Category: Democracy

  • Wednesday Democracy Now! show for rebroadcast – HD


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! for Broadcasters – HD MP4 and was authored by Democracy Now! for Broadcasters – HD MP4.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg3 roston gaza destruction 1

    At least a dozen people have died in Gaza as winter storms batter displaced Palestinians forced to shelter in makeshift tents among the rubble of collapsing buildings severely damaged by Israeli bombing. That rubble is being eyed by U.S.-based contractors, who are already vying for lucrative contracts to rebuild Gaza under the Trump-backed ceasefire deal. “People are lining up and treating this the way they they treated reconstruction in Iraq,” says Aram Roston, whose latest investigation for The Guardian US looks at how the company behind the notorious Florida immigration detention jail nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz” has been involved in rebuilding plans spearheaded by Trump’s so-called Board of Peace.

    Roston also discusses his reporting on the CIA’s involvement in U.S. military strikes on boats in the Caribbean. “It plays this key role in picking the targets that are chosen by the military for destruction.”


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg2 markee book

    New York City housing advocate Patrick Markee’s new book, Placeless: Homelessness in the New Gilded Age, looks at homelessness through the lens of housing affordability. Homelessness, which affects millions across the United States, “has roots in structural economic changes, right-wing economic policies and systemic racism,” explains Markee. “There’s a reason that other advanced capitalist countries in this world … don’t have the levels of homelessness that we have, and that’s because, there, government plays a much larger role in creating and even owning affordable housing.”


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Trifoldsplit

    The two victims in Saturday’s mass shooting at Brown University have been identified: freshman Mukhammad Aziz Umurzokov and sophomore Ella Cook. We speak to another sophomore, Zoe Weissman, who came to Brown from Parkland, Florida, where she was a student at the middle school adjacent to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School during the mass shooting that occurred there in 2018. “Because I’ve already processed all the grief and the sadness before,” says Weissman about surviving a second school shooting in her young life, “my most predominant emotion right now is, honestly, anger … because we are the only country where this happens, and … the only country that has more guns than people.”


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Democracy Now! 2025-12-16 Tuesday

    • Headlines for December 16, 2025
    • "We're Angry": Brown Univ. Student & Parkland Survivor Zoe Weissman Demands Action on Gun Violence
    • Homelessness Is About Affordability: Author Patrick Markee on the Housing Crisis in "New Gilded Age"
    • From "Alligator Alcatraz" to Gaza: U.S. Companies Line Up for Lucrative Gaza Contracts Under Trump

    Download this show


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! Audio and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Tuesday Democracy Now! show for rebroadcast – HD


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! for Broadcasters – HD MP4 and was authored by Democracy Now! for Broadcasters – HD MP4.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Within the narrow spectrum of establishment punditry, “dictator” functions as a term of opprobrium reserved for governments Washington designates as enemies. By this measure, Maduro is cast as the dictator, while Zelenskyy is sanctified as democratic.

    Ronald Reagan’s UN ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick, wrote about a democracy “double standard” in 1979. A Democrat turned anti-communist neoconservative, she formulated a convenient rhetorical distinction. The so-called Kirkpatrick Doctrine supported “authoritarian” traditional dictatorships and opposed leftist “totalitarian regimes.”

    The post Who’s The Dictator? Venezuela’s Maduro Or Ukraine’s Zelenskyy appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Washington brands Nicolás Maduro a dictator, celebrates Volodymyr Zelenskyy as democratic, and sponsors María Corina Machado to achieve regime change in Venezuela rather than promote genuine democracy.

    Within the narrow spectrum of establishment punditry, “dictator” functions as a term of opprobrium reserved for governments Washington designates as enemies. By this measure, Maduro is cast as the dictator, while Zelenskyy is sanctified as democratic.

    Ronald Reagan’s UN ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick, wrote about a democracy “double standard” in 1979. A Democrat turned anti-communist neoconservative, she formulated a convenient rhetorical distinction. The so-called Kirkpatrick Doctrine supported “authoritarian” traditional dictatorships and opposed leftist “totalitarian regimes.”

    In its modern incarnation, the Brookings Institution argues that US geopolitical interests justify backing “friendly” autocrats while opposing “regimes” critical of Washington.

    Thus Ahmed al-Sharaa, former Al Qaeda “terrorist” and now head of Syria after a US-backed coup, was welcomed to the Trump White House. A week later, the “benevolent monarch” from a country that does not even bother to hold national elections – Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman – graced the Oval Office.

    Ukrainian exceptionalism

    What about the leader who banned opposition parties, shuttered critical media, arrested political opponents, closed trade unions, sent security forces into churches, and persecuted speakers of Ukraine’s main second language? When Zelenskyy’s term in office was set to end on May 20, 2024, he declared martial law to suspend elections.

    Yet Senate Democrats still deem Zelenskyy to be in “the front lines of democracy.” Forbes praises his “moral velocity.” NPR anoints him an “icon of democracy.”

    While Trump and company may have uttered unkind words about the Ukrainian president, follow the money. The US has showered Ukraine with $128–137 billion in aid since Trump took office.

    Ukraine is widely recognized as being caught in a war. Yet the deadly hybrid war against Venezuela is rendered invisible – reduced to merely “sanctions” against an errant regime or at most “pressure.” The latest escalation involves what are euphemistically called “kinetic strikes” on small boats, backed by the largest armada in the Caribbean since the 1961 Cuban Missile Crisis. The most recent act of war, the seizure of an oil tanker, has been condemned by the Venezuelans as “international piracy.”

    Causalities in the Ukraine war are mourned, but the over 100,000 fatalities by US sanctions in Venezuela are ignored. Both are at war and should be judged by the same standards.

    Venezuela: the exception that proves the rule

     Since Hugo Chávez’s 1998 victory and the initiation of the Bolivarian Revolution, Venezuela has held over 20 national elections. Washington deemed only the two won by the opposition as legitimate, proving the operative rule that “democracy” is attained when outcomes please the hegemon.

    Maduro first ran for president in 2013 after Chávez’s death. The US was the only country not to recognize his win.

    In 2018, Washington’s regime-change offensive of sanctions, amounting to illegal collective punishment, and other coercive measures was taking its toll. The US called a boycott of the presidential election, hoping to achieve by extra-parliamentary means what it could not attain by the ballot. Declaring the contest illegitimate six months before the actual vote, Washington even threatened opposition politician Henri Falcón with sanctions for running.

    Venezuela did not fall in 2018. Falcón came in second with 21% of the vote after Maduro, who the US again refused to recognize.

    The following year, Washington tried a new “democracy promotion” gambit. Juan Guaído, after receiving a call from Trump’s VP Michael Pence, declared himself “interim president” of Venezuela on a Caracas street corner. The 35-year-old had never run for national office. This embarrassment lasted until 2022, when Guaidó’s own opposition found him so toxic that he was given the boot.

