolate individuals from opportunities, making it even harder for them to escape the cycle of disadvantage.

    The figures on public spending are also stark. In recent years, London has received £2,747 more per person than the North, illustrating the resource imbalance. Cuts to provision historically hit the North the hardest, leading to a widening socioeconomic gap.

    Amidst this, the absence of effective place-based policies continues to stifle opportunities for those living in Northern communities.

    Twelve years into the bedroom tax implementation, the urgent need for reform cannot be overstated. With a system that punishes those in critical need of social support, it is clear that the current framework fails to provide a safety net for millions.

    Ending this policy could serve as merely one necessary step towards addressing the larger challenges of regional inequality—after all, where someone lives and what they can afford should not determine their future or potential wellbeing.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • 9 children killed in Ukraine as UN refugee camp clinic gets bombed… Sorry, in Gaza, not Ukraine.

    As a thought experiment, imagine that Russia had been responsible for these actions in Ukraine:

    These are all Israeli actions right now in the occupied Palestinian territories, of course. But can you imagine the British government supporting Russia as it committed crimes like these? Can you imagine ongoing RAF support for Russia? Can you imagine MPs writing propaganda for Russia which completely ignored these atrocities? Or what about Britain supporting the bombing of other countries to protect Russian interests?

    What if we had spent years authorising dozens of export licences to support Russia’s nuclear capabilities? What if a cross-party parliamentary lobby group which had previously received funds from Russia was refusing to reveal its funding sources? What if our government was trying to “hide its complicity” in a Russian-led genocide?

    We all have a duty to wake Britain up

    Keir Starmer’s government has a 14% approval rating. Britain clearly hates him. It can see he and his elitist government are a bunch of spineless, odious hypocrites. It has just seen their despicable choice to take billions of pounds away from disabled people to gift them to the arms industry. But on top of all of that, we need to be warning Britain about the immense danger of the British government continuing to participate in Israel’s genocide as it commits all of the crimes above.

    If we let the government get away with its support for Israel as it commits all the horrors it can possibly think of to steal Palestinian land, what will stop our soulless politicians from bringing some of that evil to Britain’s shores? Nothing short of mass resistance is necessary.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Thanks to DWP cuts, Labour just fell to its WORST approval rating yet

    The Labour Party government is in turmoil, marked by a significant slide in approval ratings following a controversial Spring Statement delivered by chancellor Rachel Reeves. Specifically, it seems that the planned Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) cuts that have sparked outrage among chronically ill and disabled people across the UK are a factor in Labour’s approval slump.

    Labour: hated by nearly everyone…?

    A recent YouGov poll, highlighting a mere 14% approval rating for Labour, indicates that public sentiment has turned sour, with 68% of respondents voicing disapproval. This nets the current administration an alarming rating of minus 54, a figure that echoes the lowest recorded levels of popularity since Keir Starmer’s government assumed office in July.

    The fallout from the Spring Statement has contributed to this decline, plunging the government’s standing amid rising economic challenges.

    This is because the cuts to disability and sickness benefits, announced by DWP boss Liz Kendall, have generated widespread concern.

    As the Canary previously reported, the DWP under Labour is changing the eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payment (PIP). It is also freezing chronically ill and disabled people’s Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity (LCWRA) elements of Universal Credit, at £97 a week – and reduced them to £47 a week for new claimants – with only people with the most severe conditions able to apply for LCWRA. People under the age of 22 will no longer be able to claim these top-ups under Universal Credit at all.

    Initially, the government had claimed that Reeves’ proposed DWP cuts would save them £5 billion. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has had to clarify that the savings will actually be £3.4 billion – hence the freeze in LCWRA rates.

    The government has also revised down its economic growth forecast, further complicating its position. Senior Labour figures, as reported by the Daily Record, are already placing blame on Reeves for these politically damaging decisions.

    DWP cuts: tanking government favourability

    The chancellor’s DWP cuts, particularly affecting PIP and Universal Credit, have not only drawn ire from opposition parties but have also incited potential rebellion within Labour ranks. When the bill for these is laid before parliament in the coming months, already dozens of party MPs have said they’ll be voting against it.

    Speaking to the Express, insiders noted that Labour’s recent decline in public support follows closely on the heels of Reeves’ Spring Statement, which many find difficult to swallow. The announcement has led to fears that the government, which campaigned on promises of economic growth, is veering sharply away from its foundational commitments. As Labour MPs express their discontent with the cuts, it becomes increasingly clear that the party’s cohesion is at risk due to the backlash against these welfare reforms.

    On top of this, April is shaping up to be a particularly challenging month for family finances, with multiple bills rising astronomically.

    The latest political landscape raises questions about the Labour Party’s ability to resonate with its core constituents, particularly those most affected by these austerity measures.

    As key bills loom and the economic landscape evolves, the stakes are higher than ever for those affected by DWP policies, who are now looking to Labour to reconsider its approach and prioritise support for the most vulnerable in society.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.