    The making of Nobel Laureate María Corina Machado

    Ahead of the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, Washington’s regime-change campaign had “failed.” Maduro’s resolute political leadership and the unbroken civilian-military unity had defeated Washington’s illegal measures.

    The Biden administration faced a choice: boycott again and hand Maduro an uncontested mandate, or back a candidate and thereby legitimize elections in a government it refused to recognize. Washington’s workaround was to promote a candidate who could not legally assume the presidency.

    The audition began with a US House Foreign Affairs Committee “bipartisan roundtable” in February 2024 featuring María Corina Machado as the sole opposition candidate. Machado had been disqualified in 2015 from running for public office due to treasonous activities. But the fanatical Zionist was photogenic, fluent in English, and came from one of Venezuela’s wealthiest families.

    Even so, Washington’s favorite was not a consensus candidate among those opposed to the ruling Chavista party. Widely resented, Machado belonged to the extreme insurrectionary wing in a fractious field of competing opposition groupings.

    She returned to Venezuela to stage a dubious “opposition primary,” not run by the electoral authority but by her own private NGO, Súmate, which had received NED funding. Machado claimed an implausibly lopsided victory and destroyed the ballots, eliminating any possibility of verification.

    Barred from running, Machado hand-picked Edmundo González Urrutia as her surrogate. A minor Foreign Ministry official in the 1980s, he was unknown even in right-wing circles. With Washington and the corporate press running interference, González did not even bother to leave the capital city during the campaign. Which was just a well since his platform of privatization at home and genocide in Palestine was far more popular inside the Beltway than in Venezuela.

    Predictably, both Maduro and González claimed victory. The contested election went to the Venezuelan supreme court, which required all candidates to submit their evidence proving they won. Largely underreported in the US press, González refused to submit anything, leaving no legal pathway for him to be declared president, even if he had won. Even Trump, disputing his 2020 defeat, fought it out in the courts.

    To this day, the US has not formally recognized González as president of Venezuela. Why bother when the objective of demonizing Maduro was accomplished with a help from the fourth estate.

    Propaganda gap

     As MAGA mavens might say, exporting democracy exhausted our strategic reserves at home. Masked ICE agents now have license to terrorize US cities.

    Trump rationalizes the mission against Venezuela as a war on narco-terrorism. The problem is that few buy the alibi from the world’s largest consumer of narcotics, leading drug money launderer, and top gun runner to the cartels.

    Proving the obvious, Trump sprung Juan Orlando Hernández from federal penitentiary, after the former Honduran president was convicted in US courts of aiding in the importation of over 400 tons of cocaine. Sentenced to 45 years for running a “narco-state.” Hernandez was freed in Trump’s undisguised interference in Honduras’s November 30 presidential election.

    As Trump’s hypocrisy on narco-trafficking and his weak justification for naked imperial aggression falter – and as US public opinion rejects further escalation – the corporate press has moved in to fill the propaganda gap, justifying “Maduro must go.”

    In the end, the “dictator” narrative reveals less about Venezuela or Ukraine than about Washington’s geopolitical imperatives. Media caricatures, selective indignation, and shifting standards of legitimacy validate intervention when convenient and dismiss democratic processes conflicting with US aims. Stripped of moral pretenses, the discourse reduces to a simple calculus: allies are democratic by definition, adversaries authoritarian by decree, The empire’s issue is not democracy, but domination.

    The post Who’s the Dictator? Venezuela’s Maduro or Ukraine’s Zelenskyy first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A significant feature of the propaganda system is the suppression of clearly important, credible books which are nevertheless deemed unfit for review in the ‘respectable mainstream’.

    In 2025, two important – indeed, groundbreaking – bestselling books about British politics were published which were almost entirely ignored by the state-corporate media. These were The Fraud: Keir Starmer, Morgan McSweeney, and the Crisis of British Democracy by Paul Holden and Complicit: Britain’s role in the destruction of Gaza by Peter Oborne, both published by OR Books.

    What follows is not a full-blown review of both books. But we will summarise crucial aspects of each, indicating why it suits the interests of established power, including the major national media, to ignore the forensic analysis and damning conclusions provided by the authors.

    The Fraud

    Consider, first, The Fraud by Paul Holden. Holden is a Network Fellow at the Safra Centre for Ethics at Harvard University with over a decade of experience in investigating cases of grand corruption and corporate malfeasance, focusing on the arms trade. He was a senior researcher on the book and feature documentary, Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade by Andrew Feinstein. Holden has published six books, three of them bestsellers in his native South Africa. He has written for both the Guardian and the Independent.

    The Fraud, published in November 2025, is a damning account of Sir Keir Starmer’s rise to power in the Labour Party, becoming leader in April 2020 and then Prime Minister in July 2024 after that month’s General Election. Holden’s analysis is based on access to a substantial, previously unseen leak of internal Labour Party documents.

    Much of Holden’s book focuses on Morgan McSweeney, currently Starmer’s chief of staff and instrumental in Starmer’s ascent to 10 Downing Street. In October 2023, The Times stated that:

    ‘nobody without elected office wields as much power in British politics as McSweeney’.

    He is, said the Times, ‘the real power behind Starmer – who would rather stay in the shadows’.

    Holden has now exposed McSweeney’s role ‘in the shadows’. Between 2017 and 2020, McSweeney was head of the innocuous-sounding Labour Together, a think tank which ostensibly worked to unify the various factions of Labour – left, centre and right – to defeat the Conservatives and form a new government.

    In reality, Labour Together oversaw a secretive operation to destroy the left-wing Jeremy Corbyn and his allies, fuelling the moral panic of an ‘antisemitism crisis’ to do so. The aim was to replace Corbyn with Starmer. The operation was funded by donations totalling nearly £740,000. The two largest funders were hedge fund manager Martin Taylor and Sir Trevor Chinn, a former funder of Tony Blair as MP.

    Taylor’s hedge fund, Crake Asset Management, has held significant investments in major US private healthcare corporations, including HCA Healthcare and United Health. In November 2024, the Ferret, an investigative website based in Scotland, reported that:

    ‘quarterly US filings, released this month, reveal that Crake Asset Management has bought shares worth more than £8m in HCA Healthcare since July.

    ‘HCA Healthcare claims to be the largest private healthcare provider in the world and “one of the leading private healthcare providers in the UK”.’

    Since the 1980s, Chinn has funded both Labour Friends of Israel and Conservative Friends of Israel. He also sits on the executive committee of the Jewish Leadership Council and the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, both heavily-involved in pro-Israel advocacy. Chinn reportedly ‘had great concerns about the election of an outspoken opponent of the Jewish state as Labour leader.’

    Donations to Labour Together were not declared in a timely fashion by McSweeney to the Electoral Commission, as required by law. That only happened much later. The Commission then imposed a rather paltry fine of £14,250, seemingly accepting that McSweeney’s omission was accidental. Holden argues convincingly from the internal Labour record that that is unlikely and that McSweeney may well have ‘purposely broken the law’ to evade scrutiny of Labour Together’s operations. The journalist describes in some detail communications between McSweeney and the Commission in which the Labour campaigner argues that he is not required to report the donations and he is told, in no uncertain terms, that he is legally obliged to do so.

    Holden states that McSweeney:

    ‘used those undisclosed funds to propel Sir Keir Starmer to the leadership of the Labour Party, transforming both the party and British politics’.

    He adds:

    ‘In investigating how McSweeney and his allies have transformed the Labour Party, I have come across evidence pointing to serious wrongdoing over an extended period, some of which I believe requires further investigation by regulatory agencies and law enforcement. Indeed, I have come to the opinion that the political project that delivered us a Starmer government has been a reckless and arguably lawless endeavour whose misconduct threatens the health of British democracy.’

    (The Fraud: Keir Starmer, Morgan McSweeney, and the Crisis of British Democracy, Paul Holden, OR Books, 2025, p. xvi)

    Some of the undisclosed money was used to set up astroturf groups such as Stop Funding Fake News (SFFN). Astroturfing means that a false impression is given of a grassroots campaign when, in fact, it has been created or run by undisclosed corporate or political backers. One of SFFN’s targets was The Canary, a left-wing, Corbyn-supporting website that regularly attracted 8.5 million hits a month.

    Holden notes in his book:

    ‘Whereas most media outlets, and especially The Guardian, did not interrogate Starmer’s background, or else covered stories with a pro-Starmer slant, The Canary took the opposite approach. Indeed, during the period between January and April 2020, The Canary was the only media outlet in the country to interrogate Starmer’s professional history from a critical perspective and use this to contextualise his leadership pitch.’ (p. 158)

    Meanwhile, SFFN mounted a campaign against The Canary:

    ‘to deprive it of advertising income and, perhaps even more importantly, create the impression that it was a fringe outpost of cranks and nutjobs.’

    One important method of attack was to portray The Canary as a purveyor of supposedly antisemitic content. The campaign worked. The loss of advertising revenue was so severe that it forced the website to fundamentally change its business model. It had to shift to rely almost entirely on reader-funded subscriptions to survive.

    The Canary was later cleared of ‘hate speech’ by the independent regulator Impress, but the outlet had already been badly damaged. The website ‘went down from 22 staff to one member of staff within a few months of us targeting it,’ boasted Imran Ahmed who ran SFFN, and who worked closely with McSweeney in Labour Together.

    McSweeney directed the campaign to elect Starmer as head of the Labour Party during the leadership campaign between January and April 2020. Holden refers to the ruthless McSweeney-led operation to shift Labour to the right under Starmer as ‘the Starmer Project’. Under the Starmer Project, Holden details how McSweeney and his allies were able to take control of Labour’s bureaucracy, ditching left-leaning policies, rigging the candidate selection process to install Starmer loyalists, and even purging the party of left-wing members for alleged antisemitism, many of them Jewish.

    Holden also examines Starmer’s stalwart support for Israel:

    ‘Under Starmer’s leadership the party defended Israel’s criminal destruction of Gaza, despite overwhelming evidence that Israeli forces were targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure and notwithstanding a torrent of brazenly genocidal rhetoric from the most senior Israeli officials on down.’ (p. 14)

    He continues:

    ‘To acquiesce in or enable so grave a breach of international law was bad enough. But Starmer also flouted British parliamentary convention to water down a Gaza ceasefire initiative in February 2024. This marked the first time that the Starmer Project’s undemocratic and opportunistic political mode – previously confined to purging internal party dissent – was applied to the country at large.’ (p. 14)

    Richard Sanders, the experienced journalist and filmmaker who made Al Jazeera’s landmark Labour Files series three years ago, noted recently that the documentaries:

    ‘laid bare the ruthlessness, racism and maniacal factionalism of the Labour right and its cynical exploitation of the antisemitism issue to destroy Jeremy Corbyn.’

    The Labour Files series was ‘resolutely ignored by the British media’, Sanders correctly observed, as we also reported in a media alert at the time.

    In his review of Holden’s book, Sanders wrote that The Fraud confirms and indeed amplifies the analysis and conclusions of the Labour Files. Sanders concluded that the book:

    ‘offers the most damning portrayal yet of a political project at once proudly Machiavellian but entirely devoid of moral and intellectual substance.’

    It should come as no surprise, then, that not a single review of The Fraud has appeared in a major UK newspaper; an issue to which we will return below.

    Complicit

    Regular readers of our alerts will be familiar with Peter Oborne. He is an associate editor of Middle East Eye and a columnist for Byline Times and Declassified UK. He has worked as chief political commentator of the Daily Telegraph, political editor of the Spectator, a political commentator at the Daily Express, and as a journalist at the Evening Standard. He has also made nearly 30 documentaries for Channel 4, BBC World and BBC Radio 4. Oborne is the author of numerous books including Sunday Times bestsellers, The Assault on Truth and The Fate of Abraham: Why the West Is Wrong about Islam. His most recent book, Complicit: Britain’s role in the destruction of Gaza, may well be his bravest and most important work to date.

    Oborne summed up the powerful themes of his book early on:

    ‘A full reckoning with Britain’s culpability for the destruction of Gaza requires an assessment of the failing institutions that misgovern British public life: the dishonesty of the media, the moral bankruptcy of the foreign policy establishment, growing domestic authoritarianism, the corruption of parliament, and the collapse of a party system increasingly manipulated by special interests and the super-rich.’

    (Complicit: Britain’s Role in the Destruction of Gaza, Peter Oborne, OR Books, 2025, p. 10)

    Oborne reminded readers of Starmer’s notorious LBC radio interview on 11 October 2023 where the Labour leader declared that ‘Israel does have that right’ when questioned about Israel’s withholding of power and water from Gaza. Labour shadow ministers Emily Thornberry and David Lammy held Starmer’s line during subsequent TV appearances where they refused to say that the Israeli blockade was a violation of international law. Nine days later, Starmer then attempted to gaslight the British public by claiming he had never said what he had been recorded saying.

    In January 2024, South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice led to the ruling that there was a ‘plausible’ risk that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. The Tory government then in power, and the Labour government which followed, were thus legally obliged to take measures to prevent genocide from happening. To their eternal shame, and possible future prosecution given the Genocide Convention’s incorporation into domestic law, British ministers did not do so.

    Oborne was particularly damning about Starmer:

    ‘As genocide raged, he had not made any meaningful attempt to stop it. He had not imposed any serious consequences on Israel. He had not put any pressure on the US. He had not committed to enforce international law. He had not condemned clear Israeli crimes and he had struggled to speak about Palestinians as if they were members of the human race.’ (p. 168)

    Oborne also skewered the state-corporate media:

    ‘Large sections of the media repeated the lies promoted by Israeli and British politicians. Some produced fresh lies of their own. They twisted their reports in favour of the Israeli cause. For a long time, reports of Israeli atrocities appeared either in muted form or not at all. Hamas atrocities were exaggerated or fabricated. Dissident voices were suppressed. Across much of the media spectrum a general implicit consensus emerged: Israelis count and Palestinians don’t.’ (p. 35)

    He cited the important, detailed study of the BBC’s Gaza coverage during the first twelve months of the genocide by the Centre for Media Monitoring, published in July 2025 (see also our media alert here).

    The study showed that the corporation operated a form of apartheid with two sets of rules: one for Palestinians and another for Israelis. The BBC employed the word ‘massacre’ almost eighteen times more often in relation to Israeli than to Palestinian victims, and never used the term in headlines about Israeli atrocities. The term ‘butcher’ was used 220 times for actions against Israelis, but just once for actions against Palestinians.

    The average Israeli death received thirty-three times more coverage across BBC articles, and nineteen times more across TV and radio, than the average Palestinian death. ‘Israeli deaths were reported in more emotive terms’, Oborne observed, ‘with victims far more likely to be humanised by details about their names, family background, jobs, and lives.’

    Relevant history was routinely airbrushed out of BBC news coverage. There was barely any mention of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory: in July 2024, the ICJ had ruled that Israel’s continued presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip (despite the 2005 withdrawal of Israeli forces), is unlawful under international law.

    Nor was there significant attention given by the BBC to explaining that the majority of Gaza’s inhabitants are refugees from the 1948 expulsion, when the state of Israel was established, or their descendants: the Nakba (an Arabic term that means ‘catastrophe’ or ‘disaster’) was barely mentioned.

    In the BBC’s reporting of the events of 7 October 2023, they barely covered the Israeli military’s ‘Hannibal Directive’. Oborne wrote:

    ‘The directive licenced the killing of Israeli citizens and soldiers, often by Apache helicopter fire, rather than allowing them to be captured. Its application has been documented by the United Nations and well reported in the Israeli press, including a major investigation by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, but ignored by the BBC.’ (pp. 49-50)

    Oborne described this as ‘a shocking omission’ (see also our media alert here). He noted that, except for one passing mention, the BBC did not report on Israel’s notorious ‘Dahiya doctrine’ implemented by its military forces. He continued:

    ‘This BBC failure is negligent because Israel’s destruction of Gaza cannot be understood without knowing that Israel’s established military doctrine licenses the indiscriminate obliteration of civilian infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, and universities. As with the Hannibal Directive, the subject has been covered seriously in the Israeli press. That the BBC did not explain the Dahiya doctrine to its audience was a consequential reporting failure. It is hard to believe that it was not deliberate.’ (p. 50)

    The list of BBC omissions, as well as those of the rest of the major news media, just kept piling up. There was virtually zero mention of the copious evidence of Israel’s genocidal intent presented by South Africa to the ICJ:

    ‘Incredibly the BBC seems never to have reported Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s references to “Amalek”, seen by many as the invocation of a divine command to annihilate an enemy nation, until Jeremy Bowen briefly mentioned it in an article in June 2025.’

    Moreover, on more than a hundred occasions BBC presenters shut down any mention of genocide by BBC interviewees.

    Meanwhile state authoritarianism is on the rise, with peaceful protesters criminalised and demonised. At root, Oborne warns that the very foundations of democracy and the rule of law are being seriously eroded by a corrupt and morally depraved political and media system:

    ‘British journalists and politicians, acting in a de facto alliance with the far right, have painted the marchers as supporters of terrorism and enemies of civilisation—for having the audacity to march against the livestreamed slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.’ (p. 246)

    He added:

    ‘In support of Israel, British politicians, backed by mainstream media, have given the green light to mass murder, assassination, torture, law-breaking, and chaos. In the process they have repudiated the international legal order that Britain herself helped establish to prevent a repetition of the horrors of World War Two.’ (p. 246)

    In fact, argued Oborne, the marchers and protesters are ‘supporting a global moral order that is under attack’. They:

    ‘profoundly represent British values as these have traditionally been understood: belief in fairness, tolerance, the rule of law. Standing up for the underdog. Compassion, kindness, a sense of civic responsibility and what George Orwell called decency. A belief in community, solidarity, and human rights, and a conviction that we owe a duty not just to ourselves and our own communities but to all human beings.’ (p. 246)

    Oborne ends his book with a long list of establishment figures that he damns for their complicity in the Gaza genocide, including: government ministers, not least Starmer and Rishi Sunak, his predecessor; arms manufacturers; the leaders of the British armed forces; ‘the moral cowards at the top of the BBC’; newspaper owners, editors and journalists; the Archbishop of Canterbury; the extreme right, including Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson; pro-Israel lobbyists; and more.

    ‘Damn all who were complicit in this brazen, public, and protracted crime against humanity.

    ‘I expect you all think you will get away with it. You have in the past. But the world may be starting to change.’

    Zero ‘MSM’ Reviews

    ‘Complicit’ is compelling, detailed and written in clear, concise prose. It would be hard to conceive of a book this year, or any other year, that more deserves to be brought to the attention of the British public. Written by an experienced journalist and documentary-maker with a long career in the British media, Complicit should have kickstarted a much-needed national debate about the extent of UK complicity in the Gaza genocide and, indeed, the state of British democracy. But to do so, of course, would require the state-corporate media and the political system itself to examine their own dishonourable roles in the destruction of Gaza, the degradation of British democracy and the erosion of international law. That was never going to happen.

    According to the AI tool Ask Gemini, Complicit was one of the highest-selling books across the UK in its category, likely achieving a #1 rank in the ‘British Politics’ or related category on Amazon UK during its peak. Indeed, propelled to prominence by social media, ‘alternative’ outlets such as Declassified UK, and word of mouth, it appeared on the prestigious Sunday Times bestseller list. And yet, according to our database and online searches, it has never been reviewed in a major British newspaper; ironically, not even in the Sunday Times which printed its bestseller list every week.

    The small-circulation Morning Star, however, published an insightful and glowing review by Gavin O’Toole, who wrote:

    ‘The most disturbing conclusion to be drawn from Peter Oborne’s forensic examination of Britain’s complicity in Gaza’s destruction is that its support for Israel has torn the very fabric of our democracy. This comes across on every page of what will surely become a go-to work of reference about the moral nadir to which our governing elite has sunk in a long history of British hypocrisy.’

    This conclusion is clearly too dangerous to be broached and disseminated by the state-corporate media, BBC News very much included. A rare exception was an interview with Oborne on BBC Radio Ulster and also on Channel 4 News where Oborne, along with Edmund Fitton-Brown, a former UK ambassador to Yemen, was interviewed by Krishnan Guru-Murthy. Iain Dale hosted an LBC radio programme last month on the future of Palestine with Oborne and former BBC reporter and presenter Jonathan Dimbleby.

    For such a vitally important book, that is a disgracefully low level of coverage in ‘the mainstream’. But par for the course, for the reasons given above.

    As for Paul Holden’s The Fraud, his investigation of Labour Together’s undisclosed donations was reported by right-wing, Conservative-supporting newspapers, the Telegraph and The Sunday Times. Clearly, it was done for self-serving, partisan reasons in an attempt to topple Starmer and aid the return to power of a Tory party in disarray.

    However, they did not cover the broader and deeper issues of how the money was used; namely, to depose Corbyn and install Starmer, deploying fake astroturf campaigns and the cynical exploitation of Labour’s ‘antisemitism crisis’ to move the party further to the right. Nor did those right-wing papers address the infamous ditching by Starmer of the ten ‘pledges’ in his Labour party leadership campaign which he – or, in other words, Morgan McSweeney – had made in a cynical attempt to portray himself as a kind of ‘Corbyn continuation’ candidate.

    Moreover, neither paper actually reviewed the book nor examined its wide-ranging analysis based on copious evidence about the McSweeney-led ditching of left-wing policies, candidates and members; Starmer’s unswerving support for Israel in its Gaza genocide; or the book’s damning conclusions about the state of British politics and indeed democracy. According to our searches, the only British newspaper to review ‘The Fraud’ was, once again, the Morning Star, which praised Holden’s comprehensive account of the Prime Minister’s ‘track record of duplicity and betrayal’.

    This effective media silence is remarkable, given the highly detailed investigative work outlined at length in the book and the major conclusions reached by Holden. Moreover, ‘The Fraud’ clearly had huge appeal for the public as it was a bestseller among books on UK politics and current events. Again, according to the AI tool Ask Gemini, the book attained ‘very high bestseller rank’ on the Amazon UK chart, reaching number 1 in the ‘British Politics’ and ‘Political Corruption’ categories. But, as with Oborne’s book Complicity, the contents are too hot for the ‘mainstream’ media to handle.

    Postscript

    Although the Guardian has never published a review of The Fraud, the paper’s political editor, Pippa Crerar, did email Holden in February 2024 to say that the paper was about to publish an article about him. The piece, Holden discovered, would claim that he was under police investigation for receiving illegally hacked documents. The claim would, Holden feared:

    ‘significantly damage, if not destroy, my professional reputation’.

    He was given a deadline of less than fourteen hours to respond. But the claim was false and Holden could prove it. After consulting his lawyer, he wrote to Crerar threatening legal action if the Guardian went ahead with its false story. They never did.

    Holden later discovered that Labour Together had raised ‘concerns’ about him to the British security services and had likely fed this information to the Guardian. This was around the same time that the Telegraph was asking questions about Labour Together’s undisclosed money, based on evidence Holden had provided.

    Labour Together had even hired a consultancy firm to dig for dirt on both Holden and Andrew Feinstein, who had set up Shadow World Investigations together in 2019. This is a London-based, non-governmental organisation that conducts research on the arms trade. Feinstein was also politically active in Starmer’s Holborn and St Pancras constituency, and would later run against the Labour leader in the 2024 General Election.

    One can only look on in awe at how this never became a national scandal, with no banner newspaper headlines or coverage on BBC News at Ten. The power of propaganda by omission is truly a wonder to behold.

    In early December, the Guardian published a piece titled, ‘The best history and politics books of 2025’. Needless to say, neither Complicit nor The Fraud were included. Credit to those Guardian readers, however, who managed to insert admiring mentions into the space for online comments below the article.

    The post Blanked: A Tale of Two Books first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • As we enter the season of light, many members of the AJWS community cannot escape feeling mired in darkness. But — taking inspiration from the name of this newsletter — we move forward in hope that our vision of human rights for the most oppressed will prevail. In that spirit, it’s a pleasure to be …

    Source

    This post was originally published on American Jewish World Service – AJWS.

  • Klippenstein: FBI Making List of American “Extremists,” Leaked Memo Reveals

    Ken Klippenstein (12/6/25): “For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious. But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not.”

    The Trump FBI is drawing up an enemies list that could encompass well over half the US public: Do you “advance…opposition to law and immigration enforcement”? Do you have “extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders”? Show an “adherence to radical gender ideology,” meaning you think trans people exist? Do you exhibit (what the Trump administration would interpret as) “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism” or “anti-Christianity”? Do you display “hostility towards traditional views on family, religion and morality”?

    Congratulations—you may be headed for Attorney General Pam Bondi’s “list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism.” “Terrorism,” of course, is the magic word that strips you of all sorts of legal protections, especially in the post-9/11 era.

    This is from a Justice Department memo obtained by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein (12/6/25)—which goes on to instruct the FBI to set up “a cash reward system” for people who turn in those promoting such thoughtcrime, and “establish cooperators to provide information and eventually testify against other members” of groups with these dangerous ideas.

    This is the implementation of the Trump administration’s avowed policy of criminalizing dissent—in the words of the NSPM-7 decree, outlawing “organized campaigns of…radicalization…designed to…change or direct policy outcomes” (FAIR.org, 10/3/25; CounterSpin, 10/17/25)—and as such is another giant step towards authoritarianism. Establishment media didn’t see it that way, however.

    Reuters: Bondi orders US law enforcement to investigate 'extremist groups'

    Reuters‘ Sarah N. Lynch (12/4/25) reported on the DoJ memo entirely from the point of view of the DoJ.

    As Klippenstein (12/9/25) pointed out, virtually no corporate media outlets covered this catastrophic memo, and those who did report on it did a generally poor job. The Guardian headline (12/5/25) was “Pam Bondi Tells Law Enforcement Agencies to Investigate Antifa Groups for ‘Tax Crimes,’” and Bloomberg Law (12/5/25) had “Bondi Orders FBI Extremism Intelligence Review with Antifa Focus”—completely misleading framing that suggests that if you’re not “Antifa,” the memo isn’t about you.

    Here’s Reuters‘ entirely unhelpful “summary” (12/4/25):

    • Bondi orders FBI to prioritize domestic terrorism investigations
    • Memo targets antifa and similar groups
    • FBI to develop strategies to disrupt criminal networks
    • DoJ calls for prosecuting extremist groups for tax crimes

    The DoJ is issuing marching orders for a witch hunt, and Reuters presents it with a straight face as an effort to go after “domestic terrorism,” “criminal networks” and “extremist groups” who commit “tax crimes.” Who could object to that?

    Lever: The FBI’s New Naughty List

    The Lever (12/8/25) reports that the DoJ memo “encourages the bureau to investigate incidents as old as five years “to map the full network of culpable actors.”

    Among corporate media outlets, only The Hill (12/5/25), a specialty outlet aimed at congressional staffers and lobbyists, conveyed the enormity of the directive. Its second paragraph read:

    Bondi’s memo could be the starting point for charges against a number of left-leaning advocacy groups and nonprofits the Trump administration has accused without evidence of having ties to extremists.

    The Hill‘s Rebecca Beitsch quoted Andrew Bataj of the group Whistleblower Aid, “This memo expressly seeks to redefine political dissent against the president as domestic terrorism.”

    But beyond that, to get actual coverage of the threat DoJ is posing to civil liberties and democracy itself, you had to go to independent outlets like Democracy Now! (12/8/25) and the Lever (12/8/25). The counter-revolution will not be televised.

     

     

     

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Up is down. Right is left. International law is whatever empire says it is. Democracy is following our rules.

    The audacity, chauvinism and absurdity of the NDP vetting committee is a sight to behold. To justify denying party members the right to choose whether they want me to lead the party, the three-person backroom committee is citing “democracy”.

    In their evidence rejecting my candidacy they claimed, “Many of your public positions contradict the NDP’s core commitments to democracy, international law, and solidarity with oppressed peoples”. Leaving aside the ridiculousness of ‘vetters’ claiming the mantle of democracy, I have done as much as any other to challenge Canada’s role in overthrowing elected governments. I co-authored a book about the 2004 coup in Haiti and have discussed Canada’s role in ousting Patrice Lumumba, Mohammed Mossadegh and Salvador Allende. My latest (co-authored) book, Canada’s Long Fight Against Democracy, details Ottawa’s role in 20 US-backed coups.

    As I detailed in Left, Right: Marching to the Beat of Imperial Canada, the NDP ignored Canada’s role in ousting Mossadegh. Even more the party effectively backed Canada’s contribution to overthrowing democracy in Congo in 1960 and seeking to do so in Venezuela in 2019.

    Claiming that my positions contradict “solidarity with oppressed peoples” is a grotesque mischaracterization. I’ve written books about Canada’s role in subjugating people in Africa, Haiti and Palestine. My activism has aggressively challenged Canada’s role in the holocaust in Gaza.

    As part of these efforts, I’ve repeatedly pointed out how the NDP has failed to offer “solidarity with oppressed people”. The party formally backed the racist Core Group in Haiti and until recently participated in the pro-apartheid Canada Israel Interparliamentary Group.

    Claiming that my positions contradict international law is also absurd. In fact, over the past two decades, few have criticized Canada’s violations of international law more.

    Among other things, I have written about how Canadian sanctions often violate international law. In 2020 I wrote “Do Canada’s unilateral sanctions violate international law?” and have supported various initiatives questioning the legality of Canadian sanctions. For its part, the NDP has repeatedly backed Ottawa imposing unilateral sanctions and seems to have entirely ignored whether unilateral sanctions violate international law.

    I’ve written about how Canada’s support for Israeli and US policy has enabled those countries’ to violate international law. Too often the NDP has been silent in these violations of international law.

    I have also written about how Canada’s 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, which wasn’t sanctioned by the UN Security Council, contravened international law. The NDP backed Canada’s significant contribution to NATO’s 78-day bombing, only turning critical over a month after it began.

    Unlike Yugoslavia, the Security Council sanctioned intervention in Libya through resolutions 1970 and 1973. Still, the scope of the Canadian-led NATO bombing violated those resolutions. Additionally, Canadian special forces and private security firm GardaWorld’s presence in Libya directly contravened the UN resolutions.

    The NDP voted twice in Parliament to attack Libya. Party interim leader Nycole Turmel also applauded the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, which was a war crime and part of NATO’s violation of resolutions 1970 and 1973.

    During the first official NDP leadership debate on November 27 not a single question about international affairs or Mark Carney’s radical militarism was asked. The NDP has no lessons to give on international law or solidarity with oppressed people. Blocking party members from choosing a candidate in the name of upholding “democracy” is simply Orwellian.

    Please email the NDP Federal Council and urge them to overturn this anti-democratic decision and allow Yves Engler to run.

    The post NDP Takes Orwellian World View to Deny My Candidacy first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A new report from an international organization dedicated to tracking civic freedoms throughout the world has downgraded its rating for the United States, due in large part to policies enacted by the Trump administration. The report, which was published on Monday, comes from a group called Civicus, which monitors “the state of civic freedoms — including freedom of expression, association…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Your Party’s Zarah Sultana has accused justice secretary David Lammy of “lying when he says he doesn’t know about the hunger strikes” of non-violent activists whom the state has held captive without trial for months. The hunger strike began on 2 November.

    Zarah Sultana calls for a stop to Britain’s descent into authoritarianism

    Sultana highlighted that the current Labour government is overseeing the “largest coordinated hunger strike since the 1980s” because of its highly controversial crackdown on free speech. Parliament’s dodgy decision to proscribe direct-action group Palestine Action for its opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza has attracted international criticism. But as Sultana pointed out, “the complicity of a media landscape that does not hold power to account” has so far enabled the government’s repression. The corporate media’s “lack of coverage for the hunger strikers”, she stressed, has been “deeply shocking”.

    Slamming Lammy’s duplicity, she said:

    I have written to him. It has been raised in the Commons. There’s also an Early Day Motion. So he is lying.

    He knows about the hunger strikers. He just doesn’t want to listen to them and address their demands.

    Ultimately, Lammy is consciously participating in Britain’s descent into dictatorship. And as Sultana stated:

    we need to have a conversation about the authoritarianism of this government that is handpicking judges for the Palestine Action judicial review and is conflating our right to protest with terrorism. It’s incredibly dangerous.

    A massive national scandal that everyone should care about

    Sultana insisted that we all need to highlight the fact that:

    we have politicians serving in the highest offices in the land pretending that they don’t know what’s going on

    She also asserted that:

    it’s important that all of us raise awareness about the eight hunger strikers that are putting their lives on the line to raise awareness not just about the conditions that they are suffering in prison, but the fact that they have been denied bail. They want to have the right to a fair trial as we expect with our legal system.

    And she stressed that:

    David Lammy needs to meet the hunger strikers and listen to their demands.

    No matter where people stand on the political spectrum, this state overreach in defence of Israeli war criminals is of great concern. Because when ordinary people allow the repression of one group, that gives governments the green light to repress all groups that threaten their power or the power of their friends. As German theologian Martin Niemöller famously said of Nazism in his homeland:

    First they came for the Communists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Communist
    Then they came for the Socialists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Socialist
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a trade unionist
    Then they came for the Jews
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Jew
    Then they came for me
    And there was no one left
    To speak out for me.

    The whole of Britain must stand up to the repression of Keir Starmer’s regime and the establishment politicians who have enabled it (from Labour to the Conservatives, and Reform to the Liberal Democrats). Because fascists are currently leading the race to replace Starmer, and history has shown us exactly what happens when they control the repressive machinery of the state.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In our #YourPartyLocal series, we’ve been speaking to local Your Party groups around the country about how things have been going so far, and what their hopes are going forward.

     

    Solma Ahmed from Your Party North Essex spoke to us about how important it is for the party to succeed. As she said:

    I just want to see that we don’t let the country and our members down because the alternative is scary. I hope we leave our egos and factions behind and work together to make this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity happen, because the status quo is not an option.

    The local group, she insisted, has “gone extremely well” so far, emerging from a modest Transform North Essex meeting once a month to a much bigger following after the announcement of Your Party.

    From that point, it:

    began meeting weekly as an organising group, focusing on building an open, grassroots structure that avoids factionalism and encourages broad participation.

    Local members have also “elected an interim executive, including officers for social media, education, and communications”. Because Your Party helped to give people “a huge sense of motivation and purpose”, Ahmed argued, there has been “remarkable energy and enthusiasm” and:

    There is a real readiness to push for meaningful socialist policies and to build something genuinely hopeful.

    Your Party— the lessons so far…

    Ahmed pointed out that:

    Engagement has been strong and diverse—young and old, with genuine gender balance and inclusivity at the core of our organising.

    We’ve been directly involved in several significant local campaigns, including the Palestine solidarity campaign and the creation of an anti-racist group that brings together people from all communities and faith backgrounds, as well as those of no faith.

    There have been challenges too, though. As she admitted:

    Finding affordable venues has been difficult, and limited financial resources have naturally restricted some of our plans… Maintaining a genuinely non-sectarian approach has required constant attention, and the lack of access to membership data has made communication and coordination more complicated.

    Finally, one ongoing challenge has been explaining socialism versus capitalism in a way that is accessible, engaging, and meaningful to people from all backgrounds.

    Importantly, she stressed:

    We’ve learned to stay focused and avoid being distracted by factional noise. Managing relationships constructively is crucial. We’ve also learned the value of transparent, open local structures; ongoing education programmes; and making the most of the skills and expertise within our group.

    ‘Listen to ordinary people, not the social media noise’

    Ahmed is “optimistic about our future” following last weekend’s Your Party conference, saying:

    After two days of listening to our delegates—rather than the noise on social media—I feel more positive than before. I welcome the collective leadership model and the dual-membership approach, which I believe gives members more flexibility and greater control… What matters is that we remain non-sectarian, grassroots, and focused.

    And a key focus locally has been the campaign for solidarity with the Palestinian people during Israel’s genocide in Gaza:

    Our Palestine campaign will continue. It began with Transform members and has grown to involve the wider community. Alongside supporting Colchester United Against Racism, members of Transform – and now Your Party – have held weekly vigils for Palestine since October 2023.

    This week marks our 112th vigil, held regardless of weather. We’ve organised two marches, monthly Barclays boycotts, and helped establish Essex Divestment of Pension Funds. We are also preparing to expand our campaigning on housing and the cost-of-living crisis.

    In the spirit of collaboration, meanwhile, she asserted that:

    We currently work alongside the local Green Party and plan to formalise that cooperation for next year’s local and mayoral elections. Our focus is defeating Reform and the wider right. We will continue working together to push back against fascism and prevent the spread of hate.

    Ahmed’s hope and focus may seem surprising for some who spend a lot of time on social media. But it’s very much the type of sentiment we’ve heard from Your Party members around the country. And we’re absolutely here for it.

    Featured image via Facebook

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A lot of Your Party debate has often centred around how broad the alliance should be, and how religious left-wingers fit in. Party members tackled this head on at the Muslim Network launch last weekend, calling out the right’s divide-and-rule tactics. And MPs Zarah Sultana, Shockat Adam, and Ayoub Khan surprised them by turning up in support.

    The event took place on the fringes of Your Party’s first conference. And facilitator Khalid Sadur, whose Enfield Community Independents are now the main challenger to the Labour-Tory axis locally, insisted:

    This network is not about factions. It’s not about supporting one particular faction over another… It’s about members. Members are going to make this happen.

    Members are the ones that are organising this party. So we have to have the focus on members, hear their voices.

    The panel speakers were all independent challengers in the 2024 general election. And in their speeches and answers, they focused on the importance of having internal democracy in Your Party and giving members a real say in what happens. They also described the obstacles they faced when running against Labour’s genocide-backing neoliberal elitism.

    From the panel members to the attendees, there was an emphasis on the need for respectful spaces where ordinary people can speak freely without self-censorship, and how to organise effectively on a grassroots level to ensure disengaged voters register and lifelong Labour voters finally break the chains tying them to the party.

    When the MPs spoke, meanwhile, they stressed the urgent need to make Your Party work.

    Your Party: ‘When one minority attacks another minority, the establishment gets what it wants’

    Shockat Adam stood up first and asserted that:

    regardless of our small differences, as long as we have mutual respect, anti-discrimination, and understanding for each other, we must make this work. We have no choice, for our children’s sake… Because when one minority attacks another minority, there’s somebody rubbing their hands in the background going ‘great, they’re doing the work for us’.

    We must not be the pawns in that game. We must make sure that we care for our neighbours regardless of who they are, regardless of their sexuality, regardless of whether they belong to a faith, regardless of their gender.

    He insisted that all people should “be able to express our views as long as we’re not discriminating or harming anybody else”.

    Ayoub Khan followed on from Adam, arguing that:

    as long as our key objectives are in line, then I think we can make this work

    He added that:

    as long as we can respect each other, as long as we can have that space to have discussion, I genuinely believe that we can make this work

    Next up was Zarah Sultana.

    ‘An attack on one is an attack on all’

    Sultana said:

    I see [fighting] injustice as crucial to my Muslim faith… and it is my faith that allows me to call injustice out every single week in parliament, every time I’m on the TV, in my day-to-day life

    A white man then stood up and started heckling her. But people of all genders stepped in to challenge his behaviour firmly. And Sultana continued by pointing out that:

    As a Muslim woman in politics, I have endured Islamophobia for the past six years and it has come in every single space I have been in. And sadly, I have become completely normalised and numb to it.

    This party is not about me, it is not about any other MP, it is about you the membership, and we have seen tactics used by the right-wing in this country, the media and political parties, to divide us. It is an old tactic, divide and rule, find a culture war, stoke it up and divide people to stop us focusing on where the threat comes from.

    She stressed:

    We are an inclusive party. We are seeking to represent the entire country. What we cannot accept is people who seek to destroy our movement by stoking up culture wars. We have to fight for everyone because an attack on one is an attack on all, and we have to make this work!

    A Your Party member for whom Sultana has been an inspiration told us after the event that:

    what we’ve seen over decades… [is] community has died somewhere. People don’t talk to each other. People can’t understand each other… And it just creates so much alienation and distrust.

    She added:

    I have to work harder because I am Brown, I have to work harder because I am unashamedly Muslim, I have to work harder because I am a woman, I have to work harder in our community because I’m a woman surrounded by misogyny, sometimes from our Muslim brothers, and then I also have to prove them wrong because I’ve got to be perfect, have a career, and then come home and also have a perfect home. And it is tiring, it is exhausting.

    But she also insisted:

    it takes a lot of time and understanding, but once people see the different types of faces that socialism has, the different types of faces that progressive left people have, I think it would make it a lot more of a welcoming environment.

    ‘We need spaces where people can talk through their views’

    Reflecting on the event, Sadur told us:

    It was a really great event. To have Zarah, Shockat and Ayoub speak just showed how important this space really is in terms of being able to give the Muslim community a real chance to express their views, whether you’re more progressive, whether you’re more conservative. It was really good to hear different views, and the feedback and interaction was great.

    We need spaces where people can talk through their views, talk through their differences, but come together and say, ‘ultimately, we all feel that we can stand together against the opposing forces that we see in Farage and Reform’.

    The comments of the panel members, meanwhile, gave a clear message about the importance of unity and organisers with strong roots in their communities. They expressed a need for government action to ensure human wellbeing, but greater freedom in terms of people’s private lives. And they shared their campaign challenges, including voter apathy and fear, ID barriers, and smear tactics. But they got a lot of votes too by building hope through meaningful community interactions. Indeed, Michael Lavalette even became the main opposition to Labour in Preston.

    The panellists learnt that most voters aren’t hostile to people from different backgrounds, but that mass education, registration, and empowerment are vital to actually boost participation. They also emphasised that everyone essentially has the same problems — crumbling services and the rising cost of living — and that came through on the doorsteps and at local assemblies. For them, the key to unifying people is focusing on the 80% of things most people across diverse communities have in common, rather than focusing on the 20% we don’t.

    If Your Party is going to hold together a broad left-wing alliance that can stop neoliberalism and the rise of fascism, this is exactly the kind of event it needs more of. Because the more we understand each other and work together with mutual respect, the harder it is to divide us or defeat us.

    Feature image via Twitter

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A statement the Canary has seen from the Platform for a Democratic Party praises the democratic gains at last weekend’s Your Party conference, but calls on members ‘not to wait for instructions from above’.

    Speaking about the conference, it says:

    overall it was a success for socialists, despite many problems and even obstacles encountered by members and supporters.

    It mentions Zarah Sultana’s “massively successful fringe meeting on the Friday night”, at which Platform speakers Ian Hodson and Audrey White “hammered home the importance of transparency, democracy and accountability in the new party”.

    While criticising some features of the conference that restricted completely open debate, the statement hails strong member votes on socialism, a working-class focus, an anti-discrimination commitment, dual membership, and collective leadership. It laments, however, that “hundreds of amendments submitted by members never saw the light of day” and that there was too little time for “the voice of the rank and file to be heard”.

    It adds that:

    the task which faces us all is to carry out the conference decisions decisively and urgently

    Your Party—”Don’t wait any longer for instructions from above!”

    The statement asserts that:

    The democratic gains on the conference floor must now be genuinely reflected in the party’s day-to-day life, rather than remaining merely words on paper. YP’s commitment to socialist ideas needs to be developed and connected with the struggles of today through consistent engagement with grassroots work as well as being reflected in the party’s election campaigns, social media and written material.

    And it gives “five main priorities which we urge YP members to engage with”, including:

    1. Urgently establishing local strong, independent and democratically organised branches early next year, based on existing proto branches and local Alliances
    2. These branches must forge a clear and strong local identity, campaigning on issues relevant to the local working class, grounded in real struggles on the streets and workplaces.
    3. Branches must prepare for the local elections in May 2026 alongside the Scottish and Welsh Holyrood and Senedd elections.
    4. Mobilise for the ‘We are Together’ national march against the far right on 28th March with a strong block of thousands of YP supporters
    5. Ahead of the party’s upcoming Central Executive Committee elections, we support forming a joint, democratic, socialist slate of candidates to maintain, consolidate, and expand on the gains won by the rank-and-file.

    It finishes by stressing:

    Don’t wait any longer for instructions from above! History weighs heavily on our shoulders and we have to ensure we do all we can to build a party that can set about the task of confronting the far right and building a mass membership capable of replacing Labour as the real voice of the working class.

    The Platform initially sent an open letter in September, signed by “community and union activists including filmmaker Ken Loach, union leader Ian Hodson, Liverpool legend Audrey White, Jewish activist Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, and more’. This called for “democratic participation” to be at the core of Your Party.

    Featured image via ChronicleLive

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • It’s widely expected that the local elections in 2026 will be another bloodbath for Keir Starmer’s Labour Party. As such, any attempt to delay elections will be seen as an attempt by Starmer to avoid embarrassment. This is precisely what’s happening now that the government is set to delay four mayoral elections.

    While there is some complexity as to why the elections are being delayed, it’s a mess for Labour whichever way you look at it.

    Dither and delay

    As reported by the BBC, 18 councils requested a delay to local elections in January this year. This was because they were over taxed as a result of reorganising themselves into eight unitary authorities. As reported:

    The new mayors are part of a simplification of local government, aimed at reducing the number of councils, by merging district and county authorities to create unitary authorities.

    The unitary authorities will be headed up by new mayors, who will be handed more funding and extra powers to run their area, intended to hand greater power to local communities.

    However, the body representing district councils warned at the time that the plans could spark “turmoil” and argued “mega-councils” could undermine local decision-making.

    Now, the government says more time is needed to reorganise these councils before they vote for their new mayors. Given that Starmer’s ‘trustworthiness’ is at historic lows, people are understandably not taking him at his word:

    Starmer trustworthiness YouGov polling

    Green Party deputy leader Rachel Millward had this to say:

    MAYORAL ELECTIONS DELAYED TIL 2028! Labour: incompetent, scared & zero regard for democracy. The devolution agenda they sprung on us a year ago is in utter chaos, they are terrified of their plummeting in the polls, and – most importantly – are completely failing to solve the real problems of local government.

    Inequality rises, the housing crisis continues, our bills keep rising – the cost of living is staggering. But Labour just pour resource into chaos, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic like real lives Mayors have serious powers to bring change. And Labour know they’d not be winning any of it.

    But the Greens are rising. We’ve doubled membership in 2 months. We’re beating Labour in some polls. Thanks for the extra time. We’re coming.

    Canary contributor Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu made a similar statement:

    People are also linking the cancellation to Labour’s other anti-democratic moves:

    As you’d expect, Nigel Farage is planning to maximise his political capital from this, with the media no doubt dropping everything once again to listen to him:

    On the ropes

    It’s important to remember that other local elections will still go ahead in 2026; that Labour will no doubt do catastrophically, and that his MPs will likely give him the boot as a result. Given that, it’s not impossible to believe Labour are delaying the mayoral elections for non-cynical reasons.

    At the same time, there are very few people in the country who are willing to extend Starmer any charitability, and as such this will be another bruising for him.

    The moral of the story is to not betray an entire country’s trust if you expect its citizens to ever vote for you again.

    Featured image via Number 10 (Flickr) / David Williams (Wikimedia)

    By Willem Moore

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